Welcome to Free Thoughts from libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. I'm Trevor Burroughs and I'm Aaron Powell. Joining us today is Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute and the Maloo Innocent Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute. They're here to discuss their new Cato book, Perilous Partners, the Benefits and Pitfalls of America's Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes. Welcome to Free Thoughts. Thank you. So American foreign policy has historically been intertwined with many bad people. I think it's fairly commonly known for people to know and consequently a lot of times you hear the claim that our foreign policy is hypocritical. Is that too simplistic or is it accurate to say that our foreign policy is hypocritical? I would say it's a little bit of both. It is glib and simplistic but it's also very true. When we look at the notions of hypocrisy, hypocrisies really just means that you say that you believe a certain set of values or beliefs but then you don't actually adhere to them in your actions. I would honestly argue that it's sort of more of a double standard in the sense that we see an inconsistent application of our principles for a similar set of situations and so you find that U.S. foreign policy is very deferential to its allies and very brutal to its non-allies. It overthrows government, sponsors, coups, provides military assistance to certain regimes but then tries to destabilize nationalist independent movements. So certainly there's a level of hypocrisy or the double standard but I don't think it goes far enough in providing a substantive critique of U.S. foreign policy. There are substantial humanitarian costs. We see the United States being pulled into conflicts divorced from its vital interests and national security so I think those are the more potent and compelling arguments for why we see a problem with U.S. foreign policy and align with these authoritarian regimes. Should we expect consistency in American foreign policy if there are presidents changing constantly? Well, I think you can have at least reasonable consistency with respect to the basic principles of American foreign policy. I can't say that the United States stands for the promotion of freedom and democracy and the rule of law and then crawl into bed with some of the sleaziest, most repressive, most corrupt dictatorships in the world. That is hypocrisy and it is a betrayal of fundamental American values. The American people ought to be proud of their country's foreign policy. There should be very few occasions where the American people have a right to be ashamed of that policy and yet unfortunately there have been all too many instances in recent decades where shame is warranted. What if we get more out of crawling into bed with these bad people than we lose? If we, by working with a particular dictator, by working with a particular authoritarian regime, we benefit in some way that presumably would allow us to either at a later date or elsewhere in the world advance those principles or spread liberty or democracy. I think there would be a critical example that we outline in the book would be the opening of China. That would be a very clear example of an authoritarian state that has very odious policies towards its own people but at the same time it definitely shifted the global balance of power by engaging that regime, the Mao Zedong regime and shifting the balance of power away from the Soviets. That's something that we can see and obviously we see the opening to China economically so we see the flourishing of some of those liberal principles at least in the economic sphere. Not 100%, not totally but at least in some respects better than it would be before. I think that's a great example. I think there are very few examples of that if we want to do historical counterfactuals that would be interesting. I think it's very difficult to find those examples. That's the problem. The examples of that sort are few and far between. There are far more examples where the United States engaged in actions that undermine the values of freedom and democracy that help put in power ruthless dictatorships, help sustain in power ruthless dictatorships often at the expense of democratic secular movements that would have been far better for the people of a particular country. Absolutely. Just to jump in there, I do agree with the notion and this is what Ted had mentioned in the book form of being that city on the hill of leading by example and not necessarily wagging our sanctimonious fingers at other countries. It would be something if we actually did truly lead by example and it was not so complicit in the crimes of some of the world's most monstrous regimes. Did our tendency to get entwined with these bad actors begin with the Cold War or is it further back than the Cold War? It does predate that certainly in the Western Hemisphere. You have examples as far back as the earliest years of the 20th century in which the United States was supporting corrupt dictators that were pliable in terms of American foreign policy or in some cases simply supported the interests of American corporations. You find that definitely in the Caribbean and in Central America. What became different during the Cold War era was that this technique spread to other parts of the world and it became more ideological in nature. This was justified to prevent the spread of Soviet communism broadly defined and often nationalist movements were tired with the communist brush to justify American support for repressive allies. Was it being used to justify it after the fact or was it the reason that it was being done to begin with? I guess the question is why if we are betraying our values by working with these people propping up these governments and regimes, we're betraying our values, we might be undermining the spread of liberty and democracy abroad. Why are we doing it? What are we getting out of it? You mentioned it sometimes is in the interests of U.S. corporations. Are there other reasons we're doing these bad things? Sometimes there are legitimate security interests involved. For instance, we have intelligence sharing with various governments in the Middle East and in broader South Asia. There is critical intelligence that we do get as a result of a line with certain regimes. The problem that occurs is when certain states also perpetuate that very illiberal policies and actually spread a lot of the jihadi literature and memes within the region. Saudi Arabia comes to mind as a very critical example of that. We saw this throughout the Cold War and still to a lesser extent after 9-11, but it still permeates to this day of their ongoing support to charitable organizations, to missionaries and schools that propagate a very virulent form of Wahhabist Islamic extremism, what's known as Salafism. That's one example. But then also you have the example of Egypt, where you've seen throughout the jihadist literature of how the torture at Egyptian detention facilities has given rise to a whole cohort of Islamic extremists and some of the senior members of al-Qaeda. So this is where it really just sort of, there's a critical security interest in it at the same time that very country could be undermining our interests. These are very complex and difficult issues to sort out, of course, as we do in the book. One of the more interesting questions that we explore in the book is whether U.S. officials believe their own rhetoric that these regimes were important to American security and that the threat to American interests in various parts of the world, that the threats were dire. And it's very difficult to answer that. At times it appears that officials were pretty cynical and they knew that they were exaggerating the threat and exaggerating the American interests at stake. At other times they seemed to believe their own propaganda. But the bottom line was that generations of U.S. policymakers preferred what they saw as reliable authoritarian allies to taking the risk of dealing with messy, unpredictable democratic governments. And that bred a lot of resentment in countries around the world. We've certainly seen that in terms of the blowback that we received in Iran after undermining that country's democratic government in 1953, putting the show of Iran back into power, aiding him over the next quarter century. When he was overthrown, the Iranian people deeply resented the U.S. support for the Shaw. And that distorted the Iranian revolution. It strengthened the hands of religious extremists and directed the anger primarily at the United States. In other countries we were luckier, Philippines and South Korea, where again we backed corrupt tyrants. But the reaction of the public when those tyrants were overthrown was milder. There was some resentment at the United States, but you did not get the kind of virulent blowback that you had in Iran. Is there some tension in there, tension between supporting democracy and allowing a state to come into existence that may be somewhat problematic for the United States? Because sometimes if we let the people choose, they might choose communism back during the Cold War, or they might choose extreme Islamist fascism now. Should we always prefer democracy, let them choose themselves even if they're going to be choosing something that's ultimately bad for them and their liberties and well-being and also for us? I would say unless it's a clear and direct threat to the United States, then no, we shouldn't be deterring or denying people their agency and self-determination, however they choose. I think oftentimes what happens is that we go in thinking that we're going to be preventing the rise of communism or terrorism. And by pushing that agenda, we end up pushing those people further into the arms of a radical movement. We saw this certainly with Egypt and Syria back in the late 1950s, after a series of British and American coups that were basically botched. Syria and Egypt formed into one country, the UAR in 1958. Not a lot of people know that. They actually joined their governments. They were a united country and it was mainly because of these botched coups that we saw and it really pushed those two countries further into the Soviet camp. So there's that fear of the unknown that could oftentimes lead to us, it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy in some respects. I wanted to ask about some of the specific countries in the book because there's, I think, 14 or 15 cases discussed, including some, in the back you have a little few paragraphs about equatorial guinea. How vital that interest might be. It was incredibly vital. Exactly. Crucial to the security of the United States. But some of these for just our listeners and some of the stories that we don't know, because that's one of the most fascinating things about foreign policy is that if you live in the present, you can't do it even adequately. So, for example, Iran, we mentioned some of it, but when did we start getting involved with Iran and what did we do and how has that come back on us? Well, the main development was in 1953 when the United States and Britain jointly helped orchestrate a military coup against the elected prime minister of Iran, Mohamed Mosaday. So why do we do that? Mosaday offended the British by nationalizing British oil interests and the British successfully portrayed him as being soft on the Soviet Union and perhaps even a communist sympathizer. The reality was there were more mundane economic interests primarily at stake, but the United States bought the British argument hook, line and sinker that here was a country that was perhaps drifting into the Soviet camp. The U.S. and British intelligence agencies helped overthrow Mosaday, put the Shah back into power, and then the Shah proceeded with his repressive rule and devoted most of his efforts to undermining domestic secular opponents. And part of this was the dynamic that if one wanted to have an anti-regime meeting in a cafe, the likelihood was that it would be infiltrated. The cafe would be shut down and the people all arrested. However, if you wanted to engage in anti-regime activities in a mosque, that was safer because the Shah's security forces were much more reluctant to barge into mosques and arrest people. Well, what that meant when 1979 rolled around and the Islamic Revolution took place is that the secular dissidents, the opponents of the Shah, had been so badly weakened that they were almost a non-factor. The anti-Sah revolution was dominated by extremist religious elements. So the U.S. policy inadvertently strengthened the forces of Islamic extremism and that's what we've been living with since the Shah was overthrown. In terms of blowback, which you mentioned was perverse, would you say that in 1950, let's say before the coup, attitudes about America and Iran were not terribly negative and by 1979 they had gotten quite negative and that's what we're living with today? Is it that sort of cut and dry? Yes. It is virtually that cut and dry that attitudes toward the United States in Iran and for that matter throughout much of the Muslim world were generally positive. About the only major grievance at that point was U.S. support for the creation of the state of Israel. Now, that certainly caused some problems for the U.S. But generally speaking, attitudes were generally favorable toward the United States and even today when you have detailed public opinion surveys in Islamic countries, there is still a great deal of admiration for American culture and for the American professed values of freedom and democracy where there is opposition and vehement opposition is to American foreign policy, including support for Israel but also support for corrupt repressive dictators and that comes up almost as often as the Israel issue in terms of the grievances that these populations have. Just to piggyback off your point, Ted, it's definitely true that our values, our liberal values certainly resonate with many people all around the world. They animate a lot of these pro-democratic movements and I think they are very valuable because they're so aspirational. People truly want to embrace the notions of separation of powers, rule of law, expansion of women's rights, these things that we hold dear and profess and claim that make us exceptional. But at the same time, what you see is this corrosive cynicism towards the America and towards its policies and a lot of that it has to do with our support for oppressive regimes all across the Middle East and across much of the Latin America as well and these are histories that, you know, this is a narrative that becomes sort of self-fulfilling in and of itself again because then you see conspiracy theories about American deception or America's role in the world and it sort of feeds into that sort of cynicism. And so you see this duality a lot in discussions of the United States where they like our ideals, they like our principles but they almost wish that America was a country worthy of its ideals. Yeah, that suspicion is tremendously corrosive. One cynic said that the United States has been blamed for 11 of the last four coups for which it was responsible. So these conspiracy theories abound, many of which have no real foundation in fact but that does drive public opinion in those countries. And interestingly it's a history and this public opinion which is an important part of this. It's a history in many of these countries that they all remember very well or have much more intimate involvement with and here we just might not even know that we ever orchestrated a coup in Guatemala and I'll be honest, I actually didn't know that until I read your book. Foreign policy is not exactly my specialty but I literally did not know that I'm a relatively well educated guy but I'm sure down there they remember it quite well and that goes into how public opinion talks about foreign policy and how this sort of creates these kind of alliances. Right, exactly. I think that's part of why we have this failure of imagination. This was something that was mentioned during the book form in the sense that you find a lot of Americans who are unfamiliar with the history of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War and much less during after 9-11 for that matter. I think part of the problem is that you have history written a lot of the times by the victors and what we see in the current political discourse is that a lot of it is written from the western point of view or from our vantage point and so we don't really read a lot of the literature of foreigners. In fact, part of my research for the book I not only read U.S. policy deliberations and the historical archives of U.S. foreign relations but I also read the autobiographies of foreign officials and we both of us interviewed foreign officials and foreign citizens and I did field work in Afghanistan and Pakistan and I think that's necessary to understand exactly why do these views take hold in certain regions and why is it that our values still resonate abroad but there is that sort of that duality in the sense that they see that America's principles are universal because we profess them to be universal. We say that they apply equally to all individuals irrespective of background and at the same time we destabilize and undermine foreign regimes. We provide financial and military assistance to brutal dictators and so they see that dichotomy and it definitely sort of strains and harms our values and policies as well. And Americans tend to be dismissive of the grievances of other societies which is unfortunate. An example of that occurred in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter was interviewed about the then developing chaos in Iran and the 1953 coup against Mosaday was brought up and his response was, well, that's ancient history. Well, maybe to Americans it was ancient history to Iranians who had been living with the consequences of that coup for better than a quarter of a century. It most definitely was not ancient history. Right and some of this has just become so mundane as well. I mean, you look at our support now for the regime in Afghanistan.  This is something that it goes not only from mass severe and egregious violations of human rights, but even to the most day-to-day-man-day daily operations and living your daily life. So many of the instances discussed, I mean, if we've talked about so far today and then also in the book, involve the threat of communism or the Soviet Union that seemed like we would be, there's this threat. And so anyone who might be on our side against communism, we will get involved with if it means betraying our principles, we're fine with it. And oftentimes the result was it doesn't really help us in any way and it makes us worse off. And I'm struck by the possible analogy. So tell me if this is fair at all to the current situation with, say, terrorism in the U.S., that we have this threat of, I mean, communism is an ideology. It's not even really like a group of people. And terrorism is just this thing that might happen and we're really scared by it. We think it would mean the end of our American way of life. And so in order to stop it, we are willing to irrationally betray our values, make the world a worse place, hurt lots of people overseas, and not really weigh the cost of this stuff. Is there some level of similarity? I think there are definitely certain parallels. And we see that a lot of these forces abroad are existential threats to our security, but also even to our way of life. The irony, of course, is that we must undermine our values in order to protect them. So you see the after 9-11, the construction of a worldwide torture regime, an extraordinary rendition, warrantless eavesdropping without the warrants required by criminal law, the invasion and occupation of a foreign country that leads to the death of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. So you do see us sort of using the notion of security and vital interests for this cause of sort of undermining our liberties and undermining our rights. As I always say to people when I go to speak in engagements, I have had more of my rights taken away from me by the U.S. government than by al-Qaeda. So we argue when we're talking about terrorism here at Kato, one of our main arguments is, look, it's not really nearly as much of a threat as you may think it is or as our government acts like it is. Was that the case for communism at the time? Was it not really something worth worrying about or did we have legitimate concerns here and we just picked the wrong way of dealing with them? It was a legitimate concern, but we tended to see very complex, diverse developments always through the prism of the Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union that greatly oversimplified matters and it led to terrible tragedies in some cases. The entire Vietnam War was based on the premise that the Vietnamese communist forces were puppets of either the Soviet Union or communist China or both. Never mind the internal logical inconsistency of that given the fact that Soviet Union and China were rivals at the time, but we interpreted a nationalist movement that had a communist overlay as nothing more than a pawn of Soviet expansionism and that led to a horrifying war that ended up killing 58,000 Americans and more than a million Vietnamese. Now, ironically, of course, today we are friends with the Vietnamese communist government. We're creating all sorts of trade agreements with that government and basically enlisting Vietnam as a de facto ally against China. Even though Vietnam is still a one-party dictatorship just as it was in the 1950s and 1960s, when supposedly it posed a severe threat to American interests. And everyone's the better for it. That's the other sort of theme that comes up in the book is that there's always the no choice. It seems like there's the no choice rhetoric. And often there are, in fact, a number of choices, many of which would be far better than the option that the U.S. selected. Yeah, maybe we see that with Vietnam. It's like, well, maybe we could have done nothing and then become friends with them. We did something and killed a bunch of people and we're still friends with them. But then, of course, it's hard to look for a completely consistent history for a lot of these. So South Korea, we intervened constantly in the course of three different dictatorships. Things are going pretty well on that score. Whereas in, say, Pakistan, it's been a little bit more difficult. Is everything too different on the ground to really look for a general theme here? Like we can expect if we intervene too much, people will blow back sometimes Iran, but not in South Korea. It's hard to take one lesson from it. It's always very contingent. That's a good point. And sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. And I think that was the case in both South Korea and the Philippines, where the blowback that we received once dictators we supported were overthrown, the blowback was mild compared to what we had, let's say in Nicaragua and Iran, where the blowback was very severe. But the policy in South Korea was pretty depressing. It was one thing to have supported an authoritarian regime in the 1950s when we were worried about communist expansionism as a monolith or Russia. And it just happened with North Korea anyway. Right. And you already had a major war. It was different when we continued that policy into the 1970s and 1980s at a time when South Korea had become a modern country, a sophisticated country. And yet the U.S. attitude was epitomized by the commander of U.S. military forces in 1980 at a time when a new military dictator overthrew an interim elected civilian government. And the response of the U.S. commander was, well, the Korean people are like lemmings. They need a strong leader. I mean, that is patronizing in the extreme. And you can imagine how that attitude played with the South Korean people. I think that's just a very good point on both aspects in the sense that the policy should be country specific in many respects because we are dealing with governments and politics and really social science, you know, different behaviors, different peoples, different histories. And so it should be looked in within the specific context of a given country in their own history. You know, it sort of seems as if when we succeed, it's by luck. When we lose, it's by chance. So in some respects, you do have to look at the country in question. But one example, and this is sort of even preceding the Cold War and looking at China, you know, something that really animates a lot of its internal narrative is the history of the 19th century and the foreign invaders and powers that exploited China.  You know, we were humiliated as a result of the European powers. And so you even see something like China where we weren't necessarily responsible. Well, in some respects, we were in the late 19th century, but not as much as the other European powers and how that still animates a people over 100 years later, just to give you just a very clear example of that. I wanted to get a little bit more background.  So I was hoping to get, so we did, I ran Pakistan, our history there. What should people know about our history in Pakistan and our tendency to get in bed with bad people? Wow. So it began in the late 1940s when we allied with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of modern-day Pakistan. In Pakistan, really, we have to understand itself was broken off from the rest of India. And so it was created as a Muslim majority country and one that would respect the independence of Muslims. The problem with that is that Pakistan itself wasn't economically viable. It wasn't a country that actually gave enough powers and addressed the socioeconomic grievances of various other ethnic groups. It has various ethnic groups, the Balochis, the Sindhis, the Pashtuns, the Punjabis, the Bengalis.  And so what you often saw is that even as the United States assisted the regime, provided it military and financial assistance, that it would often use that money to buy weapons against Hindu-dominated India. And so in one respect, it would create this sort of undermining of security in South Asia because... Why were we giving them weapons? Were they part of the Soviet Union? Oh, they were part of collective security organizations in the broader Middle East. And that was actually one part of the problem is that we kept taking Pakistan out of South Asia and into the Middle East. And we didn't realize that it had its own context and history with India. And so you saw this in 1965. You saw this in 1971-72. We would use U.S. war planes and tanks against their own people and against India. And we're also giving assistance, humanitarian assistance mainly to India as well. So this is just an example of where we get in bed with these countries, for instance, Pakistan. And not only do we see a history of overthrowing their own civilian leadership, as we saw with the various military hunters of implementing martial law regimes and emergency law, but also just using their own U.S. military assistance to fight wars, which is, of course, incredibly destabilizing and undermines the idea that we promote peace. And where are we now with that? Because we've maintained this alliance with a new enemy in line, with Islamic terrorism in line and with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, sorry. So are we still doing bad things there, would you say? The problem with post-911 Pakistan is that it's sort of at war with itself in many respects. It had an ongoing relationship with the Taliban regime because it provided sort of a back buffer in Afghanistan against the Indians. This is what they've sort of viewed as strategic depth. At the same time, they allied with the United States in 9-11 and cracking down on terrorists. And so on the one hand, it would be continually to assist in the very terrorist groups and militant groups that are trying to destabilize Afghanistan while at the same time taking U.S. assistance and claiming to be an ally in the war on terror. I think now we're at the point where we understand that Pakistan is not exactly a friend. I think some people in Washington say it's better to keep friends close, enemies closer, so it's now purely a transactional relationship. So this is probably maybe the lowest where U.S.-Pakistan relations have been in almost ever. So a book full of examples of America behaving badly with bad people what's the most egregious? And I suppose there's two answers, so there's the respect of who's the worst person or group of people that we have gotten into bed with. Who's not Stalin in World War II? And then which particular instance has been the worst for U.S. interests or U.S. principles? I would say the worst relationship from the standpoint of U.S. interests is the relationship with the government of Saudi Arabia. This is a government that the U.S. portrays as a friend and an ally, and yet it is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. Indeed, I think with the exception of North Korea, it might be the worst government in the world. Just to give you an example, I mean, we cite the beheadings committed by ISIS as evidence of the barbarity of that movement, and it is. But last year, the Saudi government beheaded some 83 people. Two new sentences for beheading, and in one case crucifixion, as well as beheading, for two young people who dared to participate in pro-democracy demonstrations back in 2011. This is a government that has funded the Wahhabi clergy and its outreach program in other countries, training young Muslims to hate the West, to hate Western secular values. So this is an association with an odious government that has worked against U.S. interests, and particularly against U.S. security. And it's created problems for us. Major problems. Major problems. But they have oil. They have oil, so you can argue at least that we have some interest at stake, a particularly repressive regime that we supported where our interests were minimal. Was Joseph Mobutu, Mobutu Ceceseco, the dictator of Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The United States had minimal interest in sub-Saharan Africa, almost non-existent economic interests and very limited strategic interests. And yet we supported a tyrant that imprisoned and killed political opponents routinely, looted his country to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, becoming in the process one of the richest people in the world, ruling over an impoverished country. That was one of the most unjustifiable U.S. associations with an authoritarian regime. How is the national defense establishment, I will call it, the basic mainstream national defense, which includes think tanks and people in government and everything, not necessarily Cato, but other think tanks. How have they assisted in this general tendency to maybe its sort-sidedness or looking at some interest or overweighing or having or thinking of threats or two? How have they generally assisted in this? I would say two ways. One, demonizing all adversaries of the United States. These are not just opponents. They're always the next Hitler posing a dire threat to the United States. So you get threat inflation and the exaggeration of American interests at stake. And also the portrayal of complex conflicts and disputes as melodramas, melodramas with an innocent victim, which often turns out to be not very innocent, menaced by an evil aggressor, the new Hitler, kind of the snidely whiplash of geopolitics, and then the United States riding to the rescue as Dudley do ride in the mountains. And this creates a mentality in the United States of supporting needless interventions and sticking with policies long after they have ceased to serve any legitimate interests. We're seeing this now in Afghanistan where we're extending our military deployment, which is now 14 years in the making. And the question arises, when are we ever going to be able to leave Afghanistan? But we have a corrupt largely ineffectual government in place in that country. And the attitude is we have to stay on because otherwise this government will fall and Islamic radicals will take over. Well, you know, at what point do we cut clients loose or Islamic radicals like Saudi Arabia? I mean, that's just another Saudi Arabia out there we deal with them. I mean, maybe it's not as bad as we think it might be.  Right. And I would just add to that just back to your question. You know, as someone who has a lot of friends in the military industrial congressional complex, you know, I do have friends who work who both served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are in intelligence agencies who work at think tanks and high level decision making circles. And if you pull them aside at a cocktail party, they'll say, you know, US foreign policy, you know, they have genuine problems with it. It's not achieving its objectives. They're serious. You know, problems that we should address. But at the same time, when you go into work and they go into the office, they realize that there are very perverse political and bureaucratic incentives to continue with the status quo. And I think that is sort of the issue, right? Is that even as we look at policies and we can we can we can point to specific policies that where we aired and what wrong, the problem is that a lot of these policies are on autopilot and it's very difficult to pull them back because of those incentives. The media narrative is, it tends to be also melodramatic, I've noticed. I think that tends to be one of the worst aspects. For example, the coverage of the very complex conflict in Syria where you have overlays of a Sunni Shiite dispute, you have Bashar Assad and what amounts to a coalition of religious minorities, not just his Alawite Shiite offshoots, but also the Christians and the Druze versus largely Sunni insurgency. How many news stories have you seen in the American news media that describe the dynamics that are taking place there? No, it's always the evil repressive Bashar Assad and he is evil and repressive versus noble insurgents who want to bring democracy to Syria. Well, that's largely a fairy tale but it's one that's sold to the American people again and again and again in different contexts. My criticism of U.S. media is both the highs and the lows in a sense that you see a lot of journalists who want to have privilege to access to information and so they'll cite a government source but not attributed to a specific source. I think a lot of the times there's a reason why they want to have access to the White House or to congressional aides and so therefore they don't want to rock the boat too much and so they're not going to press them with too heavy or trenchant questions. So those are the highs I think of the criticism of media. Then there's the lows of appealing to the lowest common denominator, of being extremely simplistic, of standing in front of a damaged home after a hurricane versus getting investigative reporters onto the collusion of big government and big business or the chronic problems within Washington. I mean that requires an enormous amount of energy and resources rather than going for something that's easily simple. Do you think that they'll learn? Is the foreign policy establishment going to learn? Is there any reason I think they would? It's very hard to say and I'm afraid it may take yet another disastrous war before we get a serious reconsideration of the foreign policy. One need only listen to the Democratic and Republican debates in the current presidential campaign to realize how little most of the candidates have learned from the bruising experiences that this country has had in recent decades. And I think part of the problem too is something that we mentioned earlier about how a lot of issues are country specific and as you say fact contingent. So we can look at a rock and see that it led to the expansion of Iranian influence and the decrease in delegitimization of American power and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. But then oh well that was a rock so it's going to be different in Syria. And so you see these arguments almost work to the advantage of those who want to intervene. So I think it's very difficult to learn the right lessons when everything is so fact contingent. Thank you for listening. If you have any questions you can find us on Twitter at free thoughts pod that's free thoughts pod free thoughts is produced by Evan Banks and Mark McDaniel to learn more find us on the web at www.libertarianism.org


So there hasn't been much to cover with Destiny over the past a week or so but Shadowkeep is just around the corner. Last night we got more updates to do with Shadowkeep and how the game will play out when it arrives. Today we're going to go through all of that, including some crazy nerves and some crazy buffs too. How's it going guys? My name is D.P. Jen, I'd like to thank you for stopping by and checking out my channel. If you do enjoy, make sure you subscribe and if you enjoyed this video, dropping a like really helps me out and I do appreciate that support. Now excuse me if I sound tired, that's because I've only had literally an hour's sleep playing Borderlands all night which is the game I probably plan on covering. If you guys want to see some of that, I mean it's a loot-to-shooter, it's incredible and I'm pretty sure about 80% of you guys are on that grind in it too. So I may post a few Borderlands videos so stay tuned for that. But yes, Destiny 2 Shadowkeep is just around the corner and last night within the twap we got a few updates as well as a whole new roadmap showcasing what's to come so let's get into it and we're starting with the actual roadmap and we can see on the left the 1st to the 10th, the 1st of October on launch day, this is what we'll get. While Destiny 2 the base game will be 3-2 play as we all know and we also get 3 seasonal updates. The moon destination opens, seasonal artifact finishes, armour 2.0, a new strike, the festering core, a new strike, the scarlet cape, crucible updates, reprise, pvp map, widows court and twilight gap, a new pvp map, fragment, crucible labs, elimination, testing trials and 3 seasonal rank rewards and then we got the season of the undying October to December roadmap and we can see on the 5th of October we get the raid launch as well as the fex offensive which I can't wait for, start farming that armour. On the 8th of October we get hero and legend nightmare hunts, this is where I do believe we will go off against those old foals. On the 15th of October we get master nightmare hunts and we see a picture of Omnigul there so that's very interesting, I thought she might be a new strike boss but maybe she just brought back for this nightmare mode we will see, we also get iron banner on the 15th of October. On the 22nd of October we get the exotic quest for the Leviathan's breath, this is obviously exclusive too, season pass owners, from the 29th of October to the 19th of November we get the festival of the lust which could be pretty, I mean these kind of events, these small events I do indeed like as long as they offer decent loot for us to chase and the 29th of October we get their launch of a dungeon and a new PvP mode called momentum control, now that sounds pretty epic momentum control just like a faster paced control, how are they gonna work that I am curious to find out. And on the 29th of the 10th we get an exotic quest for the Divinity, now that is seriously intriguing because many of us thought this would be a raid exotic but seeing as it's coming from an exotic quest maybe this quest leaves us into the raid, I'm not too sure but the raid launches on the 5th of October and if it does offer an exotic I'm pretty sure it will be in there from day one so maybe guys this isn't actually a part of the raid and it will be a whole unique weapon to itself. On the 5th of November we get a raid challenge, the first raid challenge so that the instant raid is going to be more to come and on the 19th of November we get the vex offensive final assault which sounds pretty epic and that looks like the nexus mine there but it's got all that green gooey grassy leafy thing all over it so that's pretty cool but we will see. So yes people the new Shadowkeep looks quite promising and I'm excited for the 1st of October, okay so we're going to get into the twab and the changes coming, sandbox updates via Shadowkeep and weapons and this is what they say, last week we did a bit of a deep dive on upcoming changes to abilities in Shadowkeep, this week we'll be giving a patch note preview on how your weapons will be fine tuned, for this pass the team put some love into a few exotics that may have been collecting dust in your vaults, on top of that a bit of tuning has been done in how damage is applied to different targets in PvE environments, in terms of how these changes will impact your PvP experience a few weapons and archetypes are being buffed, with some seen more aggressive range fall off to give breathing room to scout rifles and other weapons, combatants in general, minor enemies rank and fire no longer take more precision damage than other enemies, these enemies previously took twice as much damage to their precision hit locations than enemies of higher ranks, you will still deal precision damage but this is now entirely dependent on the weapon as it is for higher ranked enemies, weapon changes general, weapon mods are now treated as reusable unlocks instead of consumables, any mods you have in your inventory will be converted to unlocks, this gives players opportunity to play with different mods more frequently, if the only copy of a mod you have is already on a gun, you will need to require one to unlock it, auto rifles PvE damage increased between 30% and 25% depending on combatant rank, bowls PvE damage increased by plus 31% against minor enemies and plus 26% against major enemies, fixing issue where bowl draw times were displayed incorrectly in the inspection screen, hand cannons PvE damage against minor enemies increased by 30%, lightweight and adaptive hand cannons use a new phone animation while aiming down sights, this change was made to increase the weapon accuracy when firing these weapons as fast as possible, currently players can shoot faster than recoil animation of 140-150 archetype hand cannons, so while the hand cannons look to have fully reset from recoil, the following projector will be shot as if the weapon was still in a recoiled state, so that's actually a wicked change and it will seriously affect the people that do run around using hand cannons, reduce the effect the range that has undamaged range falloff, effective range for this weapon archetype, wow machine guns PvE damage against minor enemies increased by 25%, increase the effects of damage range falloff on this weapon archetype, pulse rifles PvE damage against minor enemies increased by 28%, increase the effects of damage range falloff on this weapon archetype, archetype specific damage changes, impacts both PvE and PvP, rapid fire pulse rifles now deal 14 slash 23.8 base precision damage previously 13 slash 21.4, high impact pulse rifles now deal 21 slash 33.6 base precision damage previously 20 slash 32, meaning high impact pulse rifles will now be a two burst to the face which I cannot wait for, scout rifles PvE damage increased plus 36% and plus 18% depending on combined rank, side arms PvE damage increased to minor and major combatants by 16% sniper rifles PvE damage increased by plus 47% against minor enemies and plus 20% for others, exotic sniper rifle perk damage bonuses have been modified to compensate for this change and they will not receive the full benefits as a result, sub machine guns PvE damage increased by 22.5% against minor and major combatants, wow I mean is that really necessary with the clues, jeez that weapon is going to be an absolute I mean it's a monster now in PvE, it's going to be even but it's going to be basically 20% better which is just ridiculous, aggressive frame, remove the intrinsic effect of deals bonus damage at close range, this damage was 10% but was unintentionally always active, the bonus damage has been moved to the base damage for 750 rpm sub machine guns resulting in no damage change, as a result Teruba and the Huckleberry gain 10% damage in both PvP and PvE, wow could be cool, now we've got changes to exotics, the sweet business increased magazine size to 150, wow increased PvE damage by 15%, high caliber rounds has been replaced with armor piercing rounds, damage changed to 15 slash 21.2 base position previously 13.21 slash 21.14 so not a drastic change there to be honest, this weapon no longer requires you to be firing when you pick up ammo to have it automatically reload, pretty cool, Graviton and Lance PvE damage increased by 30%, Sunshot increased magazine size to 12 which we already knew about, Vigilance ring PvE damage increased by 25%, Crimson damage changed to 19 slash 30.5 base position previously 13.76 slash 24.75 so that's quite a increase and that could be pretty decent in PvP, fix an issue that was causing this weapon to deal higher flinch than intended, Immersionless, fix the missing mc stat for this weapon, Ace of Spades momentum moe's damage bonus is now affected by range fall off, Lumina, noble rounds should apply in their buff to allies more reliable now, the Colony, serve the Colony, now functions as auto load and holster does, perk subsistence reduced the impact of this perk on total reserves, ricochet rounds remove the hidden bonus to damage fall off, Swashbuckle, perk now activates when getting a kill with ball lightning, Grave rubber perk now activates when getting a kill with range melee abilities i.e ball lightning explosive knife, 1, 2 punch, reduce the effectiveness of stacking 1, 2 punch and cross counter with the Liars handshake, EX players won't be able to defeat Riven in less than 3 seconds after shallow keep launches using the combo of 1, 2 punch and Liars handshake, but we know many of you will try other builds and potentially even succeed, yes i did see actual glad destroy Riven in a couple of seconds, absolutely ridiculous and one more thing they state, Destiny 2 update <IP_ADDRESS> recently brought some frequently requested quality of life changes to the Reckoning and rewards, next week we're making one additional change to the experience further bringing a gap between you and your desired rewards, starting on September 17th all negative modifiers will be removed from the Reckoning, this activity will continue to feature a weekly singe with a daily rotation of Brawler, Grenadiel and Heavyweight, our goal in this change is to improve the replayability of Reckoning so players will feel more inclined to hop into the matchmaking for some sweet loot, this should also help to address some feedback items from players that specific modifiers could feel too punishing, we're looking at you blackout dark blades, and guys that is it, so some pretty interesting changes especially to exotics, as well as some great instances coming with the new world map, but guys tell me your thoughts on this down below in that comments section, also was you like me and many other people, did you think the L affinity trash rifle would be the red exotic, so if it isn't what is, hmm, won't you hide in that 10th exotic up there sleeve, possibly people, but on that note we have come to the end of the video, if you guys enjoyed it leaving a like really helps out, if you're new around to and enjoy daily destined and true videos be sure to subscribe and if you never want to miss a video I upload you can turn notifications on by hitting that bell button, but guys thanks as always for stopping by, hopefully you enjoyed the video and hopefully I will see you on that next one


A very good evening aspirants, I welcome you all to the Daily Hindu Newspaper Analysis brought to you by Shankar A.S. Academy for the day 19th of May 2023. Displayed here are the list of articles that we are going to discuss today. Now, without any delay, let us get into our article discussion. Take a look at this science page article. This article is speaking about the issues surrounding the tuberculosis testing. This article says that, tuberculosis was the number one infectious killer disease of human until the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, which is a strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19. See, TB primarily affects the poor people and it yields more impacts to low and middle income countries. But this is not the same in the case of COVID-19. See, COVID-19 has affected both poor and rich without any bound and it also impacted high income countries. So, most of the countries in the world have scaled up testing facilities for diagnosis of COVID-19. But the TB still gets little attention and investment. The article further says that, India is heavily reliant on age-old sputum smear microscopy method for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. This method recieves the patient to violently cough up sputum from the lungs and the sputum is taken up for diagnosis. Now, if you look at the COVID-19 diagnosis, India scaled up PCR testing, this kind of molecular testing has high diagnostic accuracy and will lead to major improvements in yearly detection. This same method can also be used to detect TB and drug-resistant TB. But India still majorly relies on microscopy method of diagnosis and it did not invest much in the R&D and in the field of TB diagnosis. This is what is discussed in this news article. Now, in this context, let us understand about the tuberculosis disease and then about the methods of diagnosis of TB. Before getting into the discussion, kindly note the syllabus relevant to this topic. Now, let us start with tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is an infectious disease caused by a type of bacterium called mycobacterium tuberculosis. Tuberculosis usually attacks the lungs, but it can also attack other parts of body such as kidney, spine and brain. Know that not everyone infected with TB bacteria becomes sick. See, there are two types of TB conditions such as Latin TB infection and TB disease that is the active TB. In case of Latin TB infection, the TB germs live in the human body, but it does not make the people sick whereas in the case of TB disease, the person gets sick from the TB germs. Now, how does TB spread, TB bacteria spread through air from one person to another? See, when a person is infected with TB coughs, peak or sinks, the TB bacteria can be released into the air. So, the people nearby may breathe in TB bacteria and they get infected with TB and know that TB is not spread by shaking someone's hand, then sharing food or drink and touching bedsheets or toilet seats. Now, talking about the symptoms. The common symptoms of TB include prolonged cough, chest pain, weakness, weight loss, fever and night sweats. Certain conditions like diabetes, weakened immune system and the use of tobacco can increase a person's risk for tuberculosis disease. Now, coming to the prevention and treatment. See, tuberculosis is preventable as well as curable. Tuberculosis disease is treated and almost cured with the use of antibiotics, but if it is not treated properly, it can be fatal. Now, with these basics, let us move on to see about the diagnosis method. As we saw in the beginning, there are two popular methods available for the diagnosis of TB. They are sputum smear microscopy method and PCR that is molecular testing method. Now, first let us see about the sputum smear microscopy method. The sputum smear microscopy method is the primary method available for the diagnosis of tuberculosis. This method is mostly used in low and middle income countries. This is because it is very simple and rapid to conduct the test and it also has a low cost. See to carry out the microscopy test, the sputum is collected from the suspected person. Then the sputum specimen will be spread on the microscope slate. After that, a staining dye is added to the cell of the specimen and then washed in acid solution. Further, the cells are examined under a microscope. See if the cells retain the stain, this means mycobacterium tuberculosis are present. This is because TB bacteria are usually acid fast, which means they hold on to the dye when washed in acid solution. This is how the TB is diagnosed using the sputum smear microscopy method. However, the sputum smear microscopy method has significant limitations in its performance. Firstly, the sensitivity of the microscopy test is grossly compromised when the bacterial load is less than 10,000 organisms per ml in a sputum sample. Secondly, this method has a poor track record in extra pulmonary tuberculosis, pediatric tuberculosis and inpatients co-infected with HIV and tuberculosis. And finally, due to the requirement of series of sputum examinations for the diagnosis of TB using this method, some patients do not come back for repeated sputum examinations. This ultimately lead to poor diagnosis of TB. So, these are some of the issues associated with the sputum smear microscopy method. Now moving on to see about the molecular diagnosis of tuberculosis. See, the molecular tests are otherwise referred to as nucleic acid amplification test, that is NATS. This type of test primarily relies on PCR, that is polymerase chain reaction. Know that PCR is a technique used to create several copies of a certain DNA segment quickly and accurately. So, using this PCR method, the TB can be diagnosed at an early stage and it can also be used to detect drug resistant TB. This is because the PCR testing does not require a series of examinations as like sputum smear microscopy method. From the single sample itself, we can create several copies of DNA segments of TB bacteria and also the test can be done more quickly than the conventional microscopy method. Because of this only, PCR testing method is also called the rapid diagnostic test. So, due to these advances in the field of molecular diagnostics for TB, the World Health Organization is consistently recommending the nations to ramp up the molecular diagnostics for the TB rather than relying on old microscopy method. That is all about this discussion. Through this discussion, we have learned about the tuberculosis disease and then about the methods of diagnosis of TB. With these points in mind, let us move on to our next news article. Today, our Prime Minister Narendra Modi is leaving the country for a 6 day tour to Japan, Papua New Guinea and Australia. He is travelling to Japan to attend the G7 summit, which is scheduled to be held in Hiroshima from May 19 to 21. After the Japan visit, he will be in Papua New Guinea to take part in the Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation Summit, which is a vital forum to boost the multilateral cooperation. After his visit to Papua New Guinea, Prime Minister Modi will travel to Sydney in Australia at the invitation of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. All these bilateral and multilateral engagements are expected to strengthen India's position in multilateral sphere, particularly when the world is divided in terms of Russian war in Ukraine and geopolitical challenges from China. In this context, today's news article tries to highlight how India is striking a balance between the divided world and winning hearts. But before getting into the discussion, syllabus relevant to this article is highlighted here for your reference. You can go through it. See, the purpose of diplomacy is to strengthen the nation it serves in relation to others by advancing the interest in its charge. Similarly, one of India's core principles of foreign policy is to work towards building a peaceful, secure and stable world, particularly through forging mutual beneficial relationship with developing countries. In that line, India is performing very well. I am saying this because India's engagement does not stop with a six-taste tour. After the tour, Mr Modi will be in Washington in June for a state visit. This is a rare honor accorded by the US President. Only two Indian leaders had such honor in the past. They are President Savapali Radhakrishnan in 1963 and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2009. This visit will include numerous strategic moves to strengthen India-US ties. Almost immediately after his return from the US, Mr Modi will need to switch to opposing coalition. Here I am talking about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. As you all know, India assumed the SCO chairmanship for 2023. It will be hosting the SCO summit in 2023, scheduled for July 3 and 4. Mr Modi is expected to receive China's President Xi Jinping, Russia's President Vladimir Putin, the Pakistan Prime Minister Shabash Sharif, the leaders of Central Asian countries, the soon-to-be-added SCO members, the President of Iran Ibrahim Raisi and the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and other guests as well. If you look at the membership of SCO, it includes almost every nation that the West has sanctioned. SCO is largely an anti-Western alliance. That is why I said SCO is the opposing coalition. So the forum helps India to express the shared opposition to arbitrary sanctions like those imposed on Russia. A week after the SCO summit, Mr Modi will revert to European Union as chief guest at France's National Bastille Day Parade. He might visit other European capitals during the visit as well. In August, again there will be a huge turn with the BRIC summit in South Africa. Here, Mr Modi will engage with other leaders to discuss an alternative BRICs payment mechanism to the dollar-dominated international system and to build a counter-narrative to the US-European Union combined. Again in September, Mr Modi will host every global leader at the G20 summit in Delhi. Here the author says that all these engagements did not come overnight. Clearly autonomous strategy or multi-alignment over the past few years have paid off India in this critical year. Now India is setting a trend of being a balancing force. Finally, the author concludes by saying that even though India's efforts have paid off, India will still face multilateral challenges if it could not strike a balance in any one of the multilateral meetings that you are going to host or participate. So we will wait and see what will happen in future. That is all. With this, let us move on to our next article. This front-page news article says that Supreme Court upheld the state legislature which recognized the bull-taming event as a part of cultural heritage of people of Tamil Nadu. The bull-taming event referred here as Jallikattu. Supreme Court said that Jallikattu is a type of bovine sport existing in Tamil Nadu for at least a century. This is the crux of the news article given here. In this context, we will understand about the Jallikattu and the issues surrounding it. But before that, note down the syllabus that I have given you for your reference. So, first of all, let us see what is Jallikattu. See, Jallikattu is also known as Eeruthalvudal. It is a bull-taming sport traditionally played in Tamil Nadu as a part of Pongal Harvest Festival. It will be celebrated on March to Pongal day, which is the third day of Pongal festival. Know that the term Jallikattu was derived from the Tamil words Jalli and Kattu. Jalli refers to gold or silver coins and Kattu means tide. The sport got this name because silver or gold coins will be tied to the bull's horn. This only considered as the price for whoever tames the bull. Let us say that no one was able to tame a bull, then it means that the bull has won. The winning bull will be served with the cows to preserve the native breed. This is about the Jallikattu sport. See, this sport has been renowned as an ancient sport which has been practiced in 2500 years ago. However, the practice of Jallikattu has been contested. It is because of the concern over cruelty to animal and the dangerous nature of the sport. It is a known fact that sometimes the sport causes death and injuries to both bulls and human participants. Due to this reason, animal rights groups like People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, that is PETA, approached the court with documentary evidence. They said that in Jallikattu, animals are physically and mentally tortured. So, the Supreme Court, in welfare board of India, versus a Nagaraja case, banned the practice of Jallikattu. The Supreme Court ruled that prevention of cruelty to animals at 1960, overshadows or overwrites the so-called tradition and culture. All this happened in 2014. Following this, a massive agitation erupted on Marina Beach in Chennai and it spread to remaining parts of Tamil Nadu as well. In June 2017, the protest is to demand the central and state governments to come up with the law that would annul the Supreme Court's ban on Jallikattu. Because of the intensity of the protest, an ordinance was promulgated. It is the prevention of cruelty to animals, Tamil Nadu amendment ordinance 2017. Subsequently, the assembly adopted a bill to replace the ordinance. This again was referred to Supreme Court because the animal rights group filed petitions to Supreme Court to ask the states to follow the ban imposed by Supreme Court in 2014. But Supreme Court opined that Jallikattu issue involved a substantial question of interpretation of the constitution and referred this matter to constitutional bench. That judgment only came now. In its judgment, Supreme Court upheld the amendments made by the Tamil Nadu. In other words, it upheld the prevention of cruelty to animals. Tamil Nadu amendment act of 2017 and prevention to cruelty of animals conduct of Jallikattu rules of 2017. Supreme Court added that the 2017 amendment minimizes the cruelty to animal in the concerned sports. Because of this, hereafter, Jallikattu will not come under the definition of cruelty defined in the 1960 act. Moreover, Supreme Court said that the amendment received presidential assent. So, there is no need to think that there is any flaw in state action. To back up the amendment, Supreme Court said that the 2017 amendment does not violate articles 51A class G and 51A class H. These two articles impose duties on Indian citizens to protect the environment and develop a scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and reform respectively. Further, it also held that the amendment did not violate article 14. Right to equality and article 21, right to life of the Indian Constitution. That's all regarding this article. Take a look at this news article. It talks about the new deforestation regulations approved by the European Union. The new regulation attempts to ensure that the products consumed by EU citizens do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation worldwide. The new European Union regulations will affect the imports from produce grown on land where deforestation has taken place after December 2020 and will kick in for larger companies from December 2024 with smaller businesses required to comply by June 2025. Four levels of penalties have been planned for any violation of this norm, which include monetary fines up to 4% of a firm's annual turnover in the European Union. It also includes confiscation of products, confiscation of revenues gained from a transaction and exclusion from the public procurement processes. So, the guidelines pose a threat to Indian exports of items like coffee, leather, paper and wooden furniture. India is already in the shock of European Union's carbon border tax. This is what is given in this news article. In this context, let us quickly go through some of the important points about what is carbon border tax? I hope you all know how carbon trading works. The only difference here is the boundary. While the carbon trading happens within a country, European Union uses carbon trading in a different manner as a penalty to eliminate the producers that have higher carbon footprint. Let us see how it works. In terms of carbon border adjustment mechanism, the EU importers are mandated to purchase carbon certificates equal to the carbon price that would have been paid if the goods had been produced in accordance with the European Union's carbon pricing rules. If the carbon price is already paid in the country from where it originated or produced, then the corresponding cost for the European Union importer can be fully detected. So, by means of making the product with higher carbon footprint costs here, European Union is trying to eliminate the risk of carbon leakage, and it encourages non-European Union producers to green their manufacturing process. In simple words, CBIM is a penalty tax to discourage import of carbon intensive goods like steel, aluminum, cement, fertilizers and electricity into European Union. It primarily discourages environment unfriendly production and consumer practices by making the polluting sources costlier. Though this move can act as an incentive for consumers and producers in the European Union to shift to more energy efficient sources and product, it can severely affect developing countries like India, which is one of the major steel producing countries. And it is completely against the CBDR RC. CBDR is nothing but common but differentiated responsibilities. That's all regarding this article. This article talks about green deposits. It also talks about the RBI's regulatory framework regarding the green deposits. In this discussion, we will see about the points mentioned in the article in detail. Firstly, what is a green deposit? The green deposit is similar to other regular deposits that bank accept from their customers, but with a slight difference. The difference is that if a bank receives a green deposit from a customer, it exclusively earmarks the amount for investing in environment friendly projects. For example, let us consider an imaginary person named Siddharth Malaya, whose father is very rich. Siddharth Malaya purchases a high polluting SUV. Later, he felt guilty about the pollution caused by his diesel-guzzling SUV. So to make himself feel better, he decides to deposit rupees 25 crore as a green deposit with the SBI. Siddh Malaya will earn interest on his 25 crore, and as a small satisfaction that his amount will be used for some green project. SBI on the other hand will invest this 25 crore exclusively on the environment friendly projects like solar energy or wind energy or waste management. Invest here does not mean SBI will directly start a solar form or wind form. Instead, SBI will provide this 25 crore as a loan to individuals and companies that are involved in environment friendly projects. This is about the working of green deposit. Moving forward, let us see about the RBI regulatory framework regarding green deposit. Firstly, banks that receive green deposit from their customers should come up with a set of rules or policies on how to invest the amount. And this policy must be approved by the bank's board. Secondly, the rules or policies regarding how the amount will be invested by the bank should be made public. Thirdly, the bank must also make public all the information regarding the amount of green deposit received and how these deposits were allocated towards various green projects and the impact of such investments on environment. This information must be verified by a third party to ensure the accountability of the banks. Finally, the RBI has specified certain sectors in which the banks can make investment using the green deposits. The areas that qualify for investment using green deposits include renewable energy, waste management, clean transportation, energy efficiency and aforestation. RBI bars the bank from investing in fossil fuels, nuclear power, tobacco, gambling, palm oil and hydropower generation using the amount received via green deposit. Here, note that hydropower generation, though a renewable source of power generation, it is not eligible to receive investment via proceeds from the green deposits. Now, you may have a question, why RBI had placed such regulation? RBI has placed these regulations to prevent greenwashing. Here, what is greenwashing? It is a scenario in which a company or organization tries to make people believe that their products or activities are environment friendly when they actually aren't. They may use misleading claims and marketing techniques to make it seem like they are doing good for the planet, but in reality, they might not be taking meaningful actions. The practice of greenwashing will deceive people who want to make environmentally responsible choices. This is why RBI has placed such stringent regulations on green deposits. Finally, let us see the pros and cons of green deposits. The supporters of green deposits feel that putting money into green projects may be one of the best ways to help the environment, but it also has a fair share of criticism. Firstly, the avenues that banks can invest using the amount received via green deposits is limited. Secondly, the critics of green deposits feel that it is basically a feel-good scam. Investors who invest in green deposits feel good about themselves and that these investments don't really do much good to the environment. These are some of the criticisms about the green deposits. That's all regarding this discussion. Look at this news article. This news article about the recently concluded state elections in Karnataka. As you all know, the Congress party won the election. There was a slight tussle over the appointment of Chief Minister. Finally, it was decided that Mr. Siddharamaya would be the next CM of Karnataka and Mr. Shivakumar would be the deputy CM. You may wonder how this news article is relevant for our examination. Actually, the information given in the article is not very relevant, but we can expect questions from the polity-static part associated with the news. So, in our discussion today, we will focus on how the CM is appointed. The position of Chief Minister in the state government is similar to the position of Prime Minister in the central government. The Chief Minister is the de facto executive and the head of the government in the state. Like in the case of Prime Minister, the Constitution does not contain any specific procedure for the selection and appointment of the Chief Minister. We have got only Article 164, 2 over 8. But this article also just mentions that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the governor and does not elaborate further on the appointment procedure. So, going by the mere text of the article, does it mean the governor is free to appoint anyone as the Chief Minister? No. According to the conventions of the parliamentary democratic system that is followed in India, the governor appoints the leader of the majority party in the state legislative assembly as the Chief Minister. But what happens when there is no clear-cut majority in such scenario, the governor can use his situational discretion and appoint the leader of the largest party or coalition in the assembly as the Chief Minister. In both the cases, the Chief Minister candidate must prove his majority in the house through a vote of confidence within a month. Here you have to note one thing. The Constitution does not require a person to prove his majority in the legislative assembly before that person is appointed as the Chief Minister. The governor might first appoint him as the Chief Minister and then ask him to prove his majority in the legislative assembly within a reasonable period. Also, note that a person who is not a member of the state legislature that is legislative assembly or legislative council can also be appointed as the Chief Minister if that person can prove his majority in the legislative assembly through a vote of confidence. But that person must get himself elected either to the legislative assembly or to the council within six months. Finally, what happens when Chief Minister dies when he is in office? In such a scenario, the ruling party normally elects a new leader and the governor has to appoint him as the Chief Minister. The new CM must also prove his majority in the legislative assembly. In case the party does not appoint any new leader, then the governor can appoint a person using his discretion and ask him to prove his majority. Once the CM is appointed by, the governor administers the vote of office and secrecy. The term of Chief Minister is not fixed and he holds office during the pleasure of the governor. However, this does not mean that the governor can dismiss him at any time. He cannot be dismissed by the governor as long as he enjoys the majority support in the legislative assembly. But if he loses the confidence of the assembly, he must resign or the governor can dismiss him. That's all regarding this discussion. As a part of the discussion, we saw all the necessary points related to the appointment of Chief Minister. In future videos, we will see the other aspects of the CM like his powers and function. Now, let us conclude this and take up the next article. This article is about menstrual health. The article captured various aspects of menstrual health like menstrual stigma, period poverty and the impacts period poverty has on health and education. In this discussion, we will see all the points discussed in the article in detail. First, let us see the basics about menstruation. Menstruation is a natural biological process that occurs in certain female mammals, including humans. It is a monthly cycle in which the lining of the uterus is shed through bleeding. During menstruation, the uterus prepares itself for the potential pregnancy. If the fertilization, that is the fusing of sperm and egg occurs, then the pregnancy cycle begins. If the fertilization does not occur, the lining of uterus along with the blood and tissue is shed through vagina. This process usually lasts for a few days and is accompanied by various physical and hormonal changes in the body. In addition to humans, there are few other mammals that also undergo a similar process. These animals include some primates such as chimpanzees, bonoboos and gorillas. In addition, certain species of bats, elephant shoes and some species of fruit bats also exhibit menstrual cycle. Having seen the basics about menstruation, now we will see what is menstrual health. Menstrual health is not a unidimensional concept, rather it has many dimensions to it. It basically includes staff, physical, emotional and social well-being of individuals during menstruation. Physical well-being involves regularity and predictability of the menstrual cycle. Emotional well-being involves having a positive attitude towards menstruation and handling the emotions carefully during the hormonal changes. Social well-being involves increasing access to safe and hygienic menstrual products and proper sanitation facilities so that individuals can manage their menstruation with dignity and without hindrance. All these are important aspects of menstrual health. Now, why is menstrual health important and why should the government allocate significant resources to ensure menstrual health? This is because menstrual health is linked to five of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But how? Let me explain. We already know that menstrual cycle is multidimensional. To ensure menstrual health, focus must be provided on things like ending poverty, ensuring good health, providing quality education, ensuring gender equality and providing clean water and sanitation. See these five conditions that are necessary to ensure menstrual health are part of UN SDG goals. This is the main reason governments must focus on providing menstrual health and ensuring menstrual health indirectly helps the country achieve the five of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. That is all about the menstrual health and the need to ensure menstrual health. Moving forward, let us see some points about the term period poverty. What is period poverty? Period poverty refers to economic constraints that lead to lack of access to menstrual products, education, hygiene facilities, waste management or combination of these. Basically, when people are not able to afford menstrual products, menstrual hygiene facilities and waste management due to their poor economic condition, then those people are said to be in period poverty. According to the article, period poverty affects nearly 500 million individuals, particularly those in low middle income and low income groups globally. This article also talks about the impacts of period poverty. The first impact is period poverty hampers access to education. Limited access to menstrual products and inadequate sanitation facilities access a barrier to education, particularly for young girls. Many girls miss school during their periods due to lack of proper menstrual management and sanitation facilities in their school. The second impact is health. Sometimes due to economic constraints, women resort to unhygienic practices during menstruation. These unhygienic practices increase the risk of infections, including the reproductive and urinary tract infections. The last and the major impact of period poverty is gender inequality. Period poverty reinforces gender inequalities and discrimination. Period poverty marginalizes women and girls from low income backgrounds. It hinders their ability to fully participate in society and limits their opportunities for personal and professional growth. This further increases the gender disparities. These are the major impacts of period poverty. How can period poverty be addressed? First is increasing the access to sanitation facilities. Next is by providing access to free menstrual hygiene products. And finally, focus must be provided on educating the community about the menstrual hygiene. These steps will go a long way in addressing the period poverty. That is all regarding this discussion. Look at this front page article here. The news is that Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu laid the foundation stone for the 33 crore rupees Porunay museum proposed in Thirunelveli. This proposed museum is going to showcase artifacts from Porunay civilization. This is the crux of the article given here. Now in this context, let us learn some points about Porunay civilization. First of all know that Porunay is the ancient name of the river Thamirabarani. The river Porunay is mentioned by the names Thanporunay, Porunal and Porundam in Sangamera Tamil literature. The name Thanporunay finds a place in Thulkapiam which is an ancient treatise on Tamil grammar. Apart from this, Thanporunay is also mentioned in Sangam work Purana Anur. Researchers say that the name Thanporunay has evolved into Thamirapuruni and later it become Thamirabarani. Now coming to Porunay civilization. See the civilization that flourished around the banks of Porunay or Thamirabarani river in ancient times is what termed as Porunay civilization. The Porunay civilization falls in the present-day Tirunelveli and Tuttukudi districts of Tamil Nadu. Know that Adichanallur, Korkai and Sivakalai are some of the excavation sites located on the banks of river Porunay. The excavated materials from these sites provide some valuable information about the Porunay civilization. In the year 2020, the excavations at Adichanallur site were resumed after one and a half decade by the archaeological survey of India team. The ASA team found a skull of a buried person that is believed to be 3000 years old. With that skull, the ASA team has also found a gold diadem, bronze artifacts, headgear, spear, arrowheads, dog tie and paddy. See all these materials are buried alongside the remains. These excavations contribute to the study of Porunay civilization. It is believed that Porunay civilization dates back to 3200 years old. So, Porunay civilization is considered to be much older than the Waige River civilization, which is believed to be around 2600 years old. But how do people say Porunay civilization is 3200 years old? In 2021, the scientists from the United States carbon-dated and analyzed the rice and soil that was earlier found in the Burri-Learnat-Sivakalai excavation site. The results showed that the rice and soil date back to 3200 years. This is almost as old as the Indus Valley civilization. After these findings, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister announced the construction of Porunay Museum in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in September 2021. And yesterday, the CM laid the foundation stone for the Porunay Museum. This proposed museum is going to showcase artifacts that are excavated from the sites of Porunay civilization. Now, before concluding our discussion, let us learn some points about the Thamarabarni River. See, the Thamarabarni River originates from the Agastiyar Kudam peak of Pothige hills of the western Ghats. It flows through Tirunelveli and Tuthukuri districts of Tamil Nadu and merges into Gulf of Manara of the Bay of Bengal. This river has a distinct reddish sting because the water contains copper. As I said earlier, Thamarabarni River is mentioned in ancient Tamil Sangam texts. The river such as Peyar, Ullar, Karyar, Shervalar, Manimuttar, Ghadana, Pachayar and Chittar are some of the important tributaries of the Thamarabarni River. That is all about this discussion. Through this discussion, we have learned some points about Porunay civilization and about the Thamarabarni River. With this, let us move on to the next part of our discussion that is Practice Prelims Question Discussion. Today, we will be discussing four questions. I will solve three of them and one question is quiz question for you. Now, let us take up our first question. According to the recent RBA regulation, in which of the following sectors banks can invest via amount received from green deposits? Here, the correct answer is option D, one and two only. From our discussion, we know that RBI has designated sectors like renewable energy, excluding hydropower, waste management, clean transportation, energy efficiency and aforestation for the investment that bank can make via the amount received through green deposits. So, the correct answer is option D. With this, let us move on to our next question. The name Porunay is the ancient name of which of the following rivers? The answer is option C, Thamarabarni River. This question is pretty simple and easy, right? Now, let us move on to our next question. In this question, two statements about CBIF, that is carbon border adjustment mechanism is given and we have to choose the correct ones. First statement says that it will impose a border fee on imports in carbon intensive sectors from nations with lower environmental standards. This statement is correct. CBIM will impose a border fee on imports in carbon intensive sectors like steel, cement and fertilizers from the nation with lower environmental standards than the European Union. Second statement says that recently the European Commission's FIT255 package introduces this CBIM. This statement is also correct. Recently, European Commission adopted the FIT455 package of proposals. It aims to make the European Union's climate, energy, land use, transportation and taxation policies fit for lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. The FIT455 package opens new market for Indian industry for example electric vehicles. However, it also introduces a globally unprecedented carbon border adjustment mechanism for pricing imported carbon. So, the correct answer here is option C, both one and two. And this question is your quiz question. Think well and comment the correct answer below. In this slide, main practice questions are given. Interested aspirants can write their answers and post it in the comment section. With this, we have come to the end of our discussion. If you found this video useful, hit the like button, do comment and share it with your fellow aspirants. And most importantly, subscribe to Shankar IS Academy's YouTube channel for more content about UPSC preparation. Thanks for listening patiently. Have a nice day.