Paris, the most coveted city in history. Since its beginnings 2,000 years ago, Paris has drawn to it lovers of beauty, of learning, and of liberty.  In 1940, sounds of the storm of war again drew close. In Paris, we listened, but we felt the storm strike at our spirit. Paris was spared, but we were left to shed our tears for the fall of France. The spirit of Paris appeared crushed, but in 1944, it rose again to prove its claim to life with honor. Each dawn is a new beginning. For us who have lived in Paris all of our lives, for us who live here from day to day, it is more than a city. It is a way of life. It is a meeting every day of the present with our sometimes glorious, yes, and sometimes bitter past. It is civilization, Paris. It is a spirit each day reborn in 3 million lives that makes us one. But each of us, we have our own vitality and purpose, our own pride, and individuality. Beautiful? May we? Never are we too busy to stop and see how beautiful Paris is. It's cathedrals that celebrate the long history of our faith. Arches that celebrate our victories. Buildings are dedication to the arts. But it is our lives around these buildings, these monuments that makes them live. It is the love of learning, not the buildings of a Latin quarter that celebrates wisdom. It is we the people, not the stones that are Paris. The beauty of Paris, allure. What really does it celebrate but the dignity of human life? And art creampel arches, but the dignity of man. The dignity of human life, the dignity of man. We learned again their meaning and their cost. We learned again that summer of 1940 seeing them crushed before our eyes. Loyalty, sacrifice, devotion. Those Paris has inspired always. But envy it has inspired too and greed. May we, every passion of man, Paris has inspired and survived. Did not for centuries Paris fight wolves in its streets at night to serve the day as the center of culture. Now to us again her streets cried out. 1940, I wouldn't forget it, that march on Paris in June. It was hot and dusty, but a happy march. Why? Because we were young. In this city, Paris, we have heard of it all of our lives, like a beautiful woman. And now, she was going to be ours. But with empty streets, Paris welcomed us. Yeah, but was this not better than guns? After a year of war, after the cities we had found necessary to destroy in Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, now to take Paris unharmed, even the fewer himself we had thought the war was over. But this war, it had only begun. For the four years while it would last, we must occupy Paris to keep France under military rule. He who holds Paris holds France. It is the center of all transportation and communication, an administration of the whole country, the city we held, but the people, the ways they behave to us. Sometimes we were not quite so certain. But what could they do, the French with no army left? That is war. The soldier obeys orders. To occupy so charming a city, of course, these orders were not hard to obey. For even our officers, I think, military discipline sometimes left their minds. Yes, and war too. Was it not all agree, Paris was an open city? In the Paris underground, we had the headquarters of the French forces of the interior. With the Gaulists, the Machis, the communists, we had all worked against the Nazi occupation. We had few weapons, only sabotage, and always the threat of reprisals. Now at last, we could prepare for our parts in the liberation, as the Allied army swept toward us to Normandy in 1944. Here it was mid-August and we'd been slugging our way ever since we hit the Normandy beaches in June. Up ahead somewhere was Paris, but it didn't look like we'd be lucky enough to see it. Our goal was Berlin and we heard the plan was to isolate Paris and bypass it.  We were barely a hundred miles from Paris when we'd clobbered the Nazi Seventh Army at Argentine. We were still kind of wishing we were going on into Paris, but there wouldn't be much left to see there if the Nazis defended it like they had this town. It was when we got a chance to stop and sample French hospitality or sit down for a few minutes with a cigarette that we talked about what we'd like to do in Paris and what it would look like if we ever did see it.  And would it all be as beautiful at night? We knew Paris was really blacked out, but we'd heard it called the city of light and that's still the way we pictured it. Blacked out, in our imaginations, Paris still sparkled like a string of jewels, but out here in Normandy, the sparkles we saw were real. The soft life at Paris, it was gone. Now we were ordered to get our tanks and equipment outside the city between Paris and this allied advance that was already smashing our 7th Army to the west. How could we defend Paris against full-scale attack? We were barely 20,000 men. We would have no reserves, but to the last man, the fewer ordered Paris defended. The soldier obeys orders. In the outskirts, south and west of Paris, we took our positions and invaded. For us now in Paris, the city was like a bomb with the fuse lighted. As the Nazis withdrew to their defenses in the outskirts, we mobilized their resistance openly. The allied armies were now so close, what held them back from us? Could the rumor be true that they might pass us by completely? We had no alternative. We must take Paris ourselves. We seized ministries, newspapers.  We paralyzed the city and we waited. By now, some of us were right up within spinning distance of Paris. We still had a war to win, but we began to hear that Paris was falling anyhow. We even heard that De Gaulle now wasn't as worried about the Nazis as trouble from the different factions in the resistance movement trying to take over. So our top brass decided it would be better to take Paris than to have a civil war at our backs, and that De Gaulle would have his wish that French troops would be the first ones to enter. The French Second Army Division under General Leclerc was instructed to move on Paris from Argentine immediately. In the small towns around Paris there were rumors and confusion wherever we went. The French were tearing down roadblocks so we could get through and we heard that Paris had already been liberated by the resistance forces. We heard the Nazis had already signed an armistice and just wanted to get out of town in one piece. Anyhow, General Giraud showed up with our First Army's Fifth Corps to back up the French advance. When the French troops themselves showed up, so many of them had GI uniforms and equipment that things looked even more confusing. They didn't expect to meet much opposition. Now came the Fuhrer's Order. Paris must not fall into the hands of the enemy except as a field of ruins. The Send Bridges he ordered prepared for demolition. But we who were outside the city, what if we must retreat back through Paris? Now they came, we were waiting. But the Nazis, the ones who had shown us the meaning of terror, what had happened to them? Were they so badly off now that they must send children to do the work of men? Childhood, for some of us there had never been one. There had only been war. And for France must death make men of boys too? They came closer to Paris. But so slowly it seemed. Now we learned that Leclerc was slowed not only by the enemy. Each step nearer to us, tumultuous welcomes delayed his troops. Outside Paris, at the town of Rambouillet, they were engulfed. Well the French launched their new advance the next day. If ever the world was waiting for the sunrise it was that morning. But there was rain, then drizzle, and more rumors.  Finally all that was real was blood and gunfire. But it came out not like we had planned. We, professional soldiers, being herded like kettle down village streets by country farmers. In Paris we waited, but with the Lechern now not fear. The resistance movement, the French forces of the interior. We were an underground no longer. Yes to the barricades. In that cry is the history of Paris. The stones of the streets they came to life in our hands. Already stained with French blood these stones, torn from the walls of the Bastille in the revolution. Yes and always they have risen in the barricades where the people of Paris meet their oppressors at last. Now this morning of August we heard history singing in our blood. The eyes it was really happening. Our city Paris being liberated. All the confusion of history when it is being made that we could see but a corner of it before it was pulled away into the past. Which confusion? Were not those our soldiers inside the American uniforms? Like all history it took its price. Yes the price from those who expected to pay it. But a price too from us who could fight for Paris only in our hearts. And the highest price from those who became part of our history forever. Now to end it to destroy these reminders of our humiliation. To set Paris in order again. Paris and France. We crossed the Seine River that morning and when we came into Paris we could hardly believe it was real. Really Paris here all in one piece and the people and it's still alive they sure were. And here it was when we hit the center of town around noon. Our Christmas card in August. Notre Dame. In the Montparnasse rail road station a command post was set up by General Leclerc. Now he prepared to go and receive the Nazi surrender. Why did they give him no honor of a full military surrender? No they did not understand. They did not know what he had done but I think he had saved Paris. Von Holtitz had disobeyed orders. He could not defend Paris no but he left it no field of ruins. Our commander like us I think he loved Paris too much to destroy it. There were surrenders going on wherever you looked. Prisoners were being rounded up all over town. Our own fifth corps took over 10,000 and still they came on. Were these the same streets where just yesterday we had commanded? And these were these the French people we had so quietly lived here beside for four years? All this time had it been burning inside them this fury and humiliation they poured on us today. After four years de Gaulle for us all this time he had been France away from France. Now again he was a part of us. The streets and the squares Paris filled them for his welcome. To de Gaulle we could look for order to make Paris and France won again. But still hidden among us were our enemies. Enemies of the people. Enemies of law and order. Communists fascists criminals. In four years the Nazi occupation had bred a disease of hatred and greed in desperate men. Spirits routed by collaboration by dreams of power. Now we woke them in a hurry. Paris belonged to the French again all right? They turned the city upside down with victory and you couldn't escape their gratitude, their excitement even if you wanted to. It was victory with a sharp taste or a sweet taste depending. And the next day they had a parade right through the middle of Paris. The enemy was hardly outside the city. Nazi holdouts and snipers were still hidden all over town but nobody seemed to care where they packed the streets. Yes this parade we were warned it was dangerous. De Gaulle himself he knew this. But the danger that was why we must have the parade. His loyalties to France they had been scattered for four years. Now we wanted only to show that order had returned. That free France stood again as one. Some they had fought not for free France but for power for themselves. Now still they hope to profit from chaos. When the parade reached Notre Dame again there was gunfire. But De Gaulle he had only disdain for these enemies. This courage yes we would follow it anywhere. Napoleon was right, bien sûr, when he said that we French have vanity, levity, independence and caprice with an unconquerable passion for glory. We would assume do without bread as without glory. We had a parade ourselves a couple of days later but it wasn't really much of a celebration for us. We still had a man-sized war going on right outside of town. We paraded through Paris and combat formation because the streets were still so jammed that a parade was the only way we could get through town to pick up the war on the other side. A glimpse of a familiar building or a monument from the corner of an eye and before we knew it we were through it. That was all the look at Paris some of us ever had. Now Paris was more like Paris. There was little fuel for cars so we rode bicycles. Or many things relaxed still but very soon our allies started sending us the food we so desperately needed. How grateful to them we were, how secure we felt now to see their supreme commander himself in our streets. Now again Paris could go about its business. The Nazi occupation was history. Another chapter in the past that is always a part of Paris. A pleasure of being alive again. Like most women I imagine I showed it with a new shopper. After four years Paris at peace. Peace. But tears must be shed for those who helped win it. Like these 27 members of the resistance buried together with a single funeral. While on the roads leading from Paris these nazi dead. There were no tears they had won nothing for anyone. Outside Paris history swept on leaving behind it the past to seek something familiar the future something new. Past and future to us now all look the same anywhere. We drove on across France across Belgium toward the German border. In the Ardenne forest we met a new enemy. Winter days passed without dawns or sunsets. Days as alike as the trees around us. As alike as the roads we followed. They were days as alike as the faces of the prisoners we took. Passing in endless lines like the endless weeks of that winter. But with the spring in Germany we found a new kind of prisoner. The French prisoners of war that we liberated to start their long trek home. And once more Paris waited. To France they came back a million more than a million men and to Paris. Paris she had shed tears of humility of loss. Now her tears they were of gratitude for the return of her sons.


Having clean hands can help you avoid getting sick and spreading germs to others. Germs are everywhere and they are so tiny we can't see them. Germs can spread when you blow your nose, cough or sneeze into hands, and then touch surfaces or other people.  Washing your hands is the best way to prevent or reduce the spread of illnesses such as the common cold, flu and other viruses. Washing hands often with soap and water reduces the amount of dirt and all types of germs on your hands. Wash your hands at the following times, before eating and cooking, after using the bathroom, after blowing your nose, sneezing or coughing, after touching soil diapers or trash, after touching or feeding pets. After caring for a sick individual, when washing your hands, remember to wet your hands with clean running water and apply soap. Lather your hands by rubbing them together with the soap. Be sure to lather the backs of your hands between the fingers and under your nails. Scrub your hands for at least 20 seconds. Singing the Happy Birthday song twice will help you with timing how long you should scrub your hands. Rinse your hands well under clean running water. Dry your hands using a clean cloth or paper towel. Use the cloth or paper towel to turn off the water faucet when you are finished. If soap and water are unavailable, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer. Hand sanitizers that contain at least 60% alcohol are an effective way to kill some of the germs on your hands. It can reduce your chances of getting sick and spreading germs to others. Non-alcohol-based hand sanitizer are those with less than 60% alcohol may not be as effective in killing germs. The proper way to use hand sanitizer is to read the label, if available, to find the recommended amount to use such as two sprays. The label will also tell you how to use the product safely. Apply the hand sanitizer to the palm of your hands. Rub hands together covering all parts of the hands and fingers until dry. Add more if needed. Let hands air dry rather than wiping them with a napkin or paper towel. It is important to mention that hand sanitizers do not get rid of all types of germs and may not be as effective on visibly dirty hands or hands that have touched harmful chemicals such as pesticides. Washing your hands often with soap and water is the most effective way to ensure your hands are clean. Visit the Centers for Disease Controls website to learn more about proper hand washing. The previous was brought to you by the Urban Supplemental Nutrition Education Program. The Urban SnapEd program makes nutrition easy, tasty and affordable. To learn more about the Urban SnapEd program, visit www.aces.edu. You can also follow the Urban SnapEd program on Facebook.


My fellow Americans, let's talk about the budget, the one subject that most directly affects your pocketbooks. Now, before you say, this is where I came in, there has been a new development. We're making some progress toward a budget agreement that will hold down your taxes and get government spending under control. This is the one sure way we can keep inflation coming down, bring interest rates down as well as deficit spending, and most important, get our factories working again. Washington is a town that loves to spend money. Your money. And if that isn't enough, they'll borrow a trillion dollars so far. As the French economist Bastiat said a long time ago, public funds seemingly belong to no one. The temptation to bestow them on someone is irresistible. I've said before, and let me say again, many of the spending proposals are motivated by sincere compassion. Compassion we all feel. But pretty soon, if we aren't careful, we find ourselves inventing miracle cures for which there are no known diseases. That's what led to the situation in 1980 when federal spending was increasing by 17 percent and the inflation rate was 12.4 percent. Interest rates reached a 100-year high of 21.5 percent. Obviously, something had to be done. To continue down the road we were on would have meant disaster. So when we got here in January of 1981, we changed course. The 17 percent annual increase in government spending was cut almost in half. That 12.4 percent inflation rate has, for the last six months, been 2.8 percent. For the last three months, it has only been 8-tenths of 1 percent. Interest rates have come down some, but not enough yet to give the economy the boost it needs. As you know, we put in place tax incentives to help industry retool and modernize. And we provided tax reductions for individuals so families could keep more of the money they earn. It's the first broad-based program to help all American taxpayers since President Kennedy's tax cut nearly 20 years ago. The average family will see its personal withholding rate cut by 20 percent in the next 14 months. There will be a 10 percent cut July 1 and another in July of 1983. Even though we've only had the first installment of 5 percent cut last October, we're seeing some signs of the incentives that a tax cut brings. Personal spending is up and Americans are saving at a higher rate. Saving is one of the best ways that people can help themselves and our country. As the pool of savings expands, interest rates come down and billions of dollars are made available for new investments, mortgages, and jobs. Yesterday, the United States Senate took another step to get spending under control. It passed a budget resolution that will reduce projected deficits $358 billion over the next three years. I'll be honest with you, I would have liked more reductions in spending, but at least it's another step in the right direction. The direction we started to go last year. In contrast to this responsible action by the Senate leadership, the leadership of the House of Representatives is trying to spend more and to eliminate $150 billion or so of your tax cut. Their idea for reducing the deficit, for example, is to eliminate the third year of the tax cut. They have another idea which somehow doesn't go with their claim of compassion. Once that final income tax cut is in place, we have one further step to go. We permanently index the income tax brackets against inflation. This too, the spenders would take from you under the phony claim that it only benefits the rich. During these recent years of inflation, many of you have received cost of living pay increases.  Even that is, till income tax time. Then you find those added dollars have pushed you into a higher tax bracket where you give the government a greater percentage of your earnings and end up with less purchasing power, not more. Indexing prevents this from happening. Now, how can indexing hurt the workers and benefit the rich? It can't. And those who say it can are talking through their hats as usual. The rich and the high income earners are already in the top tax bracket. They also don't get cost of living increases. It's the wage earner and the salaries and in our program will get indexing.  Eliminating about 73% of our planned increase in the defense budget is their goal. Fortunately, some responsible Republicans and Democrats in the House have proposed a better plan for the one passed by the Senate. It will preserve your tax cuts, reduce spending, and keep America strong. They are calling their plan the bipartisan recovery budget, and it will be voted on the first of this coming week. If you want interest rates to come down and the economy to get going, it wouldn't hurt if you told your congressman to vote for the bipartisan recovery budget. But do so right away. Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you. What's the repo? Why don't we feed them known for leaking anyway? Why don't we send them? We leak some ideas of what I'm going to say so that they'll do a phony answer. Their budget would be nice to tell me that. These others are start voting on Monday, but they won't get to this, or they won't get to this. Thank you.


Good evening as friends, welcome to the Hindu News Analysis by Shankar A.S. Academy for the date 7th of February 2023. Displayed here are the list of news articles we will be going through today. Now let's start our discussion. Look at this news article here. It talks about the economic crisis in Pakistan. Pakistan is seeking its 13th bailout from IMF. See this graph here. It shows how the prices of essential commodities have risen in the recent years. The IMF funding is critical for Pakistan because it is left with only around 3.1 billion dollars in its forex reserves. In India we have around 550 billion dollars in our forex reserves. This is for comparison. Pakistan's 3.1 billion dollar can only cover 3 weeks of its imports. But IMF bailouts comes with certain conditionalities. For instance, the IMF views the poor performance of the power sector as a major threat to the Pakistan's economy. The IMF therefore demands to discontinue the exception for lifeline electricity consumers that is those consuming under 300 units. This category makes up almost 88% of the country's power consumers. So the people of Pakistan will be unhappy. But there seems to be no other choice for the Pakistani government. So Pakistan has finally accepted the stringent conditionalities of IMF. The article gives us glimpse of how the various economic figures have been working out in the country. For example, see this graph. This graph shows the share of the total revenue and total expenditure in the GDP. From the graph, we can observe that in financial year 2022, the total revenue as a share of GDP decreased to 12% while the total expenditure as a share of GDP neared 20%. This is a huge gap. Besides this, if you can see this graph, it shows the year-wise total debt and liabilities of Pakistan. We can see how it is raising. In this discussion, we shall try to understand why Pakistan resorts to IMF bailouts very often. And we will see what are the major economic concerns in the country. There are many reasons as to why Pakistan is facing economic crisis quite often. We will see them one by one. Firstly, there is the problem with the economic model itself. See in the beginning, Pakistan economy was largely based on private enterprises. But later, significant sectors of it were nationalized in the early 1970s, including the financial services, manufacturing and transportation. All the changes were made in 1980s under the military government of Zia al-Huk. To be more precise, an Islamic economy was introduced. This Islamic economy outlawed many practices that are forbidden by the Saria Muslim law. That is, charging interest on loan was forbidden and traditional religious practices such as payment of Zikr which is an obligatory tax required for Muslims were mandated. And now portions of the Islamic economy in Pakistan is still surviving. This is the first problem. Secondly, as the article highlights, Pakistan is highly reliant on imports. See Pakistan does not produce any machinery that is crucial for manufacturing and infrastructure development. So they are very heavily reliant on import. Pakistan exports mainly textiles and agriculture related goods. So Pakistan's economy basically lacks technological sophistication. The country's imports have seen a significant raise over the years, but exports have remained largely stagnant. This widened the trade deficit in Pakistan. This is the second reason. Then when it comes to the energy sector, Pakistan is very vulnerable to hikes in global oil and gas prices. The populist measures of subsidies further aggravated the situation. See Pakistan tried to keep the petroleum prices cheap for the country's population even when the global oil prices rose. This may sound good, but the cost must be borne by someone, right? I am compelled to make this reference now. See India hiked the fuel prices when global oil prices went up. That way the government had to face little criticism. But ultimately India did not get through such a trap as Pakistan now. This is the third issue. Fourthly, weak governance and political instability. See weak governance and political instability have been significant factors in weakening investor confidence in the country. This also contributed to corruption and pork barrel politics that undermined the country's physical position. Know that pork barreling is an allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for political purposes. There is also allegations of state-ponsored terrorism and illegal opium trading, which undermines the credibility of the country. Then there are high levels of borrowing. The total debt and liabilities reached 59,000 billion Pakistani rupees, which is 89 percent of the GDP in financial year 2020. The total debt has consistently risen over the years and peaked at 93.8 percentage in financial year 2020. Of the total outstanding bilateral debt owed by Pakistan, China alone accounts for about 35 percent. In other words, we can say that Pakistan has fallen into the debt trap diplomacy of China. Then Pakistan is highly vulnerable to climate-linked disasters such as flood. The loss in gross domestic product as the direct impact of the floods is projected to be around 2.2 percentage of GDP in the year 2022. This damage and loss in agriculture has pillow effects on the industry, external trade and service sector. Besides this, large population had been displaced, which further aggravated the economic crisis. See, these are the major reasons why Pakistan's economy has been constantly in crisis. This is also the reason why in the past 40 years, Pakistan has seeked IMF bailout for a record number of 13 times. So that's all regarding this discussion. In this discussion, we saw the current economic conditions of Pakistan and we also saw what are the reasons that makes Pakistan's economy always stay in a crisis condition. With this, let us conclude this discussion and take up the next news article. Look at this article here. On February 4th, the US military shot down a Chinese air balloon which was detected over the Montana state of USA. The United States is claiming that it was a surveillance balloon, whereas China is saying that it was a civilian meteorological balloon that got drifted, of course. The shooting down of such a air balloon has sparked a diplomatic crisis and has strained the already weakening US-China relations. This crisis has led to calling of a highly anticipated visit of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to China. This is about the article. In this context, let us understand about the Thucydides trap. The Thucydides trap is a term which got popularized by the American political scientist Graham T. Allison. Allison used this term to explain the likelihood of conflict between a racing power and a currently dominant one. So the trap refers to the tendency in which conflict can erupt when a dominant power is challenged by a growing power. It is now primarily used to describe the potential conflict between the United States and China. Here the United States is referred as a dominant power whereas China is referred as a growing power. With this understanding, now we will see whether China and USA can escape this trap, that is the eventual war between China and USA. As we all know, the USA and China are currently facing rising tensions in trade, technology, cyberspace and even in the South China Sea area. If you look at the history, the relationship between a racing power and a hegemonic power often ends up with severe conflict, that is war. See, there are some possible ways which can prevent both the countries from falling under this trap. Now we will see them one by one. The first and the foremost solution is consistent dialogue. The USA and China should strive to create a common forum for continuous dialogue. This will engage both the countries in finding a solution to the existing conflict rather than escalating it. Both China and the USA should also need to end their arms race. Due to power struggle, both the countries are involved in mass arms production. This poses a threat to other nations also because if war erupts between the US and China, the impact will be felt all over the world, just like the impact we are facing because of the Russia-Ukraine War. So ending arms race will also ease tensions between the countries. Apart from this, both China and USA should respect each other's ideology.  Both are different in their core ideas, so developing a tolerant mindset in both the countries will de-escalate the situation and by following these three basic steps, both the countries can prevent falling into the trap. So that's all regarding this discussion. With this, let us conclude this discussion and take up the next news article. Have a look at this editorial article. This article talks about the freedom of speech. Now why is this in use today? This is because recently the Supreme Court has made a judgment in Kushal Kishore's case regarding freedom of speech. In this case, the Supreme Court declared that the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech of Indians are exerciseable not only vertically but also horizontally. See in Kushal Kishore's case, the question put before the Supreme Court was whether the fundamental rights can be claimed other than against the state or its instrumentalities. So the Supreme Court concluded that the fundamental rights can be enforced even against persons other than the state and its instrumentalities. This is the reason why freedom of speech made news today. Now coming to the article. The editorial article speaks about the evolution of freedom of speech and also about the horizontal and vertical application of freedom of speech. So in this context, let us learn about the evolution of freedom of speech in India, then about the constitutional provisions regarding freedom of speech. And finally, you will learn about the significance of freedom of speech. Okay. Before that, the syllabus regarding this discussion is highlighted here for your reference. You can go through it. Now let's start. First let's understand about the evolution of freedom of speech. See it is believed that the idea of free speech may have been emerged from the values of the Roman republics because some sources say that the values of the Romans provided for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Apart from this, the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression had been legally established by the England's Bill of Rights 1689. After this, in 1789, the French Revolution reaffirmed the freedom of speech as an inalienable right. Then in 1791, the first amendment was made to the United States Constitution. It made freedom of speech a basic feature of the constitution by constituting the Bill of Rights. See, this adoption of constitutional provision is a significant event because as we all know, the idea to provide fundamental rights to Indian citizens was inspired from the USA's Bill of Rights. Then comes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It established the rights and freedoms to all members of the human race. It was accepted by the United Nations General Assembly during a session in December 10, 1948. The Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This rights include right to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and import information and ideas through media and regardless of frontiers. This Universal Declaration of Human Rights also inspired India to provide right to freedom of opinion and expression. Now, let's take the specific case of India. As we all know, under the colonial era, the liberties of Indians were severely restricted. The actions of the British Empire actually curbed the freedom of expression and speech of Indian masses. By imposing various laws like the Sedition Law, Hate Speech Law etc., the British took every possible way to curb opinion among the Indians. This was done in order to suppress the revolutionary sentiments prevailing among the masses. As most of our constitution makers were freedom fighters, they realized the need for freedom of speech and expression. So, they borrowed the idea of freedom of speech from the democratic ideas laid in the American Constitution. In India, the freedom of speech and expression enjoys a special position. Its importance can be easily understood by the fact that the preamble of the constitution itself ensures all citizens the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Then, the freedom of speech is also transformed as a fundamental right under Article 19. Now, we will see the constitutional provision of freedom of speech in India. The Article 19, Class 1, subclass A of the Constitution provides for the freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of India. Now, is this right absolute? No. The right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is subject to some reasonable restriction. The restrictions are provided in Article 19, Class 2 of the Constitution. It says that the freedom of speech and expression shall not affect the operation of any existing law or it shall not prevent the state from making any law. Does it include all laws? No. It includes only laws that are made or is going to be made in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relationship with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality are in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense. In similar terms, Article 19, Class 2 of the Constitution says that the government can impose reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression to protect the above said interest. Overall, Article 19, Class 1, subclass A provides the right to freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of India, while Article 19, subclass 2 imposes the state to impose some reasonable restriction to the right to freedom of speech and expression. With this understanding, now we will see about the significance of freedom of speech and expression. Firstly, freedom of speech ensures active participation of the people in the democratic process. The freedom of speech helps the citizens to actively participate in the smooth functioning and operation of democracy. This in turn helps in proper decision making. Secondly, freedom of speech helps to express beliefs and attitudes. See, India is a large country. In such a country like India, where peoples of different faith, caste and creed exist, the freedom of speech helps in proper expression of beliefs and attitudes. Thirdly, self-fulfillment and development. The freedom of speech helps the citizen to exchange their ideas and opinions effectively and freely. This assists in the healthy development of the citizen and also provides significant self-fulfillment. And finally, the freedom of speech provides for open discussion. For a healthy functioning of democracy, open discussions is a must. In order to discover the truth and to facilitate healthy and sound decision making, open discussions is a must. To ensure open discussion, freedom of speech is a must. These are all the significance of freedom of speech. Now finally before concluding, let us understand the difference between horizontal and vertical application of fundamental rights. In India, generally, fundamental rights are enforceable against the state. But in few cases, fundamental rights can be enforced against private individuals also. See, there are two applications of fundamental rights. They are vertical and horizontal. The vertical rights are rights that can be applied only against the public authorities, while horizontal rights are applied against private actors. In India initially, vertical application of rights was sufficient. But the growing power of the private actors has made this vertical application insufficient. So to deal with such kind of circumstance, the courts in India have used the horizontal application of rights. So the individuals can also enforce his fundamental rights against private individuals also. This is what we saw in the beginning. That is, recently in the Kushal Kishore case, the Supreme Court concluded that fundamental rights can be enforced even against persons other than the state and its instrumentalities. That is all regarding this discussion. In this discussion, we saw about the evolution of freedom of speech. Then we saw about the constitutional provisions in India regarding freedom of speech. After that, we saw about the significance of freedom of speech. Finally, we saw the difference between vertical and horizontal application of freedom of speech. That is all regarding this discussion. Now let us conclude this and take up the next news article. Take a look at this editorial article. This article talks about the village defense guards. Recently, there have been increase in terror related incidents in Jammu and Kashmir. Mainly in the border districts of Rajouri and Ponch. See these two districts are located near the line of control which is the de facto border with the Pakistan administered Jammu and Kashmir. You can see that in the image given here. Now the problem here is the raising terror related incidents in the region. So the demand for the revival of the erstwhile village defense committees has emerged. This is to counter terrorist activities in the region. In this context, let us understand few facts about village defense committees and the reason for its creation. We also will see about the village defense guards and some of the important points mentioned in this news article. Before getting into the discussion, I have highlighted the syllabus regarding this discussion here. You can go through it. Now let's start our discussion. So first let us see what is this village defense committees. The village defense committees were first formed in the erstwhile Dhoda district in mid-1990s as a force multiplier against militant attacks. Its main aim was to provide residents of remote hilly villages with weapons and give them arms training to defend themselves. Why was this committee actually set up? See in the mid-1990s, the militancy that began in Kashmir was spread to the adjoining Dhoda district. Here, militancy means using violence or aggressiveness to support a cause. Usually, militancy occurs in support of political or social cause. Now coming back. See the demand for arming the civilian population first rose after the massacre of 13 people in Kishtwar in 1993. Following this, in 1995, the Home Ministry decided to set up the village defense committees. Under the scheme, each village defense committee used to have a special police officer as its person in charge and there will be 10-15 other volunteer members who are mostly ex-service personnel. They were given rifles and ammunitions. The special police officer is in charge of the village defense committee and he was paid whereas the other volunteers were unpaid. Later, the scheme was expanded to other areas of Jammu division as militancy extended their activities to Udhampur, Rasai, Rajori, Ponch, Kautan, Sambha districts. Since the regions had poor road connectivity, it delayed the arrival of the security forces on the time of terrorist threat. On the other hand, the villagers who were well versed with the local topography stalled the militant attack until the arrival of the security forces. Initially, the village defense committee proved successful but it was not without its share of issues. There was recent allegations of crime including abduction and rape by the members of the village defense committees. The village defense committee also faced allegations of human rights violation. So over the period of time, the number of village defense committee members has dropped significantly and after some time they ceased to exist due to lack of government support. Right now, due to an increase in case of targeted killings in Jammu and Kashmir, the government has felt the need to arm the civilians. So they have renamed the village defense committees as village defense guards. The members of the village defense guards are called the VDGs. This change was not brought only to the name but also to the very structure of the committee itself. For example, unlike the village defense committee where only the special police officer was paid, all the village defense guards are paid. The village defense guard also function under the direction of the senior superintendent of police or the superintendent of police in the district consent. But similar to the village defense committee, the aim of the village defense guards is to instill a sense of self-protection and ensure safety and security of the border villages. The village defense guards are to be charged with the responsibility of protecting community installations and infrastructural facilities within the defined area of their villages. Like the village defense committee, the members of the village defense guards will be provided with the gun and 100 rounds of ammunition. So the village defense guards will play a crucial role in maintaining the security in the rural regions of Jammu and Kashmir. And they are responsible for providing intelligence to the security forces and help in counter-insurgency operation. The village defense guards will also serve as a deterrent to terrorists. Even though village defense guards are modified versions of village defense committees, people feel the present methodology of being under the superintendent of police, that is a top-down approach, may be not an ideal arrangement because the present arrangement might be found lacking in terms of close supervision at the execution level. So people now are asking to bring back the old village defense committee. So that's all regarding this discussion. In this discussion, we saw about the village defense committee, its flaws and the recently launched village defense guards. I want you guys to comment in the comment section about your view about the arming of civilian population by the government. Is it ethical or not? So that's all regarding this discussion. With this, let us conclude this and take up the next news article. Take a look at this text and context article. This article talks about voice deepfakes. So in our discussion today, we will go through what is voice cloning, how they are generated, used, misused and differentiated. Voice deepfake is one that closely mimics a real person's voice. The voice can accurately replicate tonality, accents, cadence and other unique characteristics of the target person. Here cadence is the timing or flow of sentences. Now, how are these voice deepfakes created? They are created using AI and large computing power. To make the AI work, the first step is to feed the training data to the AI models. Here, the training data is the original recordings of the target person's voice. Using the training data, AI can then make and create synthetic voice. And this synthetic voice is then used to say anything the person making the voice deepfake wants. Although the procedure sounds very simple here, it takes a lot of computing power. Depending upon the availability of the computing power and the level of clarity required, generating a deep voice fake might take hours, days or even months. Now, here I have displayed the tools used for making voice clones. I am exposing you to these names because in the prelims examination, UPSC might highlight these names and ask you to find the similarity or the commonality between these. So, there is a potential prelims question here. Now moving on, we will see about the ways in which voice deepfakes can be detected. Actually, determining whether the given voice is original voice or a deep fake voice is very difficult. It requires advanced technologies, software and hardware. But even after having advanced technologies, software and hardware, it is not exactly accurate to determine whether the given voice sample is original or deep fake. So, the cybersecurity professionals have not yet developed a foolproof method of detecting whether the given voice sample is deep fake or original. So, it is still unclear how to detect the originality of the voice. Moving on, let us see about the threats arising from the use of voice deepfakes. See, attackers are using this technology to defraud users and steal their identity. And they are using the stolen identity for conducting various illegal activities like phone scams and posting fake videos on social media platform. Although there is some potential use for creating voice deepfakes, currently the technology is entirely misused. For example, in Morgan Neville's documentary film on the late legendary chef Antony Bourdain, he used voice cloning software to make Mr. Bourdain say worse he never spoke. See, this sparked high criticism. So, the threat associated with voice deepfakes outweigh the advantages associated with it. So, that's all regarding this discussion. In this discussion, we saw some of the basics about voice deepfakes. With this, let us conclude the news article discussion session and take up the practice films questions. We have two practice films questions today. Let us see them one by one. Let us take up the first question. This is a three statement question. Three statements about deepfakes is given. We have to find the correct statements. Let us take up the first statement. Deepfakes are modified images, text, audio, and video, or synthetic media created with the help of artificial intelligence. This statement is correct, as we saw in the discussion. Let us take up the second statement. The existence of deepfakes causes distrust among the public. This statement is also correct. Distrust is one of the main threat associated with deepfakes. Moving on to the third statement, the existing legal framework in India criminalizes deepfake. Actually, this statement is wrong. The existing legal framework of many countries, including India, does not criminalize deepfakes. So, statement one is correct. Statement two is correct. Statement three is incorrect. So, the correct answer here is option A, one and two only. See, this is a quiz question for you. Interested aspirants can comment the answer for this question in the comment section. The main questions based on today's discussion are displayed here. Interested aspirants can write the answers and post it in the comment section. If you like today's video, like, comment, and share it with your friends. For more updates regarding UPSC preparation, subscribe to Shankarai's Academy's YouTube channel. Thank you for listening.


Joshua, thank you for coming and welcome. It's nice to have you here. Karen, thank you so much for the chance to have this conversation with you and thanks to Peter and to Dan, to the whole New America team for this opportunity. I wanna, we're gonna talk about the strategy and where we've come and what challenges lie ahead and what new twists there are in our understanding. But I wanted to start today with a talk about just language, the language we use to describe what we sometimes call domestic extremism, some we call domestic violence, sometimes we call it domestic terrorism. But I've noticed of late that the term political violence or politically motivated violence seems to have come into the stratosphere of the language sphere of how we think about the phenomenon of violence being used all over the country in a variety of different forms for a variety of different reasons. And when President Biden gave his speech in Philadelphia recently, he did talk about political violence and didn't talk about domestic terrorism just in terms of how we think about these terms. And I just wondered, is there a recasting, a rethinking of how to understand in the large umbrella that covers so much of the violence we're seeing, is there a move towards thinking about political violence as opposed to what we've called in the past extremist terrorism? So let me start where your kind introduction began as well with the national strategy for countering domestic terrorism, which the administration released last June as you indicated. And it was very important to us to have early in that strategy the federal statutory definition, the federal law language of domestic terrorism, defining domestic terrorism, that the strategy was pegged to. It was important to us, first of all, because any government strategy should articulate its scope, but it was particularly important, I think, in this context, this often charged context to show that we were working from something embedded in federal law, pre-existing, and that is in a sense, narrowly scope. It's scoped to violence, threats of violence, and in essence covers acts, criminal acts designed to intimidate or coerce civilian populations or attempt to change policies of a government. And again, we thought it was important to show that we were pegging our work, heading at our strategy development and the implementation of that strategy to something we inherited from the political branches and embedded in the US code. At the same time, there is a broader phenomenon afoot. You heard this from the president, not just in those recent remarks in Philadelphia, but even going back to the remarks he delivered in Buffalo after the awful, horrific act of domestic terrorism at a supermarket there. And he talked about how there are those in different walks of life who are either adding to, or at least acquiescing it, the use of violent language, the proliferation of ideologies in which violence, even implicit, is at their core, that individuals like the one who took lives at that supermarket in Buffalo, then pointed as the justification, the motivation for their horrific actions. And that may be broader in a sense than what is domestic terrorism per se, that broader willingness to promote or acquiesce in a cultural normalization of language of political violence, but it contributes to the challenging moment we find ourselves at as a country right now. That raises something interesting, which is, you know, you focused on the law and I understand that, but one of the things you talk about in the strategy or suggest that it's actually much broader than the law. And I'm curious about your thoughts, there does seem to be a sort of whole of government approach to this. And so it isn't really just about the law, right? It's about, so just talk a little bit about how you see the sort of matrix of actors, agencies that feed into this counter-terrorism strategy. So maybe I'll separate out two things. In terms of the challenge being addressed, the problem being tackled, we think the law, the legal definition of domestic terrorism is of course the right place to begin. It scopes our work, it keeps us grounded in federal law. But the response to it incorporates a number of elements. As the strategy sets out, it includes generating better understandings of today's threat and sharing them more widely. That can be a role that can involve roles for the Department of Homeland Security, for the FBI, for example. It involves investing heavily in prevention efforts, trying to help people from ever getting to the point of breaking the law and becoming essentially a law enforcement problem. That involves a whole host of actors across the federal government. Then it involves a law enforcement response for those who make it to that stage, for whom law enforcement has identified valid reasons to investigate and in some circumstances to prosecute. Of course, that doesn't just involve federal law enforcement, but involves incredibly close collaboration with state, local, territorial, tribal law enforcement. Often they are the ones on the front lines of any given actor-actor. And the first one is to identify if there's something wrong. They also may have part of the solution set with the charges available to them. And then there are other parts of the system that the strategy goes into, such as how we ensure that parts of our government, whether it's law enforcement, whether it's the military, whether it's the intelligence community, that by their very nature need to give certain Americans special access, access to weapons, to training, to knowledge, that all of that won't be exploited by bad actors for nefarious causes. So that brings me to another question, which is one of the things the Biden administration did was to revive the intelligence and analysis unit that had been disbanded under the prior administration. And there has been a whole series of efforts, formal efforts to reach out to local, tribal, et cetera, groups to sort of inform them and share. My question to you is, is there something new in terms of what's being shared? Are there factors that you didn't know when you put together this strategy or that have emerged since then that are part of what needs to be shared on this wider level? I think there are really two categories of things that are new. One is what is shared, and the second is how it is shared. So just briefly, in terms of what is shared, I think there's been something of an evolution here in which the community that works on this issue has acknowledged what the data back up, which is that overwhelmingly, those who engage in lethal acts of domestic terrorism are either lone actors or very small groups. They are not massive, multi-member, long-running plots in general, with some exceptions. Now, those can still, those sorts of plots we always need to be on guard for, whether from domestic actors or international terrorists. But in addition, we need to recognize that these lone actors and these small groups can be harder in some ways to detect and disrupt, and they can move from simmering hatred to actual violence quite quickly with little warrant. The type of intelligence that is useful, especially the state and local partners on that, is different from sharing with them the details of a single long-running plot or threat stream that is being surveilled or otherwise identified over the course of many months. And I think the what that's being shared, in part, has adapted to that by sharing a sense of dates, gatherings of symbolic value, causes things that might lead that next step in which those lone actors or small groups make that unacceptable step towards violence. Then there's the how, which I also think is new. In addition to just getting more information, we think better information and a steadier flow of it to different parts of the federal family as well as state and local partners, there are new ways in which that information is being communicated. That includes a new app that the National Counterterrorism Center has disseminated. I use it regularly, that puts out at the four official use only, FOUO level information. So truly a beat cop can have the latest on a smartphone. That includes a new app that the Department of Homeland Security has rolled out for his homeland security information network. Again, getting its latest analysis into the hands of those who can use it. It includes quite regular calls by DHS and FBI leadership for state, local, territorial, tribal partners, giving essentially threat briefings, the latest updates, or a debrief on some incident of significance and what occurred and how it was understood. So I think both the what and the how of that critical information sharing piece, those have improved and we'll keep working to improve that. When you mentioned lone actors and small groups and sort of that that is a fact of the way we understand domestic extremism these days and these violent acts, it does sort of bring to mind what happened to the transnational conversation? Where, what is the international piece of this that a year ago or two years ago, we were hearing about connections between white supremacist groups abroad and the United States and adding rim as a foreign terrorist organization as yet another layer. So is that a separate part of it or does this overlap? The lone actors, small groups and international dimension? I think it overlaps and it's a critical point. I appreciate you're bringing it up Karen because there is a transnational dimension, especially to what we in the government called the REMV actor set, the racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists. And that international connection, like so much of this, won't look exactly like the transnational connections of the foreign terrorist organizations we've all spent a lot of time on since 9-11. It's not the same hierarchy, it's not the same strict affiliates and kind of core leadership that we've become accustomed to for al-Qaeda or ISIS for example, but it's very real and it involves online conversations, it involves diffuse groupings, it involves some foreign travel and it involves some flow of funding of finances across national boundaries. These are things that the director, the FBI among others, have spoken about in congressional testimony. And where appropriate, we as a government have used foreign directive, foreign facing tools to get at this dimension, very real dimension of the problem. That includes a few more REM, Russian Imperial Movement related designations earlier this year. Overall, I do think we see continuing to evolve the transnational inspiration, connectivity and to some extent travel and financial flows of this and we will continue to use those appropriate tools, those tools that are sometimes only foreign facing to disrupt those pieces of this problems. You know, that kind of brings up one of the elephants in the room, which is social media and how it's used to inspire, to recruit, to incite. And one of the things that I and others appreciated about the strategy that you put out was its embrace of protecting civil liberties and protecting as well as it could, recognizing that this is a threat that we need to deter and prevent. So the question is, how do you see now that you've been in this position for a while and really thought about it, how do you see the role of not just social media, but what can be done in terms of big tech, how to address disinformation? And I guess my real question is, are we at the sort of very, very beginning stages of this or is there some grasp of how to deal with this in a way that's both effective and legal and constitutional? Is there, how do you think about this? Let me say one point on the civil rights, civil liberties issue generally, and then one point on the tech dimension more specifically. So I think all of us here firmly believe that approaching the threat posed by domestic terrorism correctly enhances and promote civil rights and civil liberties. Domestic terrorism and civil rights and civil liberties are directly at odds. Those who want to take discussions that should be passionate, but peaceful, whether among candidates, among voters, just in our society and turn violent with them, that is in a sense, domestic terrorism in a nutshell. Countering domestic terrorism leaves space for protected speech. It leaves space for the associations people want to have peacefully, whatever their ideology, their politics, their beliefs. So I think all of us believe that approaching this issue in the careful, calibrated way laid out in the strategy and as we've tried to adhere to as we implement it, that that is not, it's not a balance with civil liberties and civil rights promotion. It is itself a promotion of civil rights and civil liberties because it takes away the violence, leaves room for speech and association in peaceful ways. And when it comes to tech, but it is simply a fact that those who want to recruit, radicalize, mobilize individuals to violence, whether in the name of international terrorist causes like al-Qaeda and ISIS, or in the name of domestic terrorist causes, they turn at times, not exclusively, but at times to social media and other internet-enabled platforms. And we have done what we as a government think is appropriate to do, which is educate and form and talk with companies about what we are seeing. Because we of course have experts who see threats as they materialize and we see an evolution and the tactics and techniques used to try to recruit individuals to violent causes. And we think it is appropriate, indeed we think it's a responsibility of ours, just the way we share that information with state and local partners, just the way in other contexts we share threat information with for example, critical infrastructure owners and operators, here we share this type of information with for example, those tech platforms who can then make a decision for themselves as to whether it violates their terms of service. And we engage actively in multi-stakeholder fora in which we try to be a helpful partner in shining a light on where we see this threat going. And that includes, and I'll call out one in particular Karen, the Christchurch call to action to eliminate terrorists and violent streamers content online. This is a multi-stakeholder forum originally generated by the governments of New Zealand and France after the horrific Christchurch mosque attacks that we as an administration were very proud to join early last year and which we remain strong supporters of and heavily engaged in the valuable conversations with. And there's gonna be more to be said about where the work under the rubric of the call is going in the next couple of weeks, including in a major summit coming up next few days. Yeah, that brings a question of something else that you and I have talked about and that is sort of citizen literacy, digital literacy about disinformation, which is a little different than how you counter disinformation online, sort of putting it on the user. And I just wondered how you see that piece of the counter extremist framework playing out. And if you think that's really just something that's an aside or something that's central to how we think about educating ourselves and our children going forward. No, we think it's central and it's central not just for tackling domestic terrorism, but for other issues. Look, we all live our lives increasingly online, not wholly online, but increasingly online. And there are many reasons for that connectivity and convenience and the recent pandemic that kept us separated in physical space for far too long. But it also means that we can be susceptible or vulnerable to those who online would try to lead us in the way of various harms from recruitment to violence, to scams, to a whole host of things. All of which means that we're better off if we are savvier, smarter, in many cases, more skeptical consumers of the content that we encounter online. I think we owe it to especially generations that will even further live their lives and have experiences online to help them be prepared through the likes of promotion of digital literacy and online fitness and similar programs. We're gonna have more to say about that. In fact, in coming days this Thursday we're honored to be hosting here at the White House a summit in which both government and those outside government will speak to what we're doing and a whole host of cross-cutting issues involving hate fuel violence, but this will be a piece of it. When you talk in the strategy about long-term issues it resonates when I read it to root causes. What we used to talk about is root causes. It's a little different, but it's sort of overlapped. So I guess that's partly the beginning of my question. And then it's guns, grievances, racism, gun culture. And I just wondered what you think the actual realistic ability to address root causes in this country are as opposed to thinking about how we might have thought about poverty, et cetera around the world. What we're really thinking about here, what the root causes and how to address this. And I understand this is somewhat in the disinformation realm, but I think it's also separate. It is. The fourth pillar of the strategy that we've been discussing tries to be both candid and realistic. It tries to articulate a number of factors, including ones you've just mentioned, Karen, that contribute to the domestic terrorism threat and threat landscape as we confronted today and are in some ways bigger than it. And moreover, that require addressing if we're gonna sustainably roll back the domestic terrorist threat we face but that certainly can't be resolved overnight. Those include easy access to firearms that can make it easier to engage in an act of domestic terrorism or more lethal for someone who is.  Now, no one thinks we're gonna solve those problems overnight, but we'd be doing a disservice if we didn't tackle them both as challenges in and of themselves and as contributors to the domestic terrorism landscape today. And frankly, since the strategy was released last June to give just one example, major firearms legislation has actually been passed by the US Congress and signed quite proudly by President Biden. Now, as the president has said, he doesn't think that's enough. You'll hear him continue to say that, but it's a place that we would not have thought of ourselves in perhaps a year plus ago. It also took horrible tragedy to get there and I'm quite conscious of that. But these are long-term problems, long-term contributors to this challenge and challenges in their own right. And I think we as a government will continue to grapple with them while recognizing that in a sense, ratcheting up the sense of urgency and tackling them is the way in which they feed into the domestic terrorism problems we currently confronted. Before we get to the questions from the audience, I have a couple more. One of them is what isn't in the strategy? What's evolved over the past year that you wish, if you were rewriting the strategy today or just adding a little a coda to the end, you would say, let's include this. Is there anything or are we pretty much on the same trajectory in terms of understanding the threat, the basket of potential responses and the timetable? You know, there's a piece that's acknowledged in the strategy, but where I think there's still work to be done. And that is the piece that acknowledges that this is bigger than government, that like so many hard problems of public safety, of national security, but maybe especially so given the societal nature to this, that this is something that yes, we as a government need to step up and tackle in all the ways the strategy indicates we're doing, but that there needs to be a commitment by those across society to try to get back to a point where language of violence certainly threats of violence and of course violence itself is universally a port sideline taken out of the equation for our political and ideological disagreements, however fierce, however lively, however real those might be. None of us can look back to a point in the past in which that was totally gone from the landscape, but it has crept back too much, too much to a point where we needed a national strategy to tackle this issue. And I hope going forward, even as we as a government figure out how to generate even better intelligence on this, how we as a government figure out even better ways to screen and vet those who assume positions of trust in the government, even as we as a government invest in even more effective prevention efforts that we also are joined by and are a good partner to those outside government in the academic communities, the business communities, the celebrity communities and that they lend their own voices and other ways of contributing to getting at this notion that we as a democracy, we disagree with each other peacefully, we argue peacefully, but we resolve these things at the ballot box and not through violence. Which brings up the political context that this is all happening in. And one of the things about the Philadelphia speech and other speeches recently has been the recognition countrywide by the media, by politicians, by the president that there is some link between what we're seeing politically in terms of divisiveness and what's happening on the streets with violence and in our churches and in our schools. And so I guess what you're suggesting is that the larger voice of the country is bipartisan and needs to sort of declare itself that way when it comes to these issues. And is that sort of, am I getting that right? Is that basically? I think it's well said and in some ways it is the theory of the case behind the summit we're proud to be hosting here Thursday, which is the very title United We Stand means that there is unity in standing against turning to violence with one's grievances, whether real or perceived. We think that we are capturing not just the law by the way, which of course proscribes, prohibits violence, but also a real sentiment of the American people that whatever our differing views of a whole host of policy matters, domestic policy matters, foreign policy matter, that there is a wide swath that wants to resolve those differences peacefully and not in the just appalling and horrific ways that we've seen in Buffalo and in El Paso and in Pittsburgh and in Atlanta. And I could go on with the incidents that we can all come to mind over recent years but incidents that leave behind grieving family and friends. And so that is what we hope to lift up with Thursday's summit. It's what we hope others will join us in lifting up and it's work we wanna carry forward as we bring a spotlight to those who share that commitment to resolving differences peacefully. And just to note the sort of subtitle of the summit is countering hate-fueled violence, is that right? So it's very much focused on the prevalence of hate as a motivator and part of what's going on. So I just wanted to bring that up. I'm gonna get to some audience questions and then come back to some of my own but because they fit right here which is here's one from Anonymous. How concerned are you about violence around the midterm elections and from whom? And I think this follows kind of where we're talking now in the conversation. We do know that there are threats of violence. We do know that the elections are a target. We do know that there's hate-fueled speech and threats around this. What are your thoughts? So I learned from the experts in law enforcement and the intelligence community who provide us with threat briefings which we try to share and they try to share with the public including through a threat assessment that was embedded quite literally in the middle of last year's domestic terrorism strategy. And what they say is that we are in a persistent state of heightened threat and that we are likely to be there for a while and that in particular, hot button issues whether they relate to a particular election cycle or whether they are in some ways the perennially hot button issues can take that persistent heightened threat landscape and heighten it a little bit further. So we have gone about our work in the first year and a half or so of this administration within in essence, two recognitions. One, that that is the state of play. It is one that requires the sort of dedication to addressing this issue, to the intersecting issue of hate crimes and a broader set of violence prevention that the current moment demands. And the two, we need to approach it in a way that's sustainable because we don't have reason to believe that we're suddenly gonna come down from that, turn some corner, pass some magic date on the calendar and come down from that threatened vibe. That means investing funds in a way that's sustainable. It means building the sort of structures even the sort of information sharing mechanisms that we talked about earlier Karen where technology can help us get information and intelligence out to stakeholders who need it faster. But we are doing this both with a recognition that we're at a moment of heightened threat and that we need to build our work in a way that anticipates that threat environment to remain elevated for the foreseeable future, frankly. So you've talked a little bit about some of the accomplishments and the wake of the strategy and the focus on this since Biden came into office and you've talked about gun legislation and we've talked about reviving the intelligence unit. But aren't there broader accomplishments? I mean, how do you see the strategy? As you say, this is a long haul but there have been a number of things that have happened and I just wanted to know if you wanted to talk about them and then we could talk about what's yet to happen but let's talk about what has happened and what you see as progress in this area. Well, I'm always grateful for the chance to tout the good work those generally good work by all sorts of colleagues around the government who are on the front lines of dealing with this. And let me at least offer a few categories of this with apologies to those whom I don't get to. One is law enforcement, both federal and non-federal. It is of course the disrupted plot, the plot that is stopped before it can be actual violence and then is successfully charged and prosecuted that does not get the headlines of the tragic ones that do take lives but that is a far better day for law enforcement for society for all of us and it is really extraordinary work by law enforcement again, federal and non-federal alike that has saved lives and will continue to save lives and it's tireless work and it's hard work. Then I would point to where we're investing in the future. This includes huge allocations of sums of money by the Department of Homeland Security which elevated domestic violent extremism to a fifth national priority for a big pot of money for state, local, territorial and tribal partners, $77 million going to that effort. It also includes a separate pot of Department of Homeland Security funding to address terrorism and targeted violence prevention, terrorism generally, but for the first time ever the most recent grand cycle had an explicit focus on domestic violent extremism. So there's a lot being invested in preventing those acts from ever getting to the stage of law enforcement's problem in the future. And then I'd point to one more thing which is the work being done by different parts of our government to improve how within their departments they tackle this issue and DHS has done work in this area, the Justice Department has done work in this area but I might point in particular to the Department of Defense which as part of its implementation of the national strategy last December released a pre extensive report it's available on their website about how they are updating their policies and adapting their posture to address the threat of domestic terrorism or domestic violent extremism of the ranks. In particular, they updated their definition of extremist activities after close consultation with the Justice Department and others to capture a broader array of worrisome potentially violent activities. So all of these strike me as a success is frankly even as we are quite conscious of there always being the attack that happens the awful day like a buffalo in which we need to learn the lessons so we can prevent the next one. That's interesting. We have a question that I think fits very well here which is can you speak to how the strategy and government efforts think about the classification of the various movements of ideological streams viewed as tied to threats? I think it's a good question. I mean, it's how big is this basket? How much do you try to identify the different strands? What are you thinking? It is a good question. And here I would again encourage taking a look not just at the national strategy but at the summary of the law enforcement and intelligence communities threat assessment that we embedded in it because they include a few of the categories at least the categories of greatest concern and their articulation is quite useful and it's the one that we as policy makers take our cues from. So they talk about racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and the particular transnational connections among that group as well as the lethality of some of their attacks. They also talk about the anti-government movement militias and others who in particular are found to target either government facilities or government personnel which of course fits the very ideology that's motivated them to violence in the first place but there are others motivated to violence by a wide range of ideologies. And I sometimes describe those ideologies as left, right, center and off the charts. Take something like the in cell movement, the involuntary celibate movement. I wouldn't know whether to describe that as left or right. It's off a recognizable or cognizable political spectrum but it moves people to violence at times at least. And so strategy is built acknowledging that there are a wide array of motivations, ideologies, viewpoints, whatever the best way to capture these motivations to violence might be and that our goal as a government of course is to prevent violence from any effect. Whatever the ideological or political lean our responsibility as well as our ambition is to prevent them from becoming violence. I guess one question I have in terms of your sharing information with state, local, tribal, tutorial. I mean, I think one of the questions is how are they listening? What about those states that are not necessarily wanting to participate in this? Are you finding that or aren't you finding it? And what is that particular challenge and how do you get around it? Is it sitting down with people? Is it, what's the conversation that goes on on that level? I think in some ways the best we can do there is to keep things in the law enforcement channels that exist because across this country, really every day US attorney's offices, FBI field offices are working with state, local law enforcement in very granular ways. And those we hope are professional relationships that endure trusting relationships, relationships in which information is shared appropriately of course in both directions and in which there's a collaborative spirit of disrupting criminality and violence. But in particular, we try to keep our law enforcement work as a federal government, but more broadly the country's law enforcement work is insulated from politics in particular as it can be. And so for us as a federal government, our goal is to offer resources, to offer training, to offer information such that it is wanted by, it is welcomed by, it is embraced by, it is used by our partners, our colleagues in state, local, territorial and tribal law enforcement. And that includes updating resources that we have heard in the past, they find useful. I'll give you again a concrete example of this and I think it's mentioned very briefly in the national strategy itself. We have had previous iterations of something called the, informally called the red book. It's the mobilization indicators booklet that draws on in past editions, previous individuals associated with international terrorism to derive quite accessible, quite ready to use indicators of potential mobilization to violence. This red book has been quite popular. The most recent edition, which I think went live on the office of director of national intelligence website this past January. Again, you can find it there. It includes for the first time, not just indicators derived from past experience with international terrorism, but also indicators derived from past experience with domestic terrorism. In part because we have enough of a body that we think the data can support it, in part because that's the demand. That's what our state and local partners need and want to see given the current threat environment. So ultimately, we hope that we, and this we goes far, far beyond the White House. It's the justice department, it's the FBI. It's the department of Homeland Security. It's others in law enforcement in the intelligence community supporting them. That they are generating the resources, the training, the products, the information, the intelligence that is responsive to the needs and demands of state and local partners and is useful to them. You know, you mentioned guns before and the headway that the administration has made. And yet, we don't have an assault, a ban on assault weapons or weapons that we can turn into more powerful weapons. And I'm really one of the things I'm interested in is, you know, it's like guns are a problem in this country. And the question is, is this really something that can be accomplished in terms of assault, you know, assault weapon bans or is it really something that you think is gonna stay on a different parts of the country will have different, you know, ways of dealing with this? What's your long-term, not just hope, but what is the reality of this suggest to you? And I say that because it seems just so much that if we got rid of guns and particularly certain guns or, you know, had background checks or just so much that we could do that would in and of itself for all of the wonderful programs and ideas and pushback that the national strategy identifies, including guns, that this one would really be a game changer or am I just wrong on that? Well, I mean, let me step back. First of all, we as an administration as an executive branch have tried to do that which I succeeded in doing, that which can be done within our powers alone. So we have, for example, taken action to address untraceable ghost guns. We have offered through law enforcement channels model red flag laws to state and local authorities. Other things that the Justice Department has the lead on, but that's one category, that which the executive branch can do on its own. And there's a second category, the category that requires congressional support. And again, we've taken that farther than occurred in many, many years with the recent legislation. And at the same time, you've heard the president say that he is committed to continuing to work to go further still. So how far can we go? I don't think we know that sitting here today, but I will say we've gone further legislatively than we might have thought had we been having this conversation one year ago. And so my hope is that if we're lucky enough, I'm lucky enough to get to have this conversation with you in a year's time, Karen, that we will have still pushed further because I can say this administration is committed to continuing to try and to working with Congress to see how far we can go. I have two questions. I'm gonna read and we have a ton of questions. I'm gonna give you two and then we'll wrap it up, okay? This is from Hazel Weiser with the ADL's analysis of the Oak Keepers. We have information that many law enforcement officers are aligned with this radical group. How serious is this infiltration of the right into law enforcement and even the military? And then for Mia Bloom, have you guys figured out yet how someone moves from violent ideas to violent actions? Since the majority of in-cells and QAnon are not violent and dangerous to anyone other than themselves, is it a question of degree? And I think both of those, I think you could address and then we'll wrap it up. Yeah, maybe I'll go backwards. So look, as Mia and other scholars who work on this would be the first to point out, radicalization to violence tends to be a very personal journey and personal can often mean individualized. That said, we need, as a government, as a society, frankly, our law enforcement to know what to look for to try to prevent that radicalization to violence occurring before it's too late. And so it's the sort of research which is drawn from past actors, whether they got to the point of violence, whether they were disrupted before, it's that sort of research that informs the red book I was talking about earlier, but putting aside the red book, it then informs the sort of threat briefings that occur truly on an ongoing basis across our federal government and with the sort of training that we do for state and local partners. We always want to update that. We always want to learn from the last one. Law enforcement always wants to know is there something that was missed when someone did get to the terrible point of violence? But we do think there are the sort of indicators and warnings that, as I say, are laid out by law enforcement and parts of the intelligence community in that red book that I mentioned earlier. And then as I think I've pointed to as well, we think it's critical that those who are given positions of trust, whether that's in law enforcement, whether that's in the military, whether that's in the intelligence community, all of these are positions of trust that they have access to weapons, to training, to knowledge, to things that the United States needs, the right people to have access to, but also can't be allowed to be exploited for nefarious acts. That also includes state and local and territorial and tribal law enforcement. Now we have different ways of relating, of course, to those who become part of federal law enforcement or the US military versus those who become part of state and local law enforcement. But where it's the federal government itself, different components have explained over the past year and a half how they've improved their own vetting screening, including recurring vetting and screening procedures, Department of Justice, as well as Department of Homeland Security, which has law enforcement components to it. And as the strategy points to, we have found ways where we think we can be a better partner to state and local law enforcement by informing them, assisting them as they improve the coordination of their own vetting and screening of their employees. None of this ever reaches an endpoint. It's not done. It's an ongoing process of trying to ensure that we're not giving access to the sort of sensitive materials and the sort of sensitive training that I mentioned before. But it's one that's critical, not just to protect those who serve alongside anyone who might exploit or pervert the sort of training or access they get, but to protect all of us. Joshua, every time I hear you talk, I learn something or I learn a lot of things. But it's not just that I learned something and I'm sure the audience shares that with me. It's that I feel better. I feel that we have some kind of handle and some kind of ability as a country to counter this violence that can potentially be so destructive. So good luck at the Unite. We stand summit in two days and thank you ever so much for sharing your time and your thoughts with us. Thank you, Karen. Grateful to get to have this conversation with you.


Jeff Patton here. Just to give a little bit of introduction about Jeff Patton, I'm sure most of you have heard about Jeff Patton. Saw him last night on stage. Jeff has been one of my gurus. He's been a very big influencer for me. In fact, the most embarrassing moment for me was in 2007, sharing a stage with him while receiving the PASC award. I keep haunting him for that. But Jeff is a wonderful guy, and I'm sure you'll enjoy his keynotes over to you, Jeff. Thank you. If you ever hear me say this, if you ever hear any consultant say this, first off, you know not to believe them. And the older I get, the longer I do this, the more I realize the sheer volume of what I don't know. This is a talk about, gosh, it's not squarely about agile. I'm not going to talk about agile. I'm not going to talk about scrum. I'm not going to talk about any of this stuff. I'm going to talk about software development and how, well, I'll start with how I've been fooling myself from the very beginning, from the very outset of my career in software development. I fool myself as a profession. And I want to talk about how I broke myself of the habit. And then over the past, especially over the past 10 years, how I'm seeing organizations start to break themselves of the habit. Look, we spend a lot of time fooling ourselves. We spend a lot of time pretending like we were successful. And for as much as we use expressions like fail fast, and part of the reason we're iterating is to learn, look, no one wants to fail, no one wants to be wrong, this is one of our biggest problems to fight or one of the biggest cultural issues I've got to fight. There's a video there that's worth looking up, especially if you've got kids. Make your kids watch it, watch it as a parent. But this Derek Sivers video, the why you need to fail. All right, let's tear in. I need to talk about me. And I want to rewind all the way back to, oh, would have been about early 90s. And my first job in software development. And I remember how being given the job, I wrote a piece of software for online aircraft parts ordering. This is for people who fix aircraft to be able to go online and place orders. And this is in the early 90s when they would have done this normally through call centers. And doing this online would have been kind of a big deal. And I remember building a piece of software I was really proud of. And well, I remember thinking the code was super good. And I wasn't going to have any trouble with that. And I remember telling this guy, this is my friend Bill, the now I've known for how long have I known Bill? This is the early 90s, 25 years, something like that. Bill was.