Father John Joe Duffy, we're here in Chrysler and there is simply no words, is there? There's absolutely no words, it's just a tragedy beyond belief, we're devastated, this has just happened in the heart of our community and just things are unfolding as of yet and we're not sure but the one thing I ask for is the prayers of the people of this county to help us as people continue to work there and to search for in the building because there's a lot of unknowns yet so I just ask the people of the country to take us to their hearts as I'm sure they will and pray with us through this terrible sadness, terrible tragedy and an accident beyond anything beyond our imagining. And it is hard to imagine, we already know that this is a tragic situation but just a short distance from us, the tragedy is ever unfolding for people and it's people that we know, it's our families, it's friends of our families, it's just truly devastating. It's absolutely devastating, there are no words to describe this sad reality that is unfolding before our eyes and we're all a family in this community, it's a family community, this is the shop in our community where we all meet and converse and I'm in there every day and it's just heart-breaking, that's all I can say and just ask the people of the county and the country to journey with us at this time, pray with us and support us and that's all I can ask for, that's what I ask for is your prayers to help us through this.


Folks, what's going on? Welcome to a new edition of the FanDuel Hurry Up. I'm your host, Arden Franklin. Join by my guy, Ryan Williams, as we're here to explore more of best ball. We got to take a look at a key skill position at tight end, but first I need to check it with my guy. Hey, I'm good, man, how you doing? We out here ready to rock on these tight ends, man. One of the ugliest quote unquote positions in fantasy football, usually. But with some of these guys, I feel like they could be the sleeper darlings that could help some people win their leagues, win their best ball tournaments. Let's get after it. Absolutely, you're not lying about that. Even though, again, a lot of love should be given to the tight ends, man. Just like on the field and in this, there's a security blanket to your team. But to kick this off, let's look at Mike Giusecchi, tight end for the Miami Dolphins. If that's the name that's been familiar to you, that's because, yes, he's been cooking up and doing what he's supposed to do. The man has been doing this thing over the last couple of years. He's become a 50-plus cash guy in over 500 yards, whether it was Fitzpatrick at quarterback or Tua. So, Ryan, what makes a Giusecchi such a viable option at best ball right now?  You talked about a Tua coming into the second year, dealing with some injuries, and we look at Mike Giusecchi, and he was tight in three from weeks 12 to 16 when Tua was the starter. You gotta love that.  He was, I believe, number third in contested catches with 19, you know, with his teammate, Devante Parker, being number one. So, I think that this Miami Dolphins offense is really going under the radar. And Mike Giusecchi is a guy that you can get, you know, pretty much later on in your drafts and really feel comfortable about it. And you love, just recently, Mike Giusecchi was having an interview, media interview, and he came to Tua's defense on people who are slandering his name. So, I mean, that's gonna equate to at least a couple more targets in 2021. I really like Mike Giusecchi this year. You're looking at Adam Shaheen and I believe Smythe being there to take away some targets, but he still had a 13.6 target share last year. That's only going to increase this year. Wills up for Mike Giusecchi, let's go. Absolutely, you're not lying about that. And if there's anything to it that's been noteworthy about Mike, it's the fact that, hey, he's becoming a touchdown maker as well, man. 11 CDs over the last two seasons.  That's a must. So, Mike, best of all, I'll take my chances too. Up next, we have Chicago Bears, Titan, Cole, Comet. The second year, Titan had a strong finish to his season last year despite the slow start and boy, dude, a Bears have high hopes for him. Ryan, what makes Cole very interesting to you? Yeah, man, here in Chicago, it's a Homer pick with Cole Comet, but I'm still excited about it. You hit it on the head, man. The second half of the season was key for Cole. You're looking at over five targets per game that he saw over the past seven, played 70% of the Bears snaps to close out the season. They were joking around with the Bears last year, calling it Titan U, just so many Titans that they couldn't do enough with. Well, now we're just looking at Jimmy Graham who's in the last year of that two year enormous contract. And then outside of that, it's J.P. Holtz and a whole bunch of other guys. I mean, Cole Comet is their guy. They invested a top pick in him in the 2020 draft. He was number 43 overall off of the board, coming from Notre Dame right in the backyard of Chicago. He was excited to be here. And we're looking at a team here. Outside of Alan Robinson and Darnell Mooney, they need another offensive weapon to step up. Love Cole Comet. And then we're looking at Justin Fields here for the long-term situation. I think for best ball, it's gonna be good. But also, if you're in dynasty leagues too, Justin Fields, six of his 22 touchdowns last year at Ohio State went to the tight end position. A lot was made about him targeting the tight end and that cleansing game as well. So we're really looking for Justin Fields to be the starter here for really the rocket ship emoji to go with Cole Comet. But I really think it's gonna be a big year for him. I absolutely agree, Ryan. And hey, man, shout out to Shotown, man. Hey, let's go. I like that pick even more. And I'm happy that you brought up the fact that Justin Fields, again, part of his touchdowns total was to the tight end. And I do think once again, when you're looking at the Bears, they do need that valuable third option in the passing game. So whether it's Andy Dalton or the good brother Justin Fields, Cole is gonna be ready to play. He's gonna get his targets. And there's something too about a tight end that I think with these, but the type of production where if I saw you get most of your playing time in the second half and you still give me nearly 30 catches and nearly 300 yards, I'm rolling with you. So Cole Comet, I'm gonna roll with you two on best ball and you should too. Lastly, we are going to the NFC West because even though this guy changed teams, he's still staying in the division with tight end Gerald Everett. That's right. I know some of you were used to being a Los Angeles Ram, but now he's playing with Russell Wilson and crew in Seattle as he is the newest Seattle Seahawk. Gerald's one of those guys that again at the tight end position, pretty solid production. He's gonna give it to you. And his role makes spanned in Seattle. So Ryan, what makes Gerald once again a very viable option in best ball? Yeah. And before everybody comes after me on Gerald Everett here, you know, let's just let the numbers speak for themselves or not even the numbers. Let's just let the situation speak for itself. And we're talking about Seattle who hired a new offensive coordinator in Shane Waldron. Oh, where did he come from? He comes from the LA Rams, where Gerald Everett was, where he was his tight end coach in 2017 when Gerald Everett was a rookie. They brought this guy in for a reason. Pete Carroll's already calling Gerald Everett the wide receiver three on this team. If that even, if you can even believe that because Pete Carroll coach speak, we can't always believe what he says, but hey, it's early on in the season. I think they do mean that. Gerald Everett's already talking about working out with Russell Wilson. I think this is gonna be a great fit for them. You're looking at another team that has a ton of tight ends to go along with it. Will Disley, Jacob Hollister, Greg Olson. Okay, I mean, yes, those are names that Russell Wilson has been using, but if we can get some of that equity, I believe Olson and Hollister both saw nine red zone targets. We're looking at how Shane Waldron used the tight ends in the red zone. Tyler Higbee in 2019, he had 19 targets, yeah. In the red zone in 2019, that was tied for number one overall. Gerald Everett in 2018, he had 11 red zone targets, which was good for top 12 at the tight end position. So we're really liking what Gerald Everett's upside could be in this offense. And when you're thinking about Best Barred, it's not going to take a lot to invest in him. You can get him in the 18th round of your best ball if you really wanted to. People are sleeping on this. So I really do like what his upside could be back to back seasons where he's had 60 plus targets. And if we can really get the touchdown equity to up for Gerald Everett, I think we're going to see a guy who's going to pay off his price tag on where he's going tremendously. Absolutely. Familiar coaching, improved offense, and he has the skill set too to really thrive in Seattle. So again, if Coach Carroll is being truthful here, yeah, I think Gerald should be wide receiver number three, man. Let that man go. It's just scary to think about him underneath. Metcalf taking the top off the defense. His lock is still being in the building. Wow, it's going to be crazy to see. So I too would definitely invest in Gerald Everett. Folks, that is that. Thank you once again for watching a new edition of the Fan Do, Hurry Up. Ryan, thank you once again for your input and insight as always. This is Arden Franklin signing off. I'll let you go.


Hi there, this is Juan Zarate, Senior Advisor at CSIS. We were just fortunate to host Mike Leiter, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center for discussion here this morning. Michael discussed the changing nature of the threat from al-Qaeda, focusing very clearly on the complex nature of the threat, noting that this is the most intense period of threat since 9-11 that the United States has faced from al-Qaeda, noting as well that we need to illustrate the futility of terrorism through quiet resilience if an attack actually does happen, and noting as well that though we are lucky at times in avoiding terrorist attacks, we do make our own luck and that the systems in place to not only defend against terrorism but to attack terrorists actually prevent terrorists from being successful. Following is the full video of Mike Leiter's presentation to CSIS. You can also watch a highlight package on csis.org or on iTunes U. Enjoy. Welcome everybody to CSIS. On behalf of Dr. Hammery, Andrew Schwartz, Arno de Borskraw, Ozzie Nelson, and others here at CSIS, I welcome you. Thank you for attending on such a soggy day out in Washington. My name is Juan Zarate, I'm a Senior Advisor here at CSIS. It's an honor and a pleasure to be before you today, especially to welcome Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. I think all of you know this is an important and very good moment to have Director Leiter with us in the wake of the Portland arrest and the string of disrupted and failed attacks in the homeland, threats to Europe from al-Qaeda core residing in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan, growing threats from al-Qaeda's affiliates in places like Yemen and North Africa, and the growing concern over homegrown terrorism and the role of the internet in radicalization. It's a good moment to hear from Director Leiter. Director Leiter and I have go way back. We worked together during the Bush administration, considered him to be a very close friend, but for those of you who don't know this man, let me give you a quick introduction because he's a remarkable public servant. Mike was sworn in as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center in June 2008. He had been Acting Director since November of 2007, and before that the Principal Deputy at NCTC. For those of you not aware, the National Counterterrorism Center was created in 2004 to serve as the analytic hub for terrorism intelligence for the U.S. government, as well as the principal center for strategic operational planning for counterterrorism activities. Before this, Mike served as the first Deputy Chief of Staff for the first Director of National Intelligence. He was the Deputy General Counsel for the WMD Commission, the Rob Silverman Commission. Before that as well he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, a Navy fighter pilot, and a Supreme Court law clerk. He does not leap tall buildings in a single bound but pretty close. He has been described by some, and I would say those who really don't know what his day-to-day job is really about as the Jack Bauer of the U.S. government. I know Mike. I know his job. He's not Jack Bauer, but he's probably the closest thing we have in Washington in a suit to Jack Bauer, so I will give Mike that. We worked closely together when I was at the White House, and again I consider myself to be a close friend of Mike's. In full and proud disclosure, I currently sit on Mike's board of advisors at the National Counterterrorism Center. I'm proud to do that. The order of business here will be that we'll hear from Director Leiter for about 25 minutes. I ask that you turn off your cell phones or at least put them on vibrate. We'll then move to questions and answers. I will moderate that. I will call on individuals. We will have microphones available. I ask that you first identify yourself and, secondly, ask a question as opposed to a longer comment or pontification that we sometimes hear. But with that and without further ado, let me present Director Michael Leiter. Well, thank you very much, Juan, and thank you to CSIS for hosting me today. I do want to note, after such a kind introduction by Juan, I would be remiss if I didn't note Juan Zerati throughout the Bush administration served this country with amazing grace and skill and energy. I think I'm still trying to catch up on the emails he sent me at about 2 a.m., and those go back two or three years now, so Juan really is a gem and someone who continues to guide the NCTC as he noted as a member of my board. Today what I'd like to talk about is really in three areas, and I will do my very best to keep us to 25 minutes. First, I do at least want to briefly give you a sense of how I see the changing nature of the threat. Now, I know for some of you, you've heard some compilations of that before, but I think the threat is moving rapidly enough that we can't do this quite often enough. Second, I'd like to give you a sense of where I think we are and our effectiveness against that multifaceted terror threat, and also an important point where I think we should aim to be, which is a point which I think we speak about a little less often. And finally, I'd like to speak at the end about how I believe we can make greatest progress on the ideological front. Much of what we read about in the news today is about stopping an individual plot, putting up defensive measures. But I do want to spend some time at the end of this talk today before questions discussing how on the ideological front, as Al Qaeda transforms from a hierarchical organization to a movement, how I believe we can best advance our national interests. So to begin with the changing face and frankly the increasing complexity of the terror threat that we face today, I'll break that down into three semi-distinct faces. First, Al Qaeda is an organization and that really runs from about 1998 or so until roughly 2006. Second, the rise of Al Qaeda affiliates, 2006 to 2009. And then what I would describe as our current phase, self-sustaining affiliates and more of a movement of Al Qaeda, 2009 to the present. I won't spend extensive time, but let me briefly describe each of those. I think the first is largely self-explanatory. 1998 to 2006, the core of Al Qaeda was in fact a hierarchical organization, Afghanistan and other locations and ultimately today and largely in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. A hierarchical organization that was aimed at launching complex attacks, be it the simultaneous attacks against two embassies in Africa, the coal attack or obviously 9-11. And then culminating in an attack that was effectively disrupted by the U.S. and our allies. In 2006, the plot to attack up to 10 airliners flying across the Atlantic, which if successful might have been as deadly as 9-11, a hierarchy, complicated organization, complicated and very catastrophic attacks. In 2006, we start to see a change and again, I admit that these dates are somewhat arbitrary. The sections or the phases clearly mix with one another. But in 2006 and slightly before in some areas, we start to see the immersion of more complex and more important regional affiliates for Al Qaeda. All in my view spawn in part by Al Qaeda's call to a global jihad, but equally important spawned by local circumstances, whether those circumstances were Iraq, in the case of Al Qaeda and Iraq or East Africa or Yemen. And with those, the rise of those affiliates came an additional threat, but in most cases a very different threat from that complex hierarchical structure that we saw with Al Qaeda senior leadership. In 2009, I think we have entered a third phase. And in that, these affiliates have no longer simply relied upon their linkages to Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan, but they have in fact emerged more as self-sustaining independent movements and organizations. Now they still have important tentacles back to Al Qaeda senior leadership. I don't want to downplay that, but in many ways, especially in the case of Al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula, operate with a greater level of independence. And frankly, they operate at a different pace and with a different level of complexity than does Al Qaeda senior leadership, and that has complicated our task significantly. And I want to also highlight in this last phase what I view as an emerging, I hope not trend, but this point over the past year, an emerging challenge of a growth in homegrown radicalization here within the United States. Now let me just highlight a few things about these phases that I think are very important. I've described three phases, but with the emergence of each of these phases, the board was not erased. This was not a white board where one group was written up and we erased it and put up the new phase. Instead, each of these phases was in fact, additive of the other. None of the successive phases has eliminated the prior threat. And although the pieces are connected, as I've said, they are in many ways less reliant on one another than they once were. So while I respect my friend, Juan Zarate tremendously, he is often referred to this as the hydra that you can cut off heads, but you really have to go for the body. What I would suggest is at least to some extent, there is less of a body here to go after, and it is simply a multitude of heads, which again, although related, are not reliant on one another. So I'll close with saying we do not, again, have the luxury in the counterterrorism community of focusing on simply one of these threats. It is now a multitude of threats that we face. And again, they pose very different threats. And I think understanding those different threats are important in crafting our policy responses. As I said, Al-Qaeda core, a level of complexity, and potentially catastrophic events, which I think certainly modify my work and make me focus on that every day. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a lower level of complexity, a desire to launch more attacks more often, I believe, than Al-Qaeda senior leadership, which can certainly have catastrophic effects. If Umar Farouk, Abnaul Batalab had successfully exploded his bomb over Detroit, more than 200 people could have been killed, but then lower scale attacks, like their planned attack against two cargo planes. And on the homeland front, again, a diversity of threats, which in most cases do not pose the same catastrophic results, but certainly can have an enormous effect on the United States, in particular events like the shooting at Fort Hood last year. And of course, as Juan also noted, the recent attack in or the recent arrests in Portland, in which an attack was effectively disrupted through excellent work by the FBI and the intelligence community. So in light of this threat, as we see it today, and the way in which it has combined over the past several years, let me move now to my second point. Where are we in being able to combat this? And frankly, where should we as a counterterrorism community aim to be? And where do I think that our political leaders and the American people have a right to demand that we are in fighting this threat? First, regardless of the challenges we face, it is impossible for me, and I'm obviously biased, but it's impossible for me to give a speech here at CSIS and not note how much better off we are today as a nation and with our partner nations than we were in 2001. Our ability to share information, our ability to engage in offensive operations in a variety of places around the world, and to engage in the equivalent of offensive operations here in the United States in terms of actively disrupting attacks before they occur through the FBI, our defensive measures, whether it's screening or other efforts, and our ability to work with partners globally and having grown that partner capacity over the past nine years is really, really significantly better than it was in 2001. That is an important point that despite the challenges we face, we have made significant improvements. And the result of that is, in my view, that the threat of that most severe, most complicated attack is significantly lower today than it was in 2001. I have to stress that threat is not gone. Some of the warning that the U.S. government provided to our European allies earlier this fall about al-Qaeda threats to Europe, highly, that the complex hierarchical al-Qaeda senior leadership threat remains. Clearly, the cargo plots forced by AQAP remain. But the likelihood of their success has, in my view, been significantly diminished, although not eliminated. Another point I would make, which I think is one that, frankly, has not been discussed public all that much recently, and it is because we have had significant success, I believe that the likelihood of an advanced CBRN attack emanating from al-Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan has also been greatly diminished. I see Ambassador Ken Brill, the former director of the NCPC here in the audience, and far be it for me, I would certainly not want to suggest that there is not a CBRN threat out there today. That threat remains. But the likelihood of a complex CBRN attack emanating from Pakistan perpetrated by terrorists, in my view, has been significantly diminished. And it has been significantly diminished because of the work of the United States counterterrorism community and our partner nations. But although I can tell you that, certainly at NCTC and I'll speak for the entire counterterrorism community, we aim for perfection. Perfection will not be achieved. Just like any other endeavor, we will not stop all the attacks. Now, I want to be very, very clear in this because some comments in this vein have previously brought the ire of some. To say that we will not successfully defend against all attacks is certainly not to say that we are not trying to stop all attacks. We are. It is certainly not to say that any attack is OK. If there is an attack, it may well be tragic. Innocent lies will be lost. I have dedicated my time at NCTC and our organization dedicates our time to trying to prevent that. But we still have to be honest, and we have to be honest, that some things will get through. And in this era of this more complicated threat, a more diverse threat, and lower-scale attacks to include individuals who have been radicalized here in the homeland, stopping all the attacks has become that much harder. I also want to point out that this is very much a bipartisan sentiment that I am expressing. I was, as Juan noted, nominated for my position by President Bush. I've been honored to stay on by President Obama. This is not a new position. And I'd like to quote a White House document that Juan was involved with, the US National Strategy for Homeland Security published in 2007. Despite our best deterrent and mitigation efforts, terrorist attacks will happen. And we must work to minimize the consequences of their occurrence. And I believe that this sentiment, that we must work to stop all, but we will not be 100% successful, should be a bipartisan message. Now, what I would like to speak to now, though, is what that means in terms of our reaction if an event does occur. And again, I've been probably overstressing this point. I, at least as much as everyone in this room, if not more, am trying to avoid that case. But if an attack does occur, what should we do? Well, I'll offer at least four things in my view we should do. And we should do as apolitically as possible. First, first and foremost, we should look at the system. We should look critically at ourselves, at our organizations, at oversight, at all of those pieces, and try to improve it. It is certainly possible that if an attack occurs and we didn't stop it, something went wrong. And we should try to improve the system, as I think we did after 1225 and other events. Second, in words and deeds, we have to show our commitment to holding the terrorists who are responsible for this accountable. We must, and this may be a statement of the obvious, but we must be very clear that individuals and organizations that perpetrate terrorist attacks against the US, our allies, and our interests will be held accountable. Third, we have to illustrate ultimately the futility of terrorism through quiet, confident resilience. We help define the success of an attack by our reaction to that attack. And one of the ways that we illustrate to terrorists that their methods are fruitless and that their goals will not be achieved through terrorism is to respond with resilience. To respond with the resilience that we will move on. We will address the causes of the attack. We will hold those accountable. We will be ready to respond to those attacks. But ultimately, we as a nation, as I think we have proved ourselves time and time again, will be resilient. And fourth, we must, in my view, assuming that the next attack is in the vein of Al Qaeda's ideology, we have to continue to illustrate our commitment to positive, affirmative, tangible engagement with the US Muslim community and the Muslim community throughout the world. We have to show over and over why we have a positive agenda which will advance the interests of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Now, let me give you four things that I hope we don't assume should an attack be successful. And this first one is a bit of a life insurance policy for me, but I'll say it anyway. We should not assume that everything is broken. It may turn out that everything is broken. But indeed, I think we need responsible oversight, reform before the fact to make sure that we have agreement about the fact that we are doing the right things to reduce the likelihood of an attack. And should an attack occur, as I've already said, we should look critically at the system. We should try to improve it. But we should not, and in my view, cannot assume that everything we have done so far is broken and doesn't work. Second, we should not assume that the terrorists are 10 feet tall. It turns out that an open society with millions and millions of people crossing our borders every day with the tools of a terrorist being readily available in many ways, whether or not it's firearms or precursors for explosive devices, we shouldn't assume that they're 10 feet tall. We have to be taller than them. We have to be more resilient than them. The fact that they get through at times in a relatively free and open society does not mean that they are all powerful. Third, we should not assume that the terrorist threat is existential. Again, I want to stress the loss of a single life to a terrorist is a tragedy. I walk into my office each day looking at the remains of the World Trade Center, a flag from the site in New York, pieces of the Pentagon. I do not want to downplay in any way, shape, or form the tragic loss of any individual who's lost to terrorism. But that does not mean as tragic as those losses can be that the threat to terrorism is existential. There are pieces of the terrorist threat, which I believe do have such repercussions that we must do absolutely everything we can to stop them, in particular, terrorist access to weapons of mass destruction. But not all terrorist events pose an existential threat. And we have to remember that after an event. And finally, I won't dwell on this because I'd like to keep my job. We should not assume that either party has all the answers to stopping terrorist attacks. In my view, again, having served in a Republican administration, now serving in a Democratic administration, both parties, the leaders of both parties, the members of both parties, have good ideas. And we should not assume that one party or the other knows exactly what should be done. Now, in my relatively closing, I want to comment on something that has become a more common refrain among some commentators. And that is that the reason we've stopped these attacks is that we've been lucky. Now, frankly, there's some truth to that. Turns out that sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. But I'll note Tom Friedman wrote in November. In fact, in the past year, we've won the lottery five times in a row. Well, I respect Tom Friedman very much, but I respect Tom Jefferson even more. Thomas Jefferson, that would be. And he wrote, I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. And the point I'm trying to get across is, of course, luck does play a part in some of these things. But in many cases, and this is what many in the public do not see, the counterterrorism community helps make its own luck. Now, again, I want to copy out all of this with the fact we haven't always performed in the counterterrorism community as well as we would have liked or as well as we should. That was certainly the case on 1225. But the system has helped us make our own luck in a way that we have, again, reduced the likelihood of some attacks being successful. No single tool, intelligence, law enforcement, defensive measures, offensive measures, will stop all the attacks. But as a whole, they create a system that reduces the likelihood of terrorist success. And that is the luck that we are helping to make. The case of Umar Farouk, again, we didn't do as well as we should. Did the work behind the scenes reduce the likelihood that his bomb would be effective, that he would be well-trained? In my view, absolutely. Faisal Shassad, the Times Square bomber. We did not find him before the fact, but were pieces of that counterterrorism puzzle in place that reduced the likelihood that his bomb would work in Times Square and kill innocent people? Absolutely. So again, we know that we will not catch all the people before they do very bad things. But do we have the right pieces in place that we reduce the likelihood that they will be successful? That is how we help make our own luck. And again, in the closing five minutes, I think I'm on time for once. In the closing five minutes, since I've been talking a lot about stopping specific attacks and, to some extent, how I hope we, as a people and as a government, can respond to attacks, I want to talk a little bit about the longer term effort that we also have to engage in. And that, of course, is the ideological effort to undermine that third phase of this threat, which is that movement. And in my view, it's really clear what we have to do. And that is, again, as I mentioned, we have to highlight the futility of the terrorist effort, and we have to show our positive agenda. And we have to show that positive agenda with clear, tangible steps. Now, how can we actually do that? It's easy to say, how do we highlight the futility of al-Qaeda and highlight our strengths? Well, first, and I admit that this is an excessively odd point to make as I give a public speech about counterterrorism, sometimes we ought to just talk about this a lot less. We shouldn't always be vocal, in my view, and visible about all the things we are doing in our society about counterterrorism. Why? Because to some extent, talking about it constantly, being vocal about counterterrorism, delivers to al-Qaeda some of the profile that they would like. So I would ask you to understand, and many of you may after this speech, why I don't give a lot of speeches. Because in my view, it is not always best for us to hammer the counterterrorism drum over and over again.  Now, second, I believe we have to continue to disaggregate this threat. Now, I didn't make a lot of distinctions between organizations, but I did highlight earlier in this talk how, although there is a common thread through all of these groups, and that is clearly al-Qaeda's ideology and bin Laden is an individual, much of the motivation for these regional groups that we now face is still grounded in local issues, local agendas, local problems. To the extent that we, in our messaging, can disaggregate that whole, we will effectively undermine that global agenda. To the extent we look at it as a one-size-fits-all problem, in my view, we are feeding the idea of a global jihad, which we should not do. Third, we have to look to empower local organizations, local governments, local non-government organizations who have true credibility in working with their Muslim communities. The U.S. government can only do so much of this. We must find those grassroots organizations and the local governments that have credibility where we may not, and that is true both domestically and overseas. And finally, I believe that we have to do all we can to move away from the rhetoric of a clash of civilizations. Rather, because I think that rhetoric can feed into al-Qaeda's rhetoric, that they are defending the Muslim ummah against the West. Rather, I think we have to move towards very grounded themes, concrete illustrations of why the U.S. government and democratic ideals will advance their interests and how al-Qaeda's will not. And I think it's easy to show the futility of al-Qaeda's message. Al-Qaeda and its organizations have never have and will not have a positive agenda. I've said it before, but it's worth noting the overwhelming majority of victims of al-Qaeda's violence globally continue to be Muslims. Al-Qaeda is not fighting the West. Al-Qaeda is in fact fighting and killing Muslims. Look at the bombings of the embassies in Kenyan, Tanzania, the recent killings in Uganda, the innocent victims in Iraq, the bombing of the wedding in Jordan, the thousands of innocent victims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no positive agenda there. There is death. And when you compare that, frankly, with what I believe is a positive U.S. agenda, I think stated most eloquently by President Obama and his Cairo and Istanbul speeches, but then drilled down into what I think need to be tangible programs that need to be expanded and increased and accelerated. Economic development, scientific development, polio eradication, whatever it might be, that is a positive agenda. And it is not about a clash of civilizations, it is about helping people and countries where they align themselves with positive steps to make their people's lives better. And if you look at U.S. assistance, whether it was Bosnia or the earthquake in Pakistan or more recently the flooding in Pakistan, the tsunami in Indonesia, what you have are clear, concrete steps that the U.S. government has taken and will continue to take to show this positive and clear message. So it is actually 25 minutes. I appreciate your time today. I appreciate the opportunity to try to give you a sense of where I think we are, where I think we're doing well, where I think we should be doing better and most importantly, where I hope we will be should a tragedy occur and we don't stop the next attack. But I can tell you that I and every member of the U.S. counterterrorism community remains as committed to the goal of perfection as people were on September 12th, 2001. And it is a fight that we believe in and it is a fight that will absolutely continue as strongly as we possibly can. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mike. You gave us a lot to think about. We are very fortunate and honored to have a distinguished audience. Judge Webster, see that you're here, Director McLaughlin and others. So I wanna open it up directly to questions. If you have a question, please raise your hand and a microphone will quickly appear and ask that again, you stand up, identify yourself and ask a question. Why don't we start with that gentleman there in the back? Thank you. Good morning, Mike. Hi, Gary. Gary Thomas from VOA News. I'm just wondering if you could expound a bit on the question of the homegrown terrorist threat. How much of this is ideologically driven internally and how much of it is being fed by direction from overseas? Is there a way to quantify that at all? Unfortunately, Gary, I don't think there is a perfect way to quantify that. I think like most social phenomena, the issue of radicalization, there are an enormous number of drivers to that radicalization and not just the radicalization which really involves a change in one's ideas and worldview, but in my view, the more problematic step of mobilization and actually then taking those radical ideas and seeking to play them out violently. I will tell you that I think wherever you are, whether it's domestically in the United States or overseas, the factors that drive that radicalization, again, are a mix, but are also localized. So the message which is speaking to a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of Americans here in the United States that either pulls them to fight overseas or to plan here, that message is uniquely American. And organizations like Al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula are trying through magazines like Inspire that you've covered, are trying to speak to that uniquely American experience. I think that our response to that has to be both global in the sense of undermining the baseline ideology that is the foundation for that, but then very much localized to the local drivers of that radicalization. The fact is, to the extent that we've seen radicalization in the United States, it's been quite varied in the communities it is affected. Everyone knows about Jihad Jane to individuals of Samawi descent like the rest in Portland. We have to examine each of those communities and help those communities combat that radicalization in not just a uniquely American way, but a uniquely localized way for that community and that population. Let's go with this gentleman here. Hi, Director Leder Kendallanian from the LA Times. Do you agree with Director Clapper that WikiLeaks is going to chill information sharing? And does it suggest that information sharing has gone too far? Then let me kind of just ask a totally separate question, which is a question that Senator McCain asked you at a hearing recently. If the US captures a terrorist somewhere outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan, what do we do with them and how are they interrogated? I'll start with first. I absolutely agree with Jim Clapper, not just because he's one of my bosses. I agree with him that it has certainly driven individuals in the intelligence community and beyond the intelligence community to at least re-examine information sharing and ensure that we are still getting the right information to the right people, but we're not getting excess information to the people who really don't need it. I also, I think, would be remiss if I couldn't agree more with the statements by Secretary of State Clinton and the Attorney General and the White House, condemning in the strongest possible terms the disclosure of classified information this way. It will undoubtedly endanger lives, undermine US national security, and make it more difficult to have the candid conversations that we must have with our allies. I think actually within the counter-terrorism community, we are in a relatively healthy place on information sharing. In fact, I think in many ways the counter-terrorism community is ahead of where some of the other elements of the US intelligence community are, because forced by the circumstances of 9-11, we examined those priorities and how we would protect that sensitive data a little bit earlier on. So I think we certainly will reevaluate where the information is going. You, of course, run the risk of a chilling and that information wouldn't be shared in a way that would undermine our ability to disrupt attacks. But I am actually relatively comfortable with the way in which information is being shared and adequately protected within the counter-terrorism community today. I think we have standards and processes to segment how information is moved, who sees that, and in part that is the NCTC's role, that although we see all the information, we don't send all that information right back out. And one of the reasons that we don't share all that information right back out is because of the counter-intelligence risks that that would pose. With respect to your second question, I'll be more brief. I think the US government continues to have a variety of tools that it can use and a variety of paths it can take when terrorists are captured overseas. I think that we certainly have the ability, as Judge Webster knows so well, those individuals, as they have for decades, can be brought to the United States for prosecution. Individuals can also, consistent with the AUMF and other legal restrictions, can also be held, detained, questioned through a variety of means. Let's go with this young lady up in front. Catherine Harridge Fox News. I'd just like you to clarify a comment you made earlier. You suggested, at least, or implied that al-Qaeda senior leadership, bin Laden, was behind the heightened threat picture in Europe. I just want to make sure that that's the point that you wish to make there. And the second is, what role did the American cleric play in the cargo bomb plot earlier this year? I'm not sure I said bin Laden. I will say that the threat and the warning to Europe was related to what we assessed to be al-Qaeda plotting coming out of Pakistan. So that's about where I would leave it. With respect to Anwar Alaki and the cargo plot, I want to be a little bit careful, as I'm sure it doesn't surprise you, Catherine, giving lots of ongoing intelligence operations and investigations. I think I'm gonna leave it at, as I've said publicly before, Anwar Alaki is well beyond simply an ideologue. Anwar Alaki has been engaged in operational planning for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the past, and we certainly believe that the cargo plot emanated from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as well. And his exact involvement, I'll leave for another day. Let's go to this gentleman right here. Yes, my name is Greg Afthandili, and I'm an independent consultant. The bipartisan policy center came out with a report in September, and one of their criticisms was that there was no one US government agency that deals with counter-radicalization. And I was wondering if you can comment on that. Is that a fair criticism, or if there is a government agency or several, how are they dealing with the issue of counter-radicalization? Thank you. I'd be happy to address it. I've had this conversation with Congressman Hamilton and Governor Cain, who, again, I thank them for all their work on this. I think their continued effort to soberly look at the threat and our response is extremely valuable to the US government and the American people. What I would say on the counter-radicalization point, I think they are correct in their factual observation that no single organization is responsible for counter-radicalization within the US government. What I would disagree with is their conclusion, that there should be. In my view, there is a single point for the strategy behind counter-radicalization, that is the White House. There is a single point for the interagency coordination of that strategy, that is the National Counterterrorism Center, not my intelligence hat, but in my strategic operational planning hat. There is not, nor should there be, a single organization within the US government that is responsible for implementing that counter-radicalization program. And the reason is quite simple. No organization within the US government has all of the tools necessary to effectively counter-radicalization. The FBI has a critical role in countering radicalization through its engagement with communities. The Department of Homeland Security has an equally critical role in working with citizenship and immigration services, their civil liberties office. The Department of Justice writ large has a critical role in counter-radicalization through its enforcement of US civil rights laws. And I could go on and on to organizations like the Department of Education that deal with school children and anti-violence agendas, curricula within the schools, health and human services for the engagement that they do. What we know from other countries' experience and our own experience is that not only can no single element within the federal government employ all of the tools you need to effectively counter-radicalization, the federal government cannot utilize or cannot employ all the pieces that need to be employed. Again, we have to rely on state and local governments and non-governmental entities to engage in this effort of counter-radicalization. So I think there is a single place for strategy, there is a single place for coordination, there is not nor should there be a single organization responsible for implementation of each of those pieces. Let's go up here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Pierre Thomas from ABC News. Two very quick questions. Could you talk about the pace in the last 13 months with the disparate attacks, attempted attacks on the United States and also how helpful it is for al-Qaeda to have Americans like Al-Aqi and Samir Khan as a part of their organization, how that affects their strategy, please. The pace has been relentless, Pierre. The pace since 2001 has been extremely heavy already. So this is not, the counter-terrorism community is not one and I haven't been involved since 2001 but I have plenty of friends who have been. The pace has been relatively frenetic since 2001 and I can tell you that the past 13 months have been as intense if not more intense because of the variety of threats than any time since 2001. With respect to the importance of having Americans within these organizations, in part it depends on the individual. I think there are some Americans who are involved in these organizations that frankly have not effectively used their American-ness to speak to other Americans and Westerners. I think in the case of Anwar Al-Aqi and some other individuals, especially in AQAP, they have been important to speaking with a voice that could potentially resonate with, again, a small percentage but an important percentage within the West. And our job, again, is not only to make sure that those individuals can't join up in the first place but to bring them to justice at their engaged and terrorist activity and ultimately show why their message is simply false and that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, that the U.S. embraces Muslims like it embraces people of all faiths and no faith at all. Let's go right here to this gentleman. Rob Quartel with Intellex. I'm thinking specifically in terms of the homegrown threat. Most of what we've seen so far are fairly conventional tactical kinds of things, bombs and stuff like that. Are you seeing any evolution in this into something more complex, such as attacks on food and water, things like that? I think the interest has been there since 9-11 from both outside the United States and slightly more recently within the United States. So the interest remains. The ability to actually perpetrate those attacks in many cases remains limited. Now, just like it's difficult, very difficult to stop, or let me rephrase that, just like it is impossible to stop all small-scale attacks, frankly it is likely impossible for us to stop even the smallest-scale CBRN attack. So we had CBRN attacks in the form of poisoning Tylenol, perhaps under your tenure, Judge Webster. It's a CBRN attack. So there are going to be low-scale efforts which could be perpetrated. We have to, again, try to stop them. We have to certainly address the lower likelihood by higher consequence, more complex attacks. We have to reduce the availability of expertise and materials that would enable some of these attacks. But right now, I think the homeland threat remains relatively conventional. But the fact is conventional can still work. The tragedy of Fort Hood is quite clear and certainly not lost on me. The loss of life there was through a very conventional attack. Had a searing, searing effect, I think, certainly on those families who lost loved ones, on the U.S. military, on Americans writ large. So those small-scale attacks as difficult as they are to stop can still be quite painful, are quite painful, although I would go back to one of my earlier points. Still are not existential. Let's go with this lady up front. You're calling on all the press, Juan. They know how to raise their hands more effectively. Jean Mazur from CNN, two-parter. One, Julian Assange, has he violated the Espionage Act? And secondly, you've talked about the need to cultivate better relationships with Muslim communities. But have the number of undercover operations conducted by the FBI, including this week's operation in Portland, does that run the risk of undermining good relations with the community at a time when they're critical? On the first, I really am going to defer completely to the Department of Justice because although I once was a lawyer, I don't play one anymore and I do not understand the complexities of the Act, so I have to leave that to both the FBI and the Department of Justice to make that judgment. With respect to the second, it's I think a very fair question, Jean. Certainly, if done the wrong way, such undercover operations can threaten the relations between a particular community and federal law enforcement. And I don't think it's a secret that often those communities that are in which the FBI is operating, you can have difficult relationships with the community that you do very much need. So I think that those operations, though, are A, absolutely vital and critical to trying to prevent attacks. The fact is, as the Attorney General spoke last week, the individual in question here, obviously I can't comment extensively because there's a pending trial, but in our view, posed a real threat. And I think the FBI did an outstanding job disrupting that threat. Now, the question, though, is what the FBI does, and I think they do quite a good job, both before and after such operations of engaging with the rest of the community, explaining to the community that they are not targeting them as a community, they are targeting actors within that community that are pursuing violent means. And those are two very different things. And going back to the prior gentleman's question, it's exactly why you need multiple actors involved in countering radicalization. Because as much as the FBI does, as well as it does it both before and after such operations, last I checked, their agents carry badges and guns. And certain individuals in certain communities are not going to react particularly well to engagement with someone carrying a badge and a gun. And that is why we need other organizations that don't carry badges and guns. The Department of Education, Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security to work with those communities to show that there's not an adversarial relationship between the US government and their communities. In fact, it is quite a cooperative one, whereby the US government can help those communities reduce the likelihood that their children will become victims of al-Qaeda. Because when that suicide bomber blows himself up in Somalia or potentially in Portland, they are a victim of al-Qaeda as well. And we have to help those communities avoid their children being victimized in this way. Honey, up here in front. Thank you, honey, Findakli. It's a sort of a bigger picture question. To what extent are these three stages that you have described about the evolution of terror, a natural evolution, a random evolution or a response to actions that we have, sort of a Newton's Law motion. And to the extent that the threat has become much more diffused through these different stages, to what extent can we anticipate some of these things so it can be proactive instead of responsive? An excellent question. I think it is a combination of a natural evolution and clearly the effects of US counter-terrorism efforts. Certainly the reduction of the sophisticated threat out of Pakistan is in large part due to the efforts of the United States and our allies. And as that occurs, there was less, at least a bit of a leadership vacuum which allows these regional organizations to play a larger role. Now, of course, the extent to which those regional organizations can become stronger and have a transnational reach is again going to be dependent on the work of the US government and our allies in combating those. So I think that Al-Qaeda's success in 9-11 was clearly helpful to them in launching more of a movement. Let's remember, Bin Laden is issuing Fatwas against the West in 96, 98, and frankly they fall on pretty deaf ears. You have the tragic success in our view, success in their view of 9-11, that becomes a huge amplifier of that message which then resonates with some and you end up with a natural evolution towards a movement. Now, the extent to which that movement can take hold will be affected, it can either be accelerated or diminished by US actions. I think if you look at global polling numbers, as a general matter, Al-Qaeda's message is resonating less today than it was on 9-11. There are certainly some problem spots there, but if you look at a series of nations with a majority Muslim populations, Bin Laden personally, Al-Qaeda's terrorist tradecraft, all of that is becoming less popular in most places in the world. So I think we are doing things that are effectively undermining that message. I think as it moves to a dispersed movement, as we face a homegrown threat, we have to shift our tactics. Can we stay ahead of that? I think we can, and I think, in fact, that we have frankly so few people in the United States who have adopted this ideology and are moving forward is in part a testament to effective counterterrorism work. Now, I don't want that to be misread to mean that I don't think we have a problem here or that we never thought we had a problem here. That's simply not the case. We have known the potential for a problem and we have to do what we can to reduce the likelihood of that problem growing. Probably have time for two more questions. Let's go with this enthusiastic gentleman up front. And then one more after that. That's okay, Mike. I'm fine. Thank you. Adam Goldman, the Associated Press. I was hoping you might address another part of the, or slice of the AQ picture. As you know, after 9-11, a core group of senior AQ guys went to Iran. Abu Haafs, Saif Al-Ato, Suleiman Abu Ghaith.  In particular, Saif Al-Ato. I guess many people in the Intel community would think this would be a morale boost to AQ and a game changer and also a violation of the UN resolution. And I'm wondering, you know, if you might provide some clarity today, is Saif Al-Ato, the former military commander of AQ back in Pakistan, did Iran let these people go? Thank you. You will be shocked to know that I won't comment on sensitive intelligence here today. But what I will say is I'll hark back to what you cited, which is a UN resolution requiring member states to proactively incarcerate and hold Al-Qaeda associates. And I think that that resolution remains as important today as it was in 9-11. And frankly, in some ways, more important in that as we effectively diminish the ranks of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, not eliminate yet, but have diminished, undermine some of their capability, in my view, as we do that, they will naturally look for ways to reinforce those ranks. And it is critical that we and our partners and all nations ensure that does not happen, not just for our security, but for global security and for the security of those states that currently hold Al-Qaeda associates. Definitely handle. Let's, one last one in the middle. Hi, David Fulio, Raytheon Company. Director Leiter, deficits are very much in the news right now. Obviously, resources aren't gonna continue to grow at the pace they've grown. I'm curious, so what are some of the challenges that you see going forward? You mentioned information sharing, you're fairly happy with where that was, but just what else do you need from the new Congress or just organizationally? Thank you. Well, David, it is undoubtedly true, and let's face it, there's been enormous investment in U.S. counterterrorism efforts over the past 10 years. I'd be a fool to suggest otherwise, and I'd be lying to suggest otherwise. So we in fact, the Congress and two successive administrations have been quite generous in the funding of counterterrorism efforts. I think appropriately so, because again, the threat is complicated, it is not gone, and in many ways it's more complicated today than it was on 9-11. Certainly a year ago, my organization was facing cutbacks in a way that frankly would have meant that we couldn't have done some of the analysis and some of the watchlisting that I think are critical pieces of that defensive counterterrorism puzzle. After 12-25, that trend reversed to some extent, and I think we now have the resources we need to address the current threat. What I would say is a couple of things. First, I can't get now, I will not get out in front of the administration, but certainly we hope that the supplemental, not supplemental funding, the overseas contingency operation funding is funded quickly by the Congress because that funds very critical elements that again, watchlisting and analysis that were implemented post-12-25 to protect against a very real threat from AQAP and elsewhere, so we rely upon those funds and those people that those funds will support. The second piece though is we have to as a counterterrorism community and within the intelligence community and more broadly, we have to make sure we're spending our money in the right ways. The threat has changed. Are we still fighting like we were in 2001 or 2004? We have to make sure we're fighting for the current threat, prepared for the evolution of the threat because it will continue to evolve, and then we have to make sure that we are expressing to the Congress what the trade-offs are. If the money isn't going to be there, then we have to be clear about what capability will be lost, and then there simply has to be an informed decision about whether or not that's a good trade-off. The fact is that counterterrorism is big and it is complex, and that means it's expensive, and we have to make some judgments about how much we want to fund and what kind of risk we are actually willing to accept because as I have tried to stress so much today, no matter how much we fund, we will not eliminate all risk, so we have to make informed decisions about how much risk we really want to try to eliminate. Fantastic. Join me please in thanking Mike for a thoughtful, insightful, and very worthwhile presentation. And with that, we thank you for coming to CSIS and hope you have a good week. Thank you.


What's up everybody? It's Jason here for Jaxby's casebricks.com 2021 upper deck SP authentic hockey Just sold out. This is a two box break through random teams each Number nine and again guys no van commonship ten spots over against three random teams one combo team which is Yotes and Prez and Here we go guys. These are I don't know how this happened, but these are the last two boxes of the case I don't know if we found some Lucy's or what but Technically, I think the last box of the case should have been in rate, but I have two in the locker So I mean I talked to Chris about it I don't know what happened there, but like I said, that's Last two here and then number ten will be a fresh case So good luck guys. Here we go dice roll it. We got ourselves a two and a four six times. Good luck one two three four five six Six times two four six will down to Jim six one two three four five six Flyers down to the New York Islanders I said will you have the flyers Jim with the blockhawks Sean with the flames Andrew with the savers Logan with Canadians Sean with the knucks Logan with the outlines as well as the Oilers Andrew with the devil Steve with the leaves Sean with the wild Steve birch with the Kings Patrick with the Red Wings Steve with the Hurricanes Patrick with the Senators Steve birch With the Yolts and Predators Steve birch with the Blues will the lightning penguins Sean with the ducks as well as the capitals Jim with the Golden Knights Steve with the blue jaguars Patrick with the Bruins Andrew the Panthers Jeremy T with the Rangers as well as the stars Sean with the Jets Jeremy with the Sharks and Jim with the Islanders So if anybody wants to trade Tram window is open Jim, I don't think we have any more of this chronicles for the time being just whatever's still on the website TWC guys, I'm sure we'll get more of it eventually, but I think that's all we got for now All right, so here you go guys break number nine. Let me we can't get more. It's just we don't have any more for the time being I Don't know if Nick already has ordered some and it's on its way, but I go look at today. There's nothing left All I'm gonna have is four boxes left for a Pikachu number five whenever that filler sells out and then Eight boxes for the half case break That's also part of the promo. I Am actually but I probably won't be able to get on IG live tonight because I'm a little too busy here So I can do personals here. I just won't be able to go live over there So somebody would have to watch it here if I get time after nine o'clock and Nothing else is sold out here by then then I can go live and go on IG live for the last like two hours, but Like I said, the person was still open. It's just that I have to break here and not on IG Yeah, you can do a hip-hop too. Like I said, I'm just booked until like nine o'clock. So I won't have it until a little bit I'm making probably squeeze it in really quickly Oh patch autograph In between breaks if you want it, but other than that, yeah, yeah, really just you haven't pulled any things anywhere else That's good at least with us That's no problem, girl. Not no problem it Kirby Dutch and Dom to one ninety nine Mitch Warner Colton Perreco for the blues and again Say those blues of Steve Birch and Dante Fobro to 999 and very nice. So the first I believe 50 are Inscribed for their future watch are inscribed their first NHL game and This was inscribed 3 30 2019 Think of it as number to 50 or less Very nice one there for the predators, which is part of the combo team, which is Steve Birch as well FX spectrum Roman Yossi As well as a Thomas Harley these cars just literally just fell All right, here we go. Next one Lauren Jones And we have a future watch patch autograph of Timothy Lindgren Number to 99 very nice one there for the Toronto Maple Leafs Toronto Maple Leafs that is Steve Birch killing it Steve geez and A have right here Montreux Canadians future watch in 999 That is for the Canadians and Logan Part of her there you go There's your four hits Appreciate you guys the next one if we do have more will be from our fresh case Appreciate you guys Jaspies case breaks calm


I use Firefox. I think that Firefox is a pretty good browser. However, sometimes I update Firefox and I just think, what are they doing? What were they thinking? And it has happened again very recently. We had this new feature called Firefox View. And inside of Firefox View, there's another feature which is called Color Ways. And both of these features make no sense to me whatsoever. I think they're just a mistake. Let me actually go through them. So firstly, what is Firefox View, if you haven't seen before? Basically, it's a new icon that appeared from one update to the next one to the left of your tabs, like if you had a pinned tab as an example. Now, if you click on that, the main feature is that it allows you to see the tabs that you have opened in other devices that have the same Firefox account. So if you have on your phone another tab up open, you can see it from your desktop if they share the same Firefox account. Now, here's the first thing. I don't use Firefox accounts. I don't feel like I have to use them. So I personally think that it would make sense to only show this Firefox View thingy if you have Firefox accounts enabled. Because otherwise, this view is kind of useless because it only shows, hey, why don't you install Firefox accounts? And, you know, that's advertisement, not a feature. So firstly, I didn't like that. Then there's also underneath it a list of recently closed pages that I could still get if I just click on high story on the top. So not a new feature. And just like this Firefox View doesn't make any sense to me. Again, only show it if you have a Firefox account, please, otherwise it makes no sense. But hey, I get it. It's advertisement. They're advertising the fact that they have this Firefox account feature and they want you to use it. So they have this page, which doesn't make any sense unless you use Firefox accounts so that you can use Firefox accounts. I don't like the logic. But okay, inside of this Firefox View, there's this color waste feature, which is again, advertisement, because you could access the feature already if I understood this correctly from Firefox 92. So quite a while ago. However, apparently, not enough people were using it or they needed more advertisement about it. So they added it in this Firefox View. So what is color waste? It's a color scheme chooser. It's as simple as that. But they won't admit it. Because firstly, the UI is extremely weird. Not only make you choose a color, but depending on the color that you choose, they actually tell you what kind of person you are. I cannot stop laughing about this. So, I don't know, I choose purple. Then it means that you want to change the word with your... Sorry. And I mean, you can check it for yourself. Just update Firefox and then go check these color waste and go check the various colors. They all have very nice graphics about these colors. You can choose, you know, the strength of the color, which I think is nice. But they have this very weird thing where they try to tell you what kind of person you are, depending on your favorite color, which is, okay, okay. Now, then there's the weirdest thing, which is the weirdest thing. Now, if you look at the top of this color scheme chooser dialogue, which in theory should only be about choosing your favorite color for the Firefox UI. That's the whole point. You see that it says, expires on the 17th of a January. And this opens up so many questions. I'm sorry. I mean, just imagine Katie Plasma shipping a version with a color scheme chooser that lets you, you know, that tells you this is going to expire in one month, by the way, or two months. Firefox is doing that. They let you choose the color, but you only have three months, you only have three months to do that. So you better be quick. What's up with that? So I actually try to investigate. And my guess is that it's not true. That is, you will be able to still use color waste after the 17th of January. But apparently they're doing this every taught releases.  So they update the descriptions and the UI, and then they launch this thing that you only have a limited time to use it. But why are they doing this? So the justification they give is pretty funny. They have a webpage talking about this, and I'm actually going to bring it up because I need to read from it. Okay, listen and tell me if this makes any sense. This is limited time release, which is intended to embrace the new momentum. We know colors trends are always changing to offer delight and excitement seasonally. So this will be spotlighted for two cycles of lasers in Firefox on boarding as limited time play to enjoy the spark more engagement and interest. What is new? Sorry, it's not new moment. It's now moment. I meant now moment. What? And you might also ask, why is it called color waste and not just, you know, color scheme chooser theme? We usually call it theme or color scheme. But no, we choose color waste rather than themes to show that we are branching out from our language of browser to speak the language of everyday life and everyday users. This is more, this is about more than just installing a new theme, which really doesn't have much meaning to most people. This is marketing speech. This is marketing speech. The first thing I thought when I saw that color waste were about to expire in 17th of January, I thought, okay, they're going to make this some paid to use functionality, because why else would you announce a color scheme chooser that you can only use for three, four months because you want your users to pay for it? Apparently, no. Apparently, they just think that releasing a color scheme chooser for three months is going to spark more engagement and things. I guess. Fine. Fine. Okay. Now let me read just the last thing. Privacy has been part of our vision from day one and is always going to be part of what we deliver in our product. Okay, fine. We are making the connection that a safe and joyful internet is a colorful one. And ultimately, we want to connect with these people with the people sorry that make the internet a colorful, colorful place. Firefox, what are you doing? It really feels like Firefox at this point is just desperate for attention. And I get it. They're losing market share year by year. So I guess they are focusing on trying to get the attention back to get people to talk about them, which is what I'm doing. So I did this video. You can thank me Firefox. However, I really think that this is not a way to approach this kind of things. Maybe I'm wrong. But, you know, when I update Firefox and I find a new tab that is Firefox view, which is completely useless. And I get inside of it and I see another feature that doesn't make any sense with Firefox view, but it's just thrown there because Firefox wanted for it to be seen. And I tried out and I can only use it for three months, even though it's just a theme selector. At this point, I just think that Firefox is making fun of me. What else? I felt, I felt made fun of, I'm still going to use Firefox. Okay, but I mean, you understand what I'm saying, right?


HBCU digest radio welcome back to our presidential series the distinguished guest today a Triumvirate of greatness from America's HBCU Paul Quinn College We are happy to be joined by a vice president of institutional programs dr. Kizwanda Grant Paul Quinn's program coordinator of mental health services dr. Stacey Alexander and the president of Paul Quinn College dr. Michael Sorrell So this is a this is a treat for me because we're talking about something that's Critical to the nation's Well-being, but we're having an HBCU to pioneer an innovative way of looking at this and this is Paul Quinn's mental health assessment program which launched In full about three years ago But it's really capturing attention now in its third year For introducing first-year students and students at large to opportunities to speak with a counselor to receive mental health Assessment and treatment opportunities on campus in partnership with the nearby University of Texas Southwestern Medical School So dr. Grant first congratulations on the evolution of such an incredible program for and particularly for the presidents who are listening and Who will forward this to their staff to set this up? How does something like this take shape in partnership with another institution? On your campus specifically for your student profile Well, there's a lot of moving pieces to where we are today But I do believe it started with an initial relationship between President Sorrell and a Staff member at UT Southwestern who was willing to assist I believe that Paul Quinn College uniquely does not mind asking for assistance when our students have an issue There's a problem that needs to be solved We we don't mind asking for help and so by asking for help We were brought to someone at UT Southwestern who was willing to really go out on the limb and say I believe that we can assist Paul Quinn and they came and spoke to staff and students and provided a diagnosis of students were most likely suffering from PTSD and that conversation rolled into UT Southwestern Assigning a resident to come to campus once a week to meet with students to do to provide counseling To provide medication prescriptions if needed And then from there we wanted to expand and grow it was very difficult to Tell students kind of out of the blue you should go see dr. Moore who is psychiatrist And the students immediate reaction would be well, I'm not crazy. I don't need to talk to her And there was a lot of hesitation to do such a thing so we have to build in Various layers of services so that the students would not be apprehensive to mental health counseling But so and so that they would see it on campus more than just once once a week And so fast forward to now summer of 2019 We have a mental health clinic on campus that is staffed by dr. Alexander and miss Belton who are here full-time and UT Southwestern still comes one day a week for about five hours a day on a Thursday but Our and our goal is to bring students in To Paul Quinn College during the summer bridge program And they are immediately introduced to the idea of mental health and wellness as part of our new student orientation And introducing them to the institution a week after that mental health orientation We began our initial screenings which is what you refer to they sit with a trained professional for about 45 minutes to an hour And answer questions about their upbringing upbringing their past things that they've been through How they feel about things how they interpret things around them And that information is used to inform both the clinic and UT Southwestern staff, but also institutional programs for the college On an institutional level We plan programs that address the things that come up in the screenings Could be stressed dealing with lots of a loved one could be relationship and communication issues But we also use the information to identify students who need a specific follow-up From a professional whether that's a licensed counselor like dr. Alexander or miss Belton or it could be a follow-up from a psychiatrist and Those screenings are happening right now with our current summer bridge class and our goal is to assess every one of them It's about a hundred and fifty this summer and anyone who is not assessed this summer We'll circle back to in the fall to ensure that every new student on campus has had the opportunity for the screening Man, I it's just so important and I can't recall Shame on me that y'all are three years into this and we're just now having kind of a national conversation about it But dr. Alexander, what has it been like from over the last three years in the culture at Paul Quinn? for students being hesitant perhaps about Mental health support To be embracing it as a campus as individuals how it how has the school Played a role in their individual evolution to start to embrace this kind of service Okay, yeah, so what we've done and I joined the campus last summer So I've done my full year and one of the things that we've done and Prefs has embraced is really normalizing counseling So anytime we're able to get in front of the students whether they're basketball court volleyball court It does not matter. We intend to change the dialogue for mental illness to mental health So we explained to them that they're using it as a preventive measure Not for them So that they can take away the stigma that you only go to counseling when something is wrong So this summer we did a full day of orientation Which was about three and a half hours and patterns exercise patterns relationship coping styles communication styles We help them to see that all of those contributed to how mint mentally healthy you are are you're not One of the things I did in the orientation was give them myself a number new phone sessions We can do virtual most casual will do walk-ins when we schedule their appointments if they don't show up We'll text them and remind them or call them We'll go to the cafeteria provide programming with group of programming like we had a comedy show It's like every other year y'all are doing something Game-changing not just for the campus before the sector at large And this is almost an extension of things that you've done years past providing eyeglasses to the students Getting students involved in social justice not only for the campus before the community. So there's You know not developing but there is a culture of you know student You know holistic health wealth, I mean in health and This is part of a sound retention strategy. This is part of a sound recruitment strategy was that the plan for Developing something like this to to extend those things or was it that you saw a need and here's how we what we can do to help it You know for us Jared we literally start with What is it that the students are telling us or showing us that they need? How do we how can we become the best caretakers and stewards of their trust and their families trust and so So much of I mean this is really this is how you wind up Having an institutional goal of eradicating intergenerational poverty, which is which is what we are now committed to doing and It's because so much of the problems that we are having to address their birth place is scarcity and You know when you really look back at the things we've had to address so we implemented a dress code Because we wanted our students to always be able to present themselves in a way Which said I feel good about who I am and I look as if I belong and you know We got some criticism for that right where people tried to say oh You know you're engaging in respectability politics and nothing to do respectability politics and everything to do with the sense of one self-worth All right, and so you know we addressed that issue then we had the food desert Well, well, let me say this so we realize that many people don't have the clothes they need because they don't have the money They need to get the clothes so Let's have a clothes closet where people can get what they need for free then we look up and we're in a food desert and People can't afford healthy produce and we don't have access to a grocery store so we address that issue then we look up and we've got an environmental justice issue and But that's because people don't have the respect on the resource communities to Show them how much they care by not exposing them to harmful environmental Decision You know then we look around and you know we had the eyeglasses issue. We had the pork Issue where we had to teach students and the communities how you don't have to eat food that is Detrimental to your survival that how are you going to perform in class if you can't see the board? right Then we looked up and realized students couldn't afford To go to school if they were buying too much money That they weren't prepared when they finished because they didn't have access to Internships that they were shut out from meaningful career opportunities They had gone to school had been led to believe that they were competitive But they weren't competitive because they didn't have all the tools everyone else had to compete but all of these problems the genesis of them is poverty and You know the trauma of poverty We you know We for several years dr. Grant and the rest of the staff and I would sit around and wonder why our students who are succeeding here sabotaging themselves midway through their junior year I Mean students who are performing well academically and and you know from a selfish perspective for us everyone always wanted to give us a hard time about our graduation rate and We're like well look we're doing good things But how do you explain to someone that you have a student with a 3-5? We just starts flunking courses stops coming to class wants to drop out and But doesn't want to leave and So we started having conversations with students and finally one student said to us This is the best my life has ever been People love me here. They see me. They tell me I matter there's no guarantee I'm gonna have this experience when I leave and Then we started noticing how students were depressed and what they were using for coping skills and You know, we went through the when we recruited the students from Chicago and they were coming from backgrounds that were just Devastated by violence and living under the shadow of violence in the first year we recruited there Every just about every high school. We visited someone had been shot that school year and Students who come from those experiences who's come from the trauma that poverty causes There's no wonder that they're going to struggle with mental health That is normal. The difference is no one's ever told them that it was normal They've been made to feel as if they were less than Because they were just going through a difficult period and what we what in my far less Technical language that Dr. Alexander uses so beautifully the way I explain it to people is You do not have to stay in the dark All have periods where we struggle But if you get the help you need it is a short-term period and Then you move on you get back and you're stronger and you know, and I tell the students my story I tell them what it was like to Deal with sudden cardiac death to die and have to be brought back to life and to deal with the post-traumatic stress of that experience And when you have these conversations and you have them out loud and you have them in a way where you're not embarrassed You know it changes the sense of How the students see themselves and what they feel is safe and we want them to know they're safe They are loved and we can have these conversations and we will stand right next to you having them It's such a beautiful thing, but you know, I'm a journalist. So I got it. Those salt on everything Part of part of what makes this so wonderful is because Paul Quinn intentionally recruits and Grows Deliberately right so it's not that Paul Quinn is trying to we won a class of 1500 students So it's it's something where you can reach out and touch all the students You can reach out and give them all yourself on number and this question is for all three of you In the in the college's strategic plan to grow How do you how do you scale up these wonderful things that you do for your student body and do for your community as you expand As you open a new campus in Plano as you break enrollment records as you get more, you know athletic teams on campus as You implement an urban work program Um as you grow, how do you how do you still say still say community focus and make sure that they'll service is a high level well here, let me say from the Design perspective, right? And then Dr. Grant and Dr. Alexander will explain how they actually make all the stuff that I come up with actually happen The reality of it is this what we are scaling is the small college experience We we think each of the campuses that we replicate at the largest point should be about 1500 students Which allows us to maintain that intimate focus, but this is foundational to who we are just as We will offer Academic programs like all our campuses will have a major in fundraising and philanthropy all our campuses are going to have this same intentional focus on mental health This is just who we are going to be we are committed to it. We will continue to raise money for it But it is just part we don't see it as optional We see it as foundational to the urban work college experience. This is who we are. This is what we do. We intend to keep doing it Dr. Grant, I guess you guys I would add to that As enrollment grows the logistics of doing things like the mental health screenings for example Has to grow we probably were able to do the screenings over two or three days three years ago Today the screenings are happening with about 20 to 25 residents from UT Southwestern who come to campus Who need a private room a room with a door in two chairs? And so That member literally will get an email from me that says I need your office space for These Tuesdays and Thursdays in the month of July so that these assessments can happen They're using my office this afternoon and so it's it's it's planning and trying to still have that one-on-one feel Because this assessment can be done paper pencil But what we've learned is the students don't always describe their experiences in the same language That is used by professionals We asked students on a survey are you a victim of trauma, which is one of our We now have a grant from the state of Texas, which is specifically for victims of crime Our victims who have been traumatized in the past and we use that language and ask the student Are you a victim of trauma? They'll say no. Are you a victim of a crime and they'll say no But when we look at the specific story of that student We know that that is not true But they're self-reporting almost as a defense mechanism and when you point out to the student that they Are they said that their older brother had been killed in a car accident or their family? had food stability issues and they moved around a lot and We you know have to show them these are Traumas that you have dealt with in the past that don't necessarily make you a victim But it means that you have needs for services that the college is going to provide to you and We have to be flexible and how we go about these things. We have to use the language that the students are comfortable with Continuing the one-on-one assessments is very important because it takes away Some of the the barriers to mental health and accessing services because they can just check something on the box and not Really have to talk and explain their experiences and also having a representation of people of color on campus From a diverse background that can relate to the students. It's built and it's Fluent in Spanish and she's comfortable Counting students in Spanish that's been part of our growth plan as well as having interns who come into the clinic who There's a young African-American male who comes in and volunteers as he's Completing his hours under the life state license requirements. And so our expansion is still meant to Have a hands-on approach with the students and with 550 students it does feel a lot different when we have to push staff members out of their offices for the initial assessments But from the students perspective They've had someone's undivided attention for almost an hour to talk about themselves with the goal of getting assistance and It's so far has worked very well in the students remember I talked to this person for an hour and they asked me a lot of questions And now of sometimes the next day or maybe the next week That student might be tapped on the shoulder to say hey come on over and talk more in detail With someone in the in the clinic so the high touch feel is still there even as we grow and the grant helps us to continue that and We hope to go into two more years under this grant from the state of Texas through the governor's office and Continue to expand into more services for students not just counseling but counseling is a primary component of the state grant And that's one of the things that we'll do in the counseling office Even if we do not have the funding to actually hire full-time licensed professional counselors We can still in the community because I'm a supervisor as a licensed professional counselor So I can also supervise clinicians that are like Dr. Graham mentioned that are needing to get their council We're also working on programming to bring in your nontraditional students who may not come to the campus during the evening We're reaching out to be on telephonically to bring them into the closing view to mental health services and reach Not be foreign to you when you graduate from college. You would have been exposed Praise I'll let you have the last word man. Um, if that somebody is is is working to Establish a culture like you guys have um yours happens to be around addressing poverty What's the single biggest thing that a leader can do that students can buy into that faculty can support that? alumni can support What is the what is the spark that that helps that culture to set in for something as important like mental health or like? Addressing poverty or like building wealth for African Americans. What is what is the spark for it? Well, I think the most important thing the leader can do is to listen Right. I mean because these weren't None of what we do Was part of a playbook that I had coming in All right, I mean these were things that our students either said they needed or Demonstrated they needed that our community needed or demonstrated that it needed and What we have said is we're going to be an institution that addresses the needs of the day We we we're not going to have conversations about are we relevant because we're going to demonstrate to you Why you cannot live without us We're going to be what you need us to be and and I think if if you do that and And then if you do it Authentically and if you do it honestly and you do it in broad daylight where You know when you hire amazing people and they do extraordinary things You tell people you hired amazing people and you tell people they've done extraordinary thing and you give them the ability to be recognized and praised for Doing great work, and then you get out of the way and let them do that I Think then it takes hold Right because these programs have to live on After all of us are gone I mean we're serving the needs of people who have generational suffering So we're not going to fix this in the next five years We're not going to fix this in the next 10 years But the only way it really gets fixed if all of us buy into it and our institutional goals Become industry goals, which is why you know, we've come to try and transform all of higher education Because we think that's what our students need


Number 2 on our list is Blade Runner, released in 1982 and directed by Ridley Scott. The movie predicted advances in biotech and genetic engineering. The story is set in a future where genetically engineered replicants, which are usually identical to adult humans, are created and used for dangerous, armenial work. The movie is set in a world where biotech has made the boundary between human and non-human blurred, and it raises ethical questions about what it means to be human. Today, advancements in biotech and genetic engineering have made it possible to engineer organisms for specific purposes, such as creating more efficient crops or developing new medical treatments. The rapid advancements in this field have raised similar ethical questions that the movie explored, such as the morality of engineering humans and the impact on society. Additionally, the movie also features predictions of environmental degradation, which is something that has become a pressing concern in today's world. Blade Runner is considered a science fiction classic and has had a major influence on the genre.


This is Rob, Lily and Jessica. Together they are the Scott Kent family and together they are adapting and overcoming the challenges of military life. It's always like there's something new every day and we just kind of roll with the punches and I mostly just hang out on Lily's schedule. Rob and Jessica were a dual military family, both self-proclaimed orcaholics. Then they reached a turning point in their life and marriage. Their daughter Lily was born. So Rob and Jessica decided that Rob would sacrifice his army career to be a stay-at-home dad. There's a lot of work involved and there's no days off because on the weekends I'm doing the same things with Lily that I do on the weekends. There's definitely a lot of struggles that come with it but there's also a lot of amazing opportunities. You know, we're in Germany, we're getting to travel and do incredible things like that and there's a lot of resources to help make those struggles a lot easier. Now Rob and Jessica look back at that turning point a year and a half ago and see the joy and growth that Lily has provided. Just raising Lily and helping her grow and that has brought us together. Touchdown!


It's all because of the truth. The truth of Romans chapter one, verses 16 and 17, I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. It is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith as it is written, the just shall live by faith. Why? Why is the gospel revealed? Because verse 18, the wrath of God is revealed. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth of God in their unrighteousness.


The Appalachian Wireless, 30th anniversary holiday sale is going on now from now until the end of the year. Visit us in store or reserve online for an unbelievable sale and give away. We know what you want for the holidays because we are you. We are Appalachian Wireless. Being back this year, this show is just how great what we really are and just how exciting you can be. After a long heartfelt season, Johnson Central's football team will face off against Boyle County in the class 4A state championship this Friday. Before the big game, Mountaintop had the opportunity to speak with players and coaching staff about the state championship and its importance following the passing of coach Jim Matney last September. We always get a little better as the year goes on. In October, we didn't know what was going to happen. You kind of feel like that you are beneath the rock.  So to see these guys step up and work and as much as they have our coaching staff to step up and take on different roles like they have has been nothing shorter than amazing. In the fight for state champions in 2020, Johnson County ultimately lost to Franklin County in the semifinals. In 2021, players say they hope to reclaim the title in coach Matney's name. It was heartbreaking. We felt like all the people down were not going for the first time. It was the first thing not to go in all those years. We felt a little everybody down and we hated it, but we are glad that we beat Franklin this year and we are ready to go back. And losing our coach this year, I know he wanted more than anything to win a state championship and he knew we had the talent to do it and winning it for him would be great this year. Usually you would play every game for him. We are playing every play. As soon as we go out there it is all for him to leave it all on the line. If you come off the field you are not tired and you did something wrong. It is all for the life of a coach. Although considered the underdogs to this year's championship, players say they hope to show their strengths and show what their team is about. Yeah, I think as a team we like being underdogs. I think really under looked as it is. Every team kind of overlooks us just because of our play style and maybe we are not the biggest team but we go out there and we give it all we have every time. Yeah, we love it. I mean we love being underdogs. We love everybody thinking that they are just going to roll over us and that we don't stand a chance.  And following the passing of Coach Matney in September, Peck says they hope to use his memory to fuel the team moving forward. What he meant to every player on the field, what he meant to us as a coach and staff, his memory has kind of driven us and given us that drive to carry on and continue. You can't take anything away from this football team. We've got a great group of seniors who've been together a long time. We've got a great coaching staff who's worked under Coach Matney for a long time and so we've just tried to echo what he's passed down through the years and we've been fortunate this season to play good enough to get back. For Mountain Top News, I'm Joel Hodgell.