OK, first, well, first of all, thank you. Delighted to have you for this session.  Because at the same time, we had asked Dr. Brzezinski to lead a smaller, more salon-style event. But then he agreed that he would do the same kind of a salon-style event, but in front of 300 people. So this is going to be a little slightly less intimate. But I don't think it's going to be any less interesting. I've got a couple of little announcements first before we get started. First, if you've got a cell phone with you, put it on silent sun. Silent sun, OK? I don't want to ring it here, because we don't want to have anybody else disrupted. You could have left yours on. Silent sun. What we're going to do, and just because of the timing, you all are going to get a lovely box lunch. It'll be available outside. And we'll just take him a 15-minute transition period between this session and the next session. Just grab a box lunch, find any place you can to sit down and enjoy it with a friend, so that we can start the last session. And finally, let me just say thank you to you, Dr. Brzezinski, for agreeing to be kind of a seminar leader.  I have regular opportunities to engage with Dr. Brzezinski. And I never cease to be just amazed at what I get to learn. And so today, I get to share that with all of you. And so thank you. And thank you for doing this speak. I'd like you to imagine that we've got an invisible globe. And we're going to spin the globe and land on a couple of places and talk about them. And I'm going to do that at the beginning and then ask all of you to be ready if you've got questions. When we do have questions, please put up your hand. I'll try to recognize you. I'd ask when we please stand up when I pick you, so that the microphone people know who to come to in this big room. Let me start, spin the globe, but I'm going to drop my finger on Turkey. In some sense, this is one of the most interesting places in the world right now. About a year ago, my wife and I went down to the Sackler Art Gallery. And there was this fabulous exhibit called the Tributary Treasures of the Muscovy Court. And it was a collection of very fabulous gifts that had been given to the Tsar by visiting ambassadors. And they were basically ambassadors from Turkey and from Iran. And it was really a show about these three empires that were kind of touching each other, feeling each other, rubbing, pressuring, et cetera. And as I was going through the show, I realized we're kind of looking at that again in a way. And I would like to ask you, Dr. Brzezinski, nobody has studied Russia more intensively than have you. You have been a student. You coined the phrase arc of instability. I'd like you to focus on Turkey and this region. What do you see unfolding in this region and Turkey's own conception of itself? That's a very good question. That region, in my mind at least as I look at the map, has to be seen as part of a somewhat larger region that surrounds it, embraces it, and involves it. That is to say, that huge swath of South Asia, Southwest Asia, Middle East, which ranges roughly on the global map from Xinjiang, the Western frontier of China, all the way to Suez, and now in fact further west, perhaps to the border between Libya and Tunisia. Now, if you look at huge part of the world, I have called that in some of my writings, sort of my geopolitical writings, the new global Balkans. And why did I call it the Balkans? Because the Balkans was in many ways similar, but much smaller, but similar in the sense that it was a region of intense and very complex internal conflicts that had a lot in common with each other because they involved either conflicts within a religion or between adjoining religions. And it had the effect of sucking in the major powers into repeated engagements and thus international conflicts. And that was the function that the Balkans played in Europe throughout much of the 19th century, actually in some respects even earlier during the Turkish efforts to expand the Ottoman Empire. And it had the effect of producing major wars between major powers. Now, this huge area of the world today is in many ways similar and it has a somewhat similar suction effect, though with one very important difference. It does not involve the direct collision of major powers, but sequential engagement, sucking in of major powers. And the classical example of that is of course the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which produced a reaction from the outside, but a cautious reaction of supporting the resistance and forcing the Soviet Union out. And lately it has involved the United States in a sequential engagement first in the Middle East itself, then through its own initiated war in Iraq and then through its necessary unavoidable reaction to 9-11, which required us to go into Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda. Although the question arises whether that objective perhaps shouldn't have been defined more narrowly instead of so broadly because after all, we have pushed al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. That is no longer the issue. But we're still deeply involved in Afghanistan. But whether the same time is different and therefore perplexing, and that brings me back to your question specifically, is that other major powers are not involved, even though they can be affected by the outcomes. But they prefer not to be directly engaged. And that pertains particularly to China, which I think sees in it some indirect but not publicly stated benefit. Namely, we pay the price. We make the effort. We are thereby diverted and profoundly engaged. And they can, in a sense, indirectly benefit from that. So are the Indians, who, yes, have played a very complicated game of somewhat supporting the Soviets in Afghanistan, of being somewhat critical of our role in Afghanistan, but without direct engagement, but of course benefiting from it, not only vis-à-vis us as much, but more against Pakistan. And it has the role of perplexing the Turks regarding their future role, especially since at one point in recent history, they saw themselves as being part of Europe. They were invited into the relationship back in 1963. But subsequently, the pace has slowed down rather deliberately because of the European hesitations and second thoughts, even though the Turks themselves embarked on a Western-oriented modernization as early as the mid-1920s. So I think Turkey, in that context, finds itself, in a sense, frustrated, endangered, and at the same time challenged. It is, however, a political and economic success. And that has consequences. And I think as a result, the Turks are now embarked on a policy of defining for themselves a foreign policy which, in many respects, is compatible with our goals for the region, but which, in some respects, collides with some specifics of our policies, particularly in so far as the immediate Middle East is concerned, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To some extent, our policy towards Iran is something the Turks do not share and are critical of. And in that sense, Turkey is becoming an independent but rather increasingly important player. And that further complicates the situation in the region. My own bottom line on all of that is that, on balance, I have to say that I think our engagement in the region, in terms of its direct military manifestations, has not been productive and is not in keeping with our long-range national interest. And some of our objectives in the region have been mutually conflicting, especially in so far as the Arab-Israeli conflict is concerned. And as a consequence of the foregoing, our position in the region is rapidly deteriorating. 30 years ago, looking more narrowly at this region, we had good relationships with some of the key regional powers. We had a good relationship with Turkey, which was a very faithful NATO ally. We had a good working relationship with Iranians. The Saudis were totally dependent on us. The Egyptians were accommodating to us. The Pakistan's needed us badly vis-à-vis India. Today, in every respect, every single one of these relationships is pointed in a negative direction, one way or another. And that, I think, is a very serious dilemma for us and has fundamental bearing on our future role, not only in that part of the world, but potentially more generally in the world at large. Well, I'll tell you, just this first comment. You all ought to book rooms here tonight. You're gonna be here. I mean, this is fascinating. You've opened up about a dozen interesting questions I want to follow up, but specifically, let me first say on Iran, how you see the Iran trajectory unfolding and how you see Turkey playing a role vis-à-vis Iran. I think Iran, in the short run, is a very serious problem and could result in some sort of a crisis that would be, I think, regionally very destabilizing and probably would confront us with even more dire prospects in the ones that we face currently. In the long run, Iran has all of the necessary preconditions for positive political change. If you look at the fundamental sort of social, economic statistics of the country, in every respect, it's comparable to Turkey. And it's not an accident, incidentally, because when Turkey embarked on its modernization in the 1920s, the Iranians followed shortly thereafter within half a decade and had more or less the same objective and both were intensely focused on the German model as relevant to their development at the time in the pre-Nazi German model, of course. I think that Iran, in the short run, of course poses the question of how do we adjust to the reality that it is an ambitious regional power, strong, quite capable of waging protracted warfare. If we were to become engaged, we would probably find our problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf greatly magnified and we would probably be embroiled for a long, long time, much longer than our current involvement. With an outcome which, of course, would be decisive in our favor if we used all of our power, but we wouldn't be able to use all of our power because we are self-limited when it comes to unconventional warfare. We cannot, in the context of an unconventional warfare, unleash all of the weapons at our possession and therefore wipe out the enemy, more or less what we did to Japan and to Germany in 1945. So we could be bogged down, but in the long run, if we don't engage in policies which encourage the fusion of Iranian fundamentalism with Iranian nationalism, then I expect that the theocratic phenomenon in Iran will prove to be transient. That it is almost irrational in its scale. It's heavily based on the more backward, rural areas of Iran. Iran is urbanizing, it is changing, and it is a society in which it has a relatively high number of people in institutions of higher learning. And we saw them on the streets of Tehran more than a year ago when there was the abortive Iranian spring at work which unsuccessfully failed. And what is interesting is that there are more women actually in Iranian universities than there are men. And the picture of a kind of primitive, totally theocratic Iranian society does not correspond to the realities in the city. In the cities, I should say. And what struck me for example during those manifestations was how similar the young people of Iran are in appearance, in manner, in slogans to what one sees also on the tube elsewhere, including Europe. So my expectation is that in 10 years from now, in 15 years from now, if there is no major eruption in the American-Iranian relationship, Iran will resume what I think is its basic thrust, which is to become a modern power and it will fulfill I think the changing and more compatible aspirations of the Iranian people. So it's a question of strategic patience in my judgment. Something that the Chinese are very good at, something that we're not so good at. Can I ask you to explore with us kind of the evolving power geometry of the Persian Gulf? When the street protests erupted in Bahrain, we tried to step in to help broker some kind of a reconciliation process. That went down very badly with the royal family in Bahrain and frankly with the House of Saud. And caused a very deep alienation. How long? We don't know, but at that time a very deep alienation between us and Bahrain and Saudi over this question of the power geometry of the region. And yet there's no one else except us that's going to be a presence in a larger outside of the region. How do you see this power geometry evolving now, especially in light of the so-called Arab Spring? Probably in a messy fashion. To put it very bluntly, it's very difficult for us to have a consistent policy there because we have conflicting interests. We have a base in Bahrain, a very important base which is critical to our military supremacy in the Persian Gulf, which needs to be maintained in the short run. But at the same time it's a base without a solid social foundation because our presence there politically works in favor of the ruling dynasty and of the Sunni minority that is in charge. I am fearful that the policy of repression that the Bahrain government may be now embarking upon is going to make that even worse. The notion, for example, of doctors and nurses numbering almost 50, being tried because they treated the wounded who happened to be in the main Shia because they were the ones who were demonstrating is to me appalling. And yet we are in effect identified with it because we have such a stake in our base. Secondly, we have a stake also in Bahrain because of its importance to Saudi Arabia and the Saudis naturally attach great importance to it. But the Saudis are currently totally disillusioned with us. That's a fact of life. To some extent their disillusionment is reflection of their own internal problems. But to some extent it also may be to some extent a reflection of their sense that our policy in the region has not been consistent with our public stance and even with some of our negotiating commitments. And that does involve what is one of the critical problems in the region, namely the persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the growing perception in the region that we're not serious about solving it. We're not serious about using our influence to bring it about to an outcome which I personally still think is attainable but with growing uncertainty, namely an accommodation that makes Israel a permanent part of the Middle East and even an accepted part of the Middle East and is assured of its security. But at the same time by creating a modus vivendi with the Palestinians, creates a potential of Israel and Palestine together cooperating because they will be intermeshed if they become two states, becoming in effect the Singapore of the Middle East. I think that's an opportunity that's being wasted and it's an opportunity which in the short run works against our interests and maximizes resentment such as those which are now being expressed more openly in Saudi Arabia and in the long run poses a danger not only just to our general interest in the region but to Israel's well-being. So I'm of the view that in effect this aspect of our policy has unfortunately had the effect of then intensifying Saudi suspicions about democratic change. There are probably inner fears of it affecting them as well because that will happen at some point and thus has put us on a course in which alienation between us and the Saudis is deepening and that has an immediate impact, a kind of a paralyzing impact on any constructed approach to the issue of Bahrain as a symptom as well as an issue in the short run but also as something which foreshadows a much deeper reality which is this. We entered the Middle East as a major power only right after World War II. Till then it was largely a domain of the British and the French since the Treaty of Versailles but even somewhat earlier with the French, the British and the Italians making inroads already in the latter part of the 19th century. All of that came to an end in 1945 and we were welcomed into the region with open arms by the Saudis and others who saw in us as an international guarantee of their new status of independence. And in that context we had the relationships with the countries in the region to which I referred earlier. Today, I think all of that is changing and the Arab Spring which creates such fear in Riyadh and which has unleashed such hopes in Washington, I fear is gradually going to become the Arab winter and that is to say we're not going to see really democratic governments emerge that quickly. I think the preconditions for that in Egypt and not to mention Syria are not very promising. I am skeptical that we will see some serious accommodation between the Israelis and the Palestinians because we have chosen to be passive. We're going to find the Arabs driven by resentment and insecurity perhaps engaging in conflicting policies among themselves. We're yet to see what's going to happen in Yemen and then between Yemen and Saudi Arabia because that's perhaps in the cards next. And as a result, our exit from the region which is an exit not willed by us but forced by circumstances will continue and perhaps become more marked and the question will arise what will happen in the region and who on the outside will begin to capitalize on it. Now I've got three ways I can go. But let me hold us for a minute on the Palestinian Israeli thing. We've got a big probably crisis coming up here in coming months. There's a real head of steam to seek formal legal recognition of Palestine as a state at the UN. The United States has signaled that we would probably veto that if it came to the Security Council. So now the agenda shifted over to make it a resolution of the General Assembly. And while it may not have legally binding status it's going to create political momentum and that's not going to be received well here. What would you do if you were right up now in the NSC what would you be doing right now for our government to help think through this complex problem? Well first of all I do agree that a resolution of membership for Palestine is essentially a statement rather than the executional legitimation of the reality. And it can't be therefore counterproductive because it doesn't achieve anything except sets in motion expectations which then may erupt into violence. So there is some legitimacy to the US concern that simply passing a verbose resolution thereby somehow rather legitimating membership for Palestine in the UN when Palestine doesn't exist as a state is not the wise course of action. But I don't think analysis of that issue should stop right there because one has to ask oneself all right so suppose we block it. Suppose something is passed in the General Assembly contrary to us where are we then? Well we're seen thereafter for decades to come as the country which opposes Palestinian independence and Palestinian statehood. That becomes a kind of fundamental marker which for many people in the region as we now see reflected in changing Egyptian attitudes is an important issue. And this will stand in sharp contrast to how we voted in 47, 48 when we endorsed the creation of the state of Israel as a Jewish state and that was the right thing to do at the time especially in the wake of World War II. But this will stand in sharp contrast to it and will mark us in the region essentially as a power that's hostile to their aspirations. So we have to find a way in my judgment of avoiding this thrust to a resolution that in effect recognizes statehood and proclaims it without it existing and offers something in its place which has the capacity for mobilizing world opinion and to have at least some positive impact although I don't overestimate its immediate political consequence. And my judgment that could be accomplished if we and our principle allies the Quartet but also all the members, the permanent members of the Security Council and probably in effect every member of the Security Council put in a resolution which in effect states that the international community insists and demands that the Israelis and the Palestinians undertake serious negotiations for a peace process the outlines of which are defined by the resolution. Thereby in effect setting in motion clarity regarding what the eventual outcome will be because right now our position is we want them to negotiate on this equitable basis swaps involved in the 67 line. That's our position the president stated it and everything else is left unclear. Well how can they negotiate an agreement on the 67 lines which would involve some swaps when they don't know what the other issues will involve and how they might be accommodated and when they don't even have the opportunity to say well we'll be a little more accommodating on the territorial issue if we get this or that. In brief I think we need a statement from the world from the international community as to what the fundamental framework of a peace treaty to be negotiated by the parties in detail ought to be. And that in my judgment I've been writing about this now for several years and it has now become something that it's more or less the position of more and more people internationally including in the United States so they're a prominent political figures from both parties take a similar position to the effect that it should involve four trade-offs that are interrelated and have to be seen as a package. One no right of return for the Palestinian refugees to what is today Israel because one of the cardinal demands of the Palestinian movement is that the ex-police or their descendants have the right to return to the original homes. Well we cannot expect Israel to commit suicide for the sake of peace and that's not a reasonable demand but we can say as well there is no right of return for the ex-police except maybe for a small symbolic number of elderly, very elderly people not their children and grandchildren and preferably with the women in no longer child-bearing age so let's say over 80. Something like that but nothing more than that and for the rest if the children of the ex-police from Lebanon and elsewhere want to be part of the Palestinian state they will be resettled with international help in the Palestinian state. So that's point number one a very bitter pill for the Palestinians to swallow. Then point number two is a bitter pill for the Israelis to swallow but similarly there can be no peace without addressing that issue and that is that in some fashion Jerusalem has to be a capital of two states. The fact of the matter is there are two different communities living in Jerusalem and the Palestinians have lived in Jerusalem for centuries so you cannot ignore that. You cannot simply say people who lived there 2,000 years ago have a right but anyone thereafter doesn't. These people have been there for centuries. There is an East Jerusalem that actually the Palestinians call Al-Quds. That can be and should be the capital of the Palestinian state and there are ways of keeping the city open and united. The Palestinians and the Israelis and the Geneva Accords address this issue in enormous detail. These are the two leading groups on both sides that negotiated not the governments, not the authorities and they found a variety of arrangements that are compatible with the city remaining united but the capital of two states. The religious parts have to be shared under some sort of international and maybe jointly religious authority with one state more responsible for some sectors, the Jewish state responsible clearly for the Jewish sectors and so forth. And I think that has the possibility of being successful and not addressing this issue is a prescription for permanent hostility. You can see the dome of the mosque almost anywhere from the West Bank and it will be just a symbol of the fact that there is no piece of reconciliation. It's a piece of conquest and therefore that has to be addressed difficult as it is for the Israelis but many of them will recognize that. The Barak has talked about that privately, all murdered it and so forth. It is the religious extremists that are rejecting it. The right wing which is also not necessarily religious but more fascist like the foreign minister who talks freely about the population of the West Bank being expelled as a solution to the problem. That's the second big part. The third part has been already articulated. Borders, swaps based roughly in the 67 lines without any substantial change in the territorial distribution of the old Palestine. What many people forget is that today if one uses the 67 lines, the territory of the old Palestine is 78% Israeli, 22% Palestinian even though the size of the populations are almost similar. The Israelis are somewhat more numerous still than the Palestinians but this will not endure because the demographic dynamics favor the Palestinians. So you cannot change elsewhere portions. You cannot have a situation in which all of a sudden the territorial split becomes 85% Israeli, 15% Palestinian. It's already 78% versus 22. This is why the swaps have to be equal. That's the reasoning behind it. And of course the last element is security arrangements so that the Israelis do not feel vulnerable and I think the placing of American troops or NATO troops on the Jordan River banks is I think probably one key element in it. The other being that basically Palestine will not be a militarized state. It will be demilitarized. Now putting something like this in front of the UN would elicit in my judgment almost certainly the unanimous vote of the security council. Secondly, I think there's a reasonable chance that a big majority of the international community would vote for it. And that would avoid a situation in which otherwise I think we essentially take a vote in which we become stamped as the enemy by one of the two parties named the Palestinians and the Arabs. Then the world community endorses something different. Palestinian frustrations rise and then just think where this will take Egypt for example. As it tries to define itself in a more independent fashion. And we already see previews of where it's going to go. Talk about a relationship with Iran between Egypt. Talk about opening up to Gaza. Talk about revising the treaty, the agreements are guiding energy deliveries and so forth. In whose interest is that? But the question is whether we have the determination, the leadership to do it. I'll bet you anything that every European country would support it. The Chinese would support it. I think the Russians would support it. And I think the majority of the international community would support it. We could stay in this region but I want to spin the globe just because I want to cover enough space and then all of you that kind of open up questions. I'd like, let's go over to East Asia. Just this week we've been commemorating anniversary of historic opening up of relations between the United States and China. You and Henry Kissinger were the grand architects of this. You brought it to fruition with a formal recognition. And for the last 30 years, we've been on a compatible trajectory but the last year and a half it's been scratchy. It's been difficult. Is this just the inevitable outcome of China becoming more powerful and more prosperous and more demanding of its standing? Is there something unique going on with the leadership cadre in China that's making it this way now? What do you think accounts for this edginess that we've seen in our relations during the last two years? Well, to put it in a nutshell, I think our insecurity and their sense of triumphalism, I think the two combined produce some of these sharp edges that have been complicating the relationship. Our insecurity has some rational grounds for it. I think there are some reasons for us to feel insecure. Our foreign policy in recent years I think has been a mishmash of over militarization and unilateralism and to some extent in one particular case, demagogy and deception to put it mildly, in the case of the Chinese they feel that they're in the process of regaining the status to which they're entitled and which they feel and I think correctly they enjoyed for most of history, known history. So to them it's a return to normality from which they were deprived in their view by outside intervention in which we play the minor role actually but certainly by the Europeans and by the Japanese. At our end, the difficulties that we have do I think legitimately give rise to the question of where we headed and that means not just internationally in so far as a successive involvement in my judgment in the global Balkans by the United States as the solitary actor. It would be very different if we had others with us but we're the solitary actor and what does the domestic paralysis, gridlock and uncertainty indicate about our capacity for dealing with our domestic problems and for playing a leading world role. If you look seriously at some of the things that are being said by people who are being described as potential presidential candidates, you begin to sort of wonder is a country in a state of some delirium you know, I don't want to mention names but I think you know who I'm talking about and it's not just one person. There are several people. We can see it from there. Yeah. And you know, so in that setting I think it's not surprising that people in this country to some extent are concerned and then beyond that there are some serious problems to which there are no easy answers. How do we get out of the debt issue to which we have slid kind of almost by indirection as a kind of at one point it was the conventional wisdom that this can go on forever because of the enormous confidence the world community has in us but the world community has much less of a confidence in us today. So that I think is a serious problem that is complicating our ability to act in the global scene and as a consequence, I think some Chinese have begun to taste their sense of historic triumph prematurely because they aren't there yet and while they're headed in that direction they could encounter enormous difficulties at home probably more at home than abroad because they're being very prudent very careful abroad and at the same time we're a little bit uneasy about our prospects with all of that complicated by an issue to which I don't have any real answer but which I think perhaps has been oversimplified by one grand slogan named the globalization. Globalization is a grand idea in an age in which we're becoming globally interactive and interdependent but it does raise the question well if you plunge too rapidly into globalization perhaps the distribution of benefits will be asymmetrical and that certainly is a question that pertains to our industry and our ability to compete effectively in the manufacturing area on a global scene in which certain advantages accrue to those who are coming up rather than pioneering and I'm not sure that we can find a solution to that problem by emphasis on high tech because high tech by definition is not labor intensive. Dr. Brzezinski you study the Chinese deeply and you interact with them regularly when you first started working with them the great competence in the country was grounded in the government and the Communist Party but in the last 30 years certainly the last 15 years there's been this explosion of talent in China and it's not been in the government it's actually been outside of the government and it's a much more complicated country now it's a much more dynamic country now there are many more friction spots between Chinese interests and other world interests is the Communist Party capable of now managing in its kind of non-transparent rather sclerotic way of coping with this dynamic China? I have heard you make that point before and I think it's an excellent point because you're absolutely right 30 years ago anyone who was ambitious and talented and kind of wanted to achieve something in life had only one way to go enjoying the party and rising the hierarchy as you point out today there are many other attractive alternatives also a centralized non-competitive bureaucratic system of political domination I think almost inevitably breeds sclerosis and a decline in the quality of leadership this was really very, very much at the heart of the failure of the Soviet Union if you look at the quality of the Soviet leadership let's say in the 20s then in the 30s then beyond the 40s because that was World War the 50s, 60s, there's almost a steady downward trend in terms of the quality of the people their ability to understand reality and their ability to break with the conventional wisdom to innovate and so forth and some of that is beginning to happen in the Chinese in the government sector I don't want to personalize it of course it's easiest to personalize it because the original figures of the revolution are always outstanding but as time passes I imagine this phenomenon which you very rightly diagnose as a danger is becoming more widespread why not be an entrepreneur why not to pursue a career in some different area if it gives you personal rewards, satisfactions fulfills your national aspirations and then beyond all of that there is a complicating factor first of all the social injustice that has to be addressed and it's rooted to some extent in backwardness which has to be overcome and the risk of nationalism yes, is it for me? then Chinese nationalism is I think a very volatile force and while it's risky to generalize about sort of national moods and national styles there is a quality of emotion and rage, outrage to outbursts of Chinese nationalism that can be perplexing and dangerous you see this even sometimes in negotiating with the Chinese who are very self-controlled and very deliberate but at some point if they get angry they really get angry and they show it and you translate that into massive, huge scale phenomenon and can be something that even the regime might not be able to control good example of it is in the last several years the conflict with the Japanese over the islands and Kaku Islands and the kind of emotions it produced at soccer matches it's unbelievable and the Chinese government got scared so all of that could affect the quality of their internal management you know this during the last year China was confronted with a very painful dilemma this kind of this North Korean regime for whatever set of reasons chose on two occasions to attack South Korean forces they sank the chin on the patrol vessel a little over a year ago and then they bombed the island, Yongpyeong Island and it really presented a terrible dilemma to the Chinese they had to pick for 30 years they've been trying to divide us from Korea by establishing good ties with Korea now they had to pick they had to pick between North Korea and South Korea and they picked the North Koreans what do you think was the kind of the thinking going on and what do you think it means in North East Asia we have a little mini well I think it means in the first instance it reflects the fact that the Chinese want stability in the immediate environment they don't want a breakdown of stability whether it be over South China Sea or at this stage over Pakistan in or over Korea because they know that at this stage would predict consequences which are inherently unpredictable and would almost inevitably draw us in and I think that's a perfectly reasonable attitude of them on their part and now they can't swing over and all of a sudden embrace the South Koreans over issues that divide the North from the South and particularly the Northern provocations because there were these miniature provocations as you've mentioned because what does that mean that they choose the South over the North and what happens in the North and then the North might even go berserk in those conditions so I think in a way they're kind of caught in between their realization that this is risky, dangerous but also the realization that if they sort of side up align themselves with us too much it can just unleash North Korean extremism irrationality in full force so I think they're maneuvering essentially to preserve the status quo in the hope that over time internal pressures within North Korea will force the North Korean regime to begin to implement different policies maybe in connection with the change in leadership because it is quite striking that the Chinese appear to be putting on these educational shows for the North Korean leadership regarding their economic success their change and so forth so I think they're essentially playing for time in an effort to keep the outer environment of a China that they see as rising but which they emphasize is peacefully rising stable and I think that is their central preoccupation because they look ahead and think that in that context of stability their prospects of achieving their internal objectives and with them their external objectives are increased whereas an early crisis in the region throws everything out of whack and makes all predictions and calculations essentially irrelevant so I think that is their main sort of foreign policy preoccupation not to mention the sort of side aspect up to which I've alluded before namely they probably think it's beneficial in their long range historical competition with us for us to be paying a high price of engagement while they benefit from this engagement I'd like to follow up on that but I'm cheating all of you I mean I apologize I've got a whole bunch more questions in my mind but let me open this up let me solicit questions we'll start right back here just stand up so that Jeff can get the microphone to you My name is Rich Douglas I work for General Electric a theme in your remarks Dr. Brzezkin thank you very much I thought just very insightful remarks was that in the past the 20s World War II the U.S. internationally we did a lot right lately we're doing a lot wrong and I just wondered if you have some thoughts on the why that is is it perhaps you came back later and mentioned in the Soviet Union in China quality of leadership is perhaps going out are we facing the same thing and if so why if you could just comment on why has the international relations clue bird seem to have flown away from us for I'm so worried with the last words because it got a little blurred I'm sorry you know in previous foreign policy we the United States have done a lot right we seem to be doing a lot wrong do you have any thoughts on correctly why is that are we having a leadership I don't have any sort of grand insights into it but I do think that we blew an enormous opportunity after 1991 because after 1991 we were seeing universally as the victor state in a prolonged but peaceful competition or cold war we were hailed as the socio-economic model for the world some people talked about the end of history in that context namely that in terms of models the democratic liberal system is the ultimate system and where it's epitome where it's personal expression and in that context we sort of took a leap of absence from global responsibility I think the first two presidencies democratic administration I'm being nonpartisan in this essentially focused on domestic issues and on the fulfillment of the opportunity in terms of the good life and sort of making our system more socially rewarding or equitable or whatever and our society became preoccupied essentially with domestic issues and with the fulfillment of collective as well as individual dreams we sort of took a leap of absence from global responsibility we didn't try to shape a new architecture either vis-a-vis the post-communist Russia nor with any degree of consistency vis-a-vis China having normalized relations with them back in the late 1970s and then we were followed by a republic administration and gained two administrations and that administration got stamped by in 9-11 and I think its reaction to it was demagogic extreme and further distorted the American role in the world because from a posture of relative non-involvement and kind of passive acceptance of the new era of hope and peace we became all of a sudden a warrior engaging in sort of the war on terror against the war on the jihad all sorts of mobilizing slogans about terror domestically and internationally which I think created in our society a distorted view of reality a society driven much more by concerns and fears rather than by realistic assessment of what is happening on the global scene and that has embroiled us increasingly in difficulties the cost of which and the consequences of which we are continuing to feel and probably will be coping with for a number of years yet to come so in that kind of grand sense I think we missed an opportunity I don't want to ascribe it in any particular sense to either specific presidents or specific parties I think it was more a question of kind of a national failure to seize an opportunity that really did confront us in a unique fashion because no one else stood as tall or stood as legitimate and respected worldwide as the United States 20 years ago and just look at global public opinion polls and ask yourself where do we stand today and look how we're engaged in major wars literally alone yes we can force some of our friends Europeans to send token forces to help us but no one else is seriously there because out of conviction and some of our other major rivals quasi partners in the world are the beneficiaries of this rather one sided condition In the far in the back and then I'll come down here Joe Bosco with CSIS Dr. Bajinsky I want to return to the role that you and Henry Kissinger played in the opening of relations with China I have to be respectful in my question because I had both of you as professors in college it seems to me that is it fair to ask that both of you had the working assumption and also President Nixon and President Carter that ultimately Taiwan would fall under the rule of communist China and if that's true as a working assumption have your views changed since Taiwan has become a very viable and functioning democracy Well I can only speak for myself I can't speak for Henry our view in the negotiations with the Chinese which I expressed and which is part of the record was that in so far as the United States is concerned we accept the communicate I was issued by Nixon and Mao the Shanghai communicate because that was a feta complete when we came to power that was what we inherited but that in our view this issue has to be resolved if it is to be resolved peacefully and that our fundamental interests would be engaged if it were otherwise and that we presume that this is also in China's interest because one way or another historical change will determine the nature of the relationship between Taiwan and China and that I think is a safe prediction namely if historical change is such that we're still deeply and effectively engaged in Asia and present in it it will have an obvious impact on the relationship between Taiwan and China and probably increases the prospects of a separate Taiwan existing or existing for longer time quite significantly on the other hand if internal problems in our country excessive engagement in the global Balkans which then produces in this country a wave reaction against international involvement creates conditions in which Taiwan will find it increasingly difficult to resist the entreaties of the mainland and pressure from the mainland then it will in fact become part of the mainland and that's something that we will not be able to interfere no will be inclined to interfere with under those circumstances so in effect it is something that will work out on the basis of what happens ultimately in the grand relationship between China and America which in turn is dependent on the degree to which each of them stays healthy, effective, responsible and rational and that is something that no one can predict within the degree of certainty. Right down here in the front, Jeff. Thank you Paula Stern and I'm very glad that you picked up from last week's discussion on the arc of instability and in particular the Arab-Israeli question I know you were getting close to it last week when you spoke to the CSIS group my question is given the fact that you're describing the US and the world kind of standing on precipice here looking at this UN resolution that will be debated in September in some way and that you've come up with what I consider a counter proposal to walk us back from that precipice and given the fact that the Saudis back in 2002 had an effort to find some resolution between Israel and Palestine is there a role that we can see that possibly the Saudis coming back in to making, coming to assist in this and I ask this also because I see this as domestic politics is always shaping all these foreign policies. In Israel you're now seeing the former head of Mossad, the Shin Bet and the military intelligence who have now all retired critiquing and criticizing Netanyahu. Is there a role here for other actors to help reinforce what I see you sketching as a proposal? Well I think the Saudis can play a supportive role simply by essentially reiterating a position which they articulated in 2002 which is the Beirut proposals which in effect were a step by the Arab side towards acceptance of the formula of the grant compromise and that is something that also the majority of the Israeli public opinion has tended to support including the principal political actors in Israel from let's say slightly right of center all the way to the left thereby isolating the extreme right but that is not the current reality in Israel and insofar as the Saudis are concerned they no longer have much confidence in our willingness to see this problem all the way through to its constructive resolution because they have been fed a diet now for 20, 30 years of repeated American commitments and recommitments and then at critical moments backing off. President Clinton didn't really address that issue seriously until the last months of his presidency. President Bush went in a different direction altogether and President Obama articulated prospects of such commitment but on the two occasions in which he had a confrontation with the Israelis on the subject well not with the Israelis with Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically on the subject he backed off and thereby not in a sense validating the depth of his commitment to what he articulated in speeches which were meant to create a kind of international consensus on behalf of peace process. So I don't expect the Saudis to become terribly active provided there's no retrogression. I think the real risk is that in many respects the political upheaval in the Middle East which on the one hand may be the beginning of a long-term process of democratization can be in the shorter run a process of populist self-assertion. And the fact is that in the case of governments such as the Egyptian, perhaps the Jordanian in some respects even the Saudi have taken a more moderate position than the street is likely to take when it begins to influence national policy of these states. And therefore I don't think we should really underestimate the degree to which we may be at the end phase of our ability to shape positively what happens in the Middle East. And if we are not in a serious international supported effort now I think our leverage on this whole set of issues is going to now more rapidly decline. And this is why I think there is a sense of urgency. Now some of them might say, and people have said this in the Congress, this is throwing Israel under the bus to quote a leading Republican candidate. I really don't think it's throwing it under the bus. I think it's averting a situation in which it's long-range prospects in the Middle East will become increasingly problematical. Because in the long run Israel's survival as a viable part of the Middle East is really dependent on the degree to which it can become part a creative even energizing part of the transformation of the region. And that can only be done in the context of some acceptance of mutual accommodation between the Israelis and Palestinians with the Palestinians being politically more advanced than most of the other Arabs in the region. So in a sense it's not only an economic but very much a political opportunity that should not be missed. And my sense is that in the United States itself the majority of Jewish opinion is moderate on the subject. But that moderation is not articulated by the institutions that claim to speak for the American Jewish community in this country. But there is a real gap between the positions taken by these institutions and the public opinion polls regarding such issues as do you favor two-state solution? What about territorial compromise? Even the question of Jerusalem which is the most sensitive of all when it is viewed in this larger context. Of course viewed by itself it is understandably unacceptable. Right here. Good afternoon. My name is La Lola from the Center of Justice and Peace Building. Since Sahara and Africa has not mentioned I thought I should just throw a question. In recent years we have witnessed some active China's presence in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has increasingly built some or building some sphere of influence. My question is to what extent does the United States consider Sub-Saharan Africa of any strategic significance or to what extent is Sub-Saharan Africa of relevance to the future U.S. strategic trajectory? Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't understand your question. I think you're asking the degree to which South Africa figures in our Sub-Sahara Africa. Sub-Sahara Africa. Figures in what? Yeah, could you, could you speak slowly and loudly? Okay, I was saying in recent years we have witnessed so on and we're gonna hear individual words. Okay, we have witnessed China's presence in Sub-Saharan Africa. China's influence in Sub-Saharan Africa and they are increasingly building a sphere of influence particularly when it comes to because of their passive policy towards issues of governance. So my question was to what extent do you consider Sub-Saharan Africa of strategic significance to the U.S. future foreign policy or trajectory foreign policy? Is that clear or? It's, I think, if I might rephrase, I think he's asking China has been increasingly active in Sub-Saharan Africa and the degree to which we see this as a strategic risk or threat or a competition. You know, I think it could be a strategic threat if we get into a strategic conflict with China. It's not an issue over which we're likely to get into conflict. In the short term, in any case, the Chinese motivation is obviously self-serving but also of some local benefit. I think this is why the African governments are entering into some of these arrangements and China's role in Africa certainly is not negative. In some respects, it's quite constructive. But if we get on a larger scale things into a strategic rivalry and then strategic hostility with China, then obviously China's role in Africa will be viewed by us as a source of conflict. But I don't think it itself is likely to precipitate a conflict. That's much more likely to arise if it does, either directly over economic financial issues. That's a question, for example, of international currency in the short run or the indebtedness involving American China or some issues such as Korea, for example, or South China Sea or Pakistan where there could be conflicting American and Chinese strategic interests thrust into a direct conflict. The young lady sitting in the back and then across the aisle will take these last two. Thank you. Molly Williamson, American Academy of Diplomacy. Thank you for your analysis about the important loss of American prominence since 1991 following that through. My question is, how can we correct course? This town, as we speak, is in a major debate over whether or not we should honor our bills and pay our national debts and the like. How do you see us moving forward in a way that can be respected in the international scene and recoup some of our losses? Well, you know, that's a really enormous question because it combines, and rightly so, in the interaction between our domestic dilemmas and our foreign travails. But I do think that some aspects of each are subject to correction. Certainly some of our policies abroad can be adjusted, and I think some engagements can be modified. And we can draw at least some relevant lessons for the future that can help us avoid similar problems. We talked a little bit about the Middle Eastern problem which is posing for us an immediate challenge. We're likely to have a challenge as we disengage from Iraq because I don't think it's going to be such an easy disengagement. And no one has asked yet and what will happen after we leave to Iraqi politics? Are we going to be seeing a democratic pro-American Iraq, assuming one even exists right now with American troops there, and once American troops have left? Those are the kind of sort of immediate timeframe issues where some corrective steps can be taken. Similarly, domestically, we have to find an acceptable formula on the debt issue because that's paralyzing our governmental process. I assume we will because I think more and more people will realize that if we do not, the international consequences for the United States and the credit standing of the United States and the world will be in great jeopardy. And therefore the world economic and financial system could be very, very adversely affected. I think this kind of moment of truth is approaching. But beyond that, do I really expect a dramatic reversal? No, I don't. I think we're now in a situation in which the combination of insecurity, lack of understanding of the world, and the absence of serious alternative leadership is a problem that's going to confront us for some time to come. You know, what I find striking about international affairs is, and this is where my political bias comes up and I confess it openly, I find Obama's speeches to be fundamentally historically correct. I think he understands what is needed and how the world is changing today. What I think is lacking on his side is systematic strategic implementation of that comprehensive analysis for a variety of reasons, which this is not the time to go into. What is lacking on the other side is the absence of any alternative vision a rejection of his and a tendency to go into really irresponsible tangents by the sort of would-be candidates for president. If you look at their foreign policy prescriptions, the range from mystical to idiosyncratic to escapist to simply ignorant. And that's the situation that pertains to literally every single one that has stepped forward so far. And that is a very serious national condition because I think it reflects a little bit the public state of mind at the same time. And that I think is a very serious issue in this country which precisely this kind of discussion is needed on a huge scale because the fact of the matter is we don't have an intelligence discussion in this country about America and the world. And it is desperately needed if we were to play our role in the world which is needed because without us it's gonna be far more unstable. Sir, I'm gonna give you the last question and then I've got one little final thing on that. Thank you Dr. Brzezinski for being here today and thank you for your class of 1990. Can you speak up a little bit louder please? Thank you for being here today. I'm Michael McClosher from National Defense University. The National Security Strategy of 2002 stated that the greatest threat to U.S. national security comes from within weak and failing states rather than strong state adversaries. That led the Bush administration pretty reluctantly into the state building enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think, in your opinion, is state building an appropriate or a viable national security mission for the United States? I always thought it was absurd. I was marginally present at the decisions for example made right after 9-11 to go into Afghanistan. And I fully endorsed the necessity of going to Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda. But at the end of the meeting, I told Rumsfeld that I thought we're to go in, wipe out the regime that is sponsoring al-Qaeda and pull out. Give them economic assistance, create an international umbrella, but not get engaged in anything of the kind that followed. And what followed was not on an escalating engagement but an escalation of objectives. Nation building, democracy and all of that. I don't think a foreign army in a country that is fundamentally different culturally and religiously is an instrument for creating a nation in that context. Because first of all, a nation incipiently exists already. It's an organism that has its own cultural, philosophical, political definitions. And a foreign army cannot change that except by crushing that nation completely. And yes, if we want to do that, let's send an army of two million people to Afghanistan and engage in a 10-year program of creating something else. That can be done. But I don't think anybody in this country is prepared to make that effort. So we want to do it on the cheap, borrow money from the rest of the world in order to do it, don't have a draft, so only have volunteers that we can somehow induce to go there and to do it in this kind of sleigh-of-the-hand fashion. And I don't think that's been productive. We can assist nations as they change themselves. And I think we have an opportunity to do that today in Egypt.  They have a sense of their own history, their own pride, their own contribution to civilization. They'll accept our technical assistance. They'll accept some of our initiatives to try to deal with the youth bulge. But if we go in there with the repetition of what our previous president tried to do in Afghanistan, we're going to fail massively. And of course, on top of it, we have to deal with some of the problems that are of concern to those people. And I keep repeating what is happening today in the Middle East does hinge in a significant degree on their ability to have a constructive, enduring, really historically important accomplishment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's an opportunity. It's not a negative hostile challenge. It's an opportunity to do something, to avert something that can become very bad for all concerned. Not just us, but also for the Palestinians and for the Israelis, for the Arabs, and therefore for the region. Dr. Brzezinski, you've written a series of books. They've always been the start of framing a new way of thinking about a problem. I've always marveled at that. So I'm asking you to share with us. You're writing something now, I'm sure. What most intrigues you right now that it's got your mind engaged intellectually to a future? Well, actually, the questions you posed. Well, that's lucky. Well, I want to say thank you. This has been a remarkable morning. Thank you very much, Dr. Brzezinski. Thank you.


Yeah, I tweaked the title a little bit. Yeah, so The adobe type team has always been about trying to invent the future and of course The future isn't always what you expect Keeps things interesting I've been very fortunate to be at adobe for most of the time that adobe's been around and I'd like to share some thoughts With you about the changes we've been through I'll start with saying a few words a bit in particular about kaizen The word you saw in my first slide Kaizen's a wonderful blend of East and West Confucian philosophy and American business practice. It's about getting everybody on the team to look for ways to make things better faster and more reliable Lots of changes often small help quality emerge Kaizen is what brought Japan out of the destruction that resulted from World War two Those of us who are old enough to remember when made in Japan was a badge of shame It may it cheap and unreliable now because of 60 years of kaizen Japan makes some of the best quality products around Similarly adobe's fonts have never been perfect But by constantly improving them, we've made something pretty good I'm here to talk about those improvements adobe quickly developed a reputation for quality fonts What many people don't realize is that this isn't because we were all that good when we started We were simply better than the alternatives and that's not saying much When adobe shipped its first fonts in the 85 the only alternatives for desktop publishing were bitmap fonts If you use them at actual size on screen, they looked okay But if you scaled them or printed them, they looked like a pile of bricks adobe provided bitmap fonts too, but they were just for laying out on the screen They were linked to outline fonts that could be printed on a post-cred printer at 300 dpi Or if you spent the big bucks 1260 dpi on a post-cred image setter Higher resolutions came long soon If you stop and think for a minute, you'll realize there was no software for editing post-cred outlines back in 1984 When we started adobe had to create its own It didn't happen very quickly Also, there were serious size problems Early post-cred printers had very little room for fonts and the connection for downloading print jobs to a printer was really slow Making the file bigger by adding fonts slowed it down more so adobe needed to make the font files as small as possible One of the first families in the early post-cred printers was courier Really talented engineer named Linda gas who now makes beautiful quilts Programmed courier in a text editor The original adobe or courier was a set of post-cred paths that were stroked to create a visible glyph Stroke a few pixels wide made the regular weight and a heavier stroke made the bolt and the outlines were sloped to make obliques To fill in for italics This allowed one minimal set of post-cred data to behave like four fonts Saved a lot of space Of course, it didn't look so great the other main families in the first post-cred printers were Helvetica in times Rumor has it they were digitized by John Warnock's sons. I Believe the engineers tried to program these in a text editor too and concluded that they really had to create a tool for editing outlines The new tool was still pretty crude when these families were produced and of course there wasn't anybody who had any experience with post-cred outlines The end result actually looked pretty decent at normal sizes And they got pretty lumpy once that really large Here are the original glyphs from times in Helvetica compared to more recent versions You can see the difference mainly in the time serifs and the Helvetica curves are really wonky Many things happened in the next few years first Adobe hired Sumner Stone somebody with real type design experience who hired other Typographically talented people and of course Adobe kept improving our editing tools until we finally switched over to an off-the-shelf editor in the mid 90s Finally in 1989 line of type officially complained to us that our funky representation was damaging their trademark So we got new data from them and completely overhauled these families Hinting was at the heart of post-cript success No previous approach was able to make decent bitmaps on 300 DPI devices on the fly The first release of post-cript had a very simple model for hints there was one baseline and Five top alignment zones the blue values array There was one set of hints for each glyphs and hence could not overlap Even before the first post-print printer shipped it was clear that more hinting information was necessary to get decent results By the time the laser writer plus shipped in 1986 Adobe had added more bottom alignment zones the other blues array and A mechanism to handle overlapping hints Hence still can't actually overlap but things that would overlap can be stored in separate layers Each layer is loaded when the portion of the outline and controls is being drawn in the rasterizer Revising times in Helvetica wasn't the only big change we made in 1989 Apple and Microsoft lit a fire under Adobe by announcing they were going to ship an alternate format called true type Perhaps the biggest advantage of true type at least from our point of view was that the OS would rasterize type right on screen So people could see the actual type. They were working with instead of just using bitmap approximations Adobe was determined to get there first with live type and we did we shipped ATM The Adobe type manager nine months before true type actually arrived shipped ATM letting people use post-print fonts. They already had That type had been built to look good at 300 DPI it up Mac screens were only 72 DPI quarter the resolution. We've been proofing at The lower resolution put a lot of pressure on hints We ended up re hinting most of the fonts in the library Our first library wide revision We also well actually that was our second library wide revision We also discovered that we needed to keep as many of an outlines hints as possible in each layer So the rasterizer could be aware of the other hints while making its adjustments ATM also introduced a higher quality rasterization model for better results at low resolutions We still use the old model at larger resolutions where it's faster and a half pixel difference is less critical And at really high resolutions. We simply use Postscripts graphics rasterizer This can make debugging Rasterization problem kind of interesting Moving to ATM forced Adobe to redo a few fonts that use non-standard approaches. We finally retired the stroked courier in 1990 Making it a normal outline font that would work fine in ATM We also had a couple font families that used two sets of outlines one for image setters with their High resolution and one for laser printers with lower resolutions The fonts included code to detect the printer's resolution and apply the correct set of outlines ATM's better rasterization let us switch to using the high res outline everywhere These are outlines of high and low res glyphs from the two families optima and itc eras I offset the low res optima i so you can see the difference better Following the release of ATM Adobe made good on its promise to publish the type 1 font format specification I learned there's a big difference between an unofficial spec and an official one Getting the details nailed down and cleaned up took nearly a year But not only did this help promote the format it made us clean up our own technical act Adobe knew early on we need to be able to handle more than just latin fonts We needed to stop we started working with morisawa To get their fonts working with postcript printers Postcript was set up to work with one byte encodings. So type 1 fonts couldn't use more than 255 glyphs Of course, japanese needs tens of thousands Adobe engineers crafted a sort of virtual font mechanism that enabled hundreds of type 1 fonts to function as a single japanese font It was a massive collage But it got postcript accepted by the japanese printer manufacturers A few years later, we created the much more flexible CID font format that we still use today for east asian fonts In time, we also built up our own type development team in tokyo We understand things better when we do them ourselves So this lets us stay on top of the technical issues as well as creating cool original designs Of course, we had a problem with 255 glyph fonts on the western side too Many fonts really need a healthy set of ligatures small caps old style figures and other alternates in order to enable decent typography There wasn't nearly enough room for them in a one byte font We defined a set of glyphs beyond the standard fonts and set them up in supplemental fonts. We called expert sets We learned a few things Only serious typographers were willing to buy the expert sets most people really didn't care And expert sets were hard to use You had to switch fonts to get the glyphs Which had the extra drawback of making it impossible to curn between them and the main fonts And because type 1 fonts weren't using unicode the expert characters used the values of normal characters often completely unrelated This screwed up the text stored in a document This is one of several reasons we started looking into defining a next generation font format John Warnock figured out how to do on-the-fly racerization in post script So we were all thinking about other ways to use computer technology to do new things with fonts I think one of the coolest things adobe ever did was on-the-fly interpolation In what we call multiple masters We put compatible designs at two ends of a continuum or four corners of a square or eight corners of a cube Or 16 corners of a hyper cube And let the user pick any point in between to get exactly the interpolation they wanted Inside adobe there were people who saw three very different uses for this technology John Warnock saw that we could use it to approximate fonts that might be missing in a document We still have special purpose multiple master fonts in acrobat that do this today Other people saw the ability to adjust weight and width Either dramatically or as subtle adjustments for things like copy fitting And some of us were most excited about enabling designs optimized for the specific size being used Capability that the metal punch cutters always had but got lost Along the way with phototype We figured out how to modulate the adjustment most of which happens in the smaller sizes To get optically adjusted designs for virtually any size As an example of the kinds of design adjustments made for different sizes Here's a recreation of four a's cut by claude garamont Scaled to the same point size We could interpolate between these but the cool technology was pretty hard to support Every time we added a feature like transitional designs or intermediate masters We had to do a bunch of engineering work in atm to support it We also faced a classic chicken and egg problem Very few people actually use the interpolation features because they weren't supported in the main applications The main applications weren't interested in adding support for the interpolation features because very few people used them Though We tried to learn a lesson from this when it came time to promote open type The type one format was a version 1.0 kind of effort Lots of good ideas, but a number of things not considered adobe was working on acrobat in 1991 And along with a way to emulate missing fonts. We needed a way to embed fonts in pdf Of course, we needed to keep the files small even if lots of fonts were embedded A couple of our best engineers sat down and wrote a 2.0 version of the format called it the compact font format Embodied everything we'd learned in the first 10 years of type one And managed to reduce the font file sizes by nearly half When we signed the open type agreement with microsoft, it was clear that cff was the format to use for post-grip open type fonts Shortly after we shipped our first open type fonts. We also published a public specification We haven't made any type one font since 1998 There are a lot of advantages to open type, but cff is definitely one of them from my point of view Like cff open type was a second generation effort We've been thinking about what was needed for 21st century fonts and it turned out microsoft was thinking similar thoughts We combined apple's sfnt structure with unicode support to make a much more extensible format than the original type one or true type And of course it had the convenience of a single cross-platform file The other key component was layout intelligence The open type model lets the font supply information about the glyphs that the application can use to do better typography by default This is cool stuff for western typography But it's essential for many non-western systems Here again, we were learning from earlier mistakes We saw how our earlier efforts with multiple masters never really went mainstream Not well supported in apps and thus hard to use We also saw how apple's gx line layout technology which tackled a problem similar to open type was rejected by all the main applications Because it took over most of their choices about layout We were determined to not repeat the same mistakes and thankfully We now live in an open type world Even so we've seen lots of room for improvement Some of the features we originally defined have since been deprecated Plenty of others have been clarified and reworked And still others are even now being added by interested parties chiming in This is kaizen at its best When adobe started the computer screen was a crude preview device and nothing more We had hand-tuned bitmap fonts that emulated a handful of sizes and other sizes were scale bitmaps which looked awful ATM was the first time the fonts were really imaged on screen As I mentioned earlier we discovered we had to do hinting quite differently for that kind of use Version two of ATM introduced simple grayscale anti-aliasing Which is a new concept to most people at the time We explained it as font smoothing This effectively increased the resolution reversing some of the impact of low res screens later LCD screens began to replace the crts That had been standard for so many decades The lcd structure with red green and blue elements in each pixel opened the door to even higher resolution anti-aliasing Both microsoft and adobe took that step, but independently Best practices for font tables are moving target And standards evolve We do the best we can in qe, but we definitely still find bugs after fonts have shipped Then there always seems to be another currency character coming the euro the ukrainian rivnia the turkish lira the indian rupee the russian ruble There's something this required and at least some of the fonts And there are the general design improvements i talked about earlier So any font that's been in the adobe type library more than a year or two has been revised at least once many multiple times This is kaizen in practice But the revisions create a new problem People don't think of fonts as software that gets updated Unless it actually comes with other software like their os They get a font and use it for decades They don't get fixes and enhancements For a small foundry that has a close relationship with each of its customers There'd be no big deal, but lots of people using our fonts don't even remember where they got them Web font services have pointed the way to a new answer We're now at a point where it's practical to treat fonts as a service This doesn't just enable everyone to have the latest and greatest version It introduces an entirely different business model that has the potential to get far more people using far more fonts Which I think will ultimately be good for everybody This is something i've been looking forward to for at least 20 years So i'm excited to see the first steps finally coming together Thank you


Man kidnaps girl, rapes her until privates destroyed, it gets worse. Donald Smith kidnapped, raped, and murdered 8-year-old Cherish Perrywinkel. He lured the girl's family to Walmart and then left with just her. The medical examiner's report was so graphic, it's hard to read, let alone hear, and it's clear this man is absolutely disgusting. But, if you can believe it, it gets worse, leaving one simple question, does Cherish Perrywinkel of Jacksonville, Florida, went missing from a local Walmart in June 2013, and her case quickly made national headlines. According to Rain Perrywinkel, the child's mother, she and her three daughters, including 8-year-old Cherish, were shopping when a stranger changed their lives forever. Struggling financially, the mother said she thought that Donald Smith, then 56, was the blessing she needed when he approached her and offered to help her out. Little did she know, his kind gesture was all a front to get what he really wanted, and it would lead to a mother's worst nightmare. After seeing the mother struggle to pay for her children's outfits at a Dollar General discount store, according to Fox News, Smith successfully lured the family to Walmart, gaining their trust with promises of new clothes and a McDonald's meal at the store. Unfortunately, Rain allowed Cherish to go with Smith to get the food after he had helped the mother and her girls shop for the clothes, but her daughter would never return from the McDonald's restaurant at the front of the store. When Rain realized Cherish had vanished along with the stranger, she frantically called 911, but it was too late. Cherish's body was found the following day in front of a church. Not only had the young, innocent girl been kidnapped and murdered, she was raped as well, the details of which a courtroom had to hear when Donald Smith was captured and brought to trial for kidnapping, sexual battery, and first-degree murder. Before warned, the graphic nature of the crime is difficult to even read about. I was yelling, call 911. Rain said, speaking of the moment she realized Cherish was missing. My daughter's been taken, and no one would help me right away, she added.  In great detail, she described the torture Cherish faced in her final moments.  According to Jacksonville Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Valerie Rouse testimony, Cherish's genitalia was, totally distorted, due to the viciousness of the rape. In addition, Smith strangled the child to death with an item of clothing as he raped her, all while her right eye bled due to the force of the strangulation. The medical examiner recalled finding severe injuries all over the child's body from being strangled with a piece of clothing and raped and added that the girl's body was, totally distorted, from the trauma as the jurors cried and covered their eyes, according to sources within the courtroom. She estimated that it took the child, who also had blunt force trauma injuries to the head, three to five minutes to die, First Coast News reporter Ann Schindler live tweeted from the trial. Rouse continued her gut-wrenching testimony, adding that the child's right eye began bleeding while being strangled and also revealed that Cherish had tried to fight back, injuring Smith's penis. Upon hearing her testimony, jurors were also left in tears. As if listening to the testimony was not difficult enough, the court viewed photographs of the child's body, causing even Rouse to grow teary-eyed and asked to take a break. However, not everybody was moved nor did everyone appreciate the compassion displayed by Rouse. In fact, Smith's defense urged the judge to declare a mistrial, arguing that the medical examiner's emotional reaction could produce bias among the jurors. Luckily, Judge Mallory Cooper denied the motion. The jury had previously heard secret jail recordings in which state attorney Melissa Nelson says Smith can be heard bragging about the crime. She had a lot for a white girl, he was heard telling another inmate on the tape, allegedly referring to his eight-year-old victim's buttocks. He was also heard telling his fellow inmate that he targets 12-year-old girls. Donald Smith has been arrested dozens of times over the last four decades. Shockingly, this was just one of over a dozen times Smith has been arrested in the past 40 years, and doctors had previously determined that he was a violent sexual predator after arrests in 1999. At least three of Smith's previous charges led to sex abuse convictions, and he has been on Florida's registry of sexual offenders. What's worse, Smith had just been released from prison only three weeks before he kidnapped, murdered, and raped Cherish. After closing arguments were presented, the case went to the jury for deliberations. If guilty, prosecutors asked the jurors to sentence Smith to death. The jury came through for the prosecution, not only convicting the child rapist and killer but also unanimously recommending that Donald Smith is executed for his crimes against Cherish Periwinkle.


The federal government says it will collaborate with China Railway Investment Group Limited CRIG to harness the verse mineral deposits across the country. Minister of Miles and Steel Development Olami Leko Adikpiter expressed government readiness while receiving the team of Quig on Saturday in Abuta. Adikpiter, who made this known statement issued by Etore Thomas, the director of press of the ministry, said the ministry would avail Quig the opportunities of investing in priority areas. Adikpiter conversed, canvassed before investment in mining and processing of some of the major minerals such as gold, bitumen, barit, lead zinc, cobalt, lithium, coal and gemstones. He also called on investors to fully invest in azalea kuta steel plant, Closing that about 13 to 14 minerals needed to produce liquid steel from the plant were all available in Nigeria.


Good morning! Good morning everybody! What's up? It's Friday! It's Social Friday up in here and you're watching what in the morning your favorite breakfast show we do this between Monday and Friday 7 to 10 a.m. As you have heard it's about time we have fun you know this is the Chesa Chida weekend my name is Hilda Wadi, the Karibunisana. If you do want to interact with us, slide into our dm you know where to find us okay and you tell me any priest. Yeah you know you know where to find as Hilda said WhiteFive on Twitter, WhiteFive on Instagram and WhiteFive on Facebook. Never ever forget to tell us where you're watching us from and never forget to use the hashtag as well. It's over here on the screen. Social Friday. And I go by the name of By Muses or It's By Money with Social Media Platform and we have the main man himself. The king! The king of news. When toucha kukuchosha. One news man. Vanity. But the poor, we don't toucha kakalika hype. All right. We don't toucha kakalika hype man. All right. So mixers ita kwa safi? Ah kawaii donna nani me fika na fika mani kwa fresh. All right. Kwa wala na kutazama kumara akwanza. Kwa wala na kumara akwanza. Vdj Khalifa on all social media. Na make sure counter kwa kama mimi. Mapro biggest pros in Kenya. Tkwa nadijakademi pa le kitali na itwa scratchdize. Make sure una fika uko. Laki itu na kuja ingine tu na kapa na irobi. Ingine na kuja na irobi. Bona mbianziya tu kitali? Sasa mwe jua e Kenya. Mitu na na budget. Okay, okay, okay. The cost of day. The cost of day in business is in kitali is less than na irobi. Sosong kwa su miskeo story, do something. Governor kitali ane itwa? Kitali kwa countigemi kwanza. Kitali ni counti? Sijika ni riftwaji. Una choma. Please let us know if you're watching us live and please let us know if you're interested in being a DJ. So Vdj Khalifa can give you a discount. I know why your business is hard. Soko is making your life hard. You know in viral videos you saw a DJ taking an apple like this and smashing it. Miliya ni zime kwa mingi. That was in the U.S. Miliya ni zime kwa mingi. But he'll have deli kwa mkbookia 1999. What you want to film? Apana matili kwa mkbook pro. So inna manisha nili teki stone. Nili teki fiti? Adab nili smanshe. Mashe ma DJ mna chama matili. Watu wuku diya boli. All my friends are bolas. I like that. The king of bolas. So we have the BBC journalist Larry Mado. I know you all remember him. That's our person. Chazakini man. So now Larry Mado posted a video on Thursday. It was a strange video because he was eating maize. He said that it tastes like chicken. Kenyans have been saying the most about this ever since this has come out. He says that I ate a mouse for the first time and it was well amazing. Maize not rats. He specified delicacy in parts of maize and it tastes like chicken. So now people started commenting. My goodness, you will never kiss me again. That is imani. She feels violated goodness. I don't know Larry who you have been kissing but it is about to end. So there is someone else who said, isn't that not poaching? Oh, poaching. So can we just hear what Larry Mado had to say? Oh my God. We could have just cut off the tail and the head. I think I would have managed. I think Larry Mado comes from it's called Oyeyo. Oyeyo? Oyeyo. Yes. I think we can get even the flies around the Oyeyo. Come on. This is eating rats. Maize not I got confused. Maize like Mishikaki. And they still have the skin on them. Yes. It's crazy. Well, I do admire how daring he is. But anyway, we can just look at some of the comments that Kenya's had to make. So I don't know if I should mention your names. Majina's come. Wape wae shoutouts. Wape wae shoutouts. Esquale said my eating a rat on the highway. Literally. Shok. Imani ima. My goodness, you will never kiss me again. Clio amo. Larry Mado has kissed you. We want to know. Clio amo, ladies. Don't shoot the messages. Isn't that not poaching? Deputy resident Willie Wahungu. Kidogo, kidogo. Onze kukulanguwaza. Colleagues pale BDC. Kenyans. What's wrong? What's wrong? Awareness the third. See, unge tohata manyo ya jameni. Lakin isi ni life. I know. I thought the same thing too. Anyway. The rest were all chips. Atiyo. John Odande said that from today you shall be called Larry the rat eater. Mado. Milk shake has said that try this mice bugger. Druze. Then there's a little more mice. Oh God, Kenyans. What's wrong? What's wrong? Okay. I think what I've learned from this story, there's only one way to go viral. Kenyans. Eat mice. Kenyans are going to jump into your comments like they jumped into Larry's comments. We tell us what you think about this particular story. We have a 2.5.4 channel on Twitter. White Faith 4. Under School channel on Instagram. And White Faith 4 on Facebook. Never ever, ever forget to tell us where you're watching us from. Atakama ni manlawi. Ya, but these days you're on TSCV 3.6. They could be on TSCV 3.6. So we'd like to know what's happening man. Anyway, onto other things now and every day by day, night by night, week by week, month by month, this country, I feel like this country is becoming more and more low less. People are doing whatever they want. Whenever they want, nothing is done. We've seen a lot of stories of people doing legal things and most of these cases go unsolved. But this one really got my attention and it happened somewhere in Tericho, I think, where kids were sleeping. The mum brews changa in the house. And then the clay pot that she was brewing the changa in, the steam. It was steam. Okay, the steam and the hot pot changa. It blows up the pot and these kids got some major burns. Yes, and this was really sad because these kids were just sleeping, minding their own business but their mum put their lives at risk. So they were taken to hospital in Tericho and then relocated to Eldoret referral. The referral hospital in Eldoret and it's really sad to see people not following the law. Even if you want to brew changa really in the house where your kids are sleeping. It's a sad thing. So maybe we can get some facts on this particular story. So four children are not in serious injuries after clay pot the mother was using to brew illicit liquor, burst and splashed hot drink on them. The children aged between three months and six years were sleeping next to the pot on Wednesday nights when it suddenly cracked and spilt it content. The incident happened at Chaplele village in Ainamoi constituency and the four children were taken to Tericho County Hospital before being transferred to Kenyatta National Hospital. The three year old suffered 45% burns. That's a lot while the other suffered 36%. I just hope Kenyans can follow the law because this is impunity right here. But it speaks a lot about the poverty that we are experiencing in this country. Like people are so poor. You can boil your changa outside the house. Not where your kids are sleeping. It illicit as you've heard. It's probably illegal. So Shidas is not trying to advertise herself brewing this thing. Maybe that's how she's making her living.  I don't think poverty is an excuse to light a fire and lose something. Khalifa. Please tell us what you think. Opinion ya nga nga nga, distabu mtu krinja anyway. O mada nge picka tujw eni aato elazi mawa it. Ya maze. Bata hezi picka nge. Sa sumo ja wezi picka. Ni kama ku stone, wezi stone ninja. Ima sumi ka una di fita. Ya ni wa shitu moto hapa. Weke potju. No, tochiwa lale hapa. So tochiwa lale hapa. na ta jwalalehapa sasi labla kawna jwa kwa kia-fuu sas'i minu niki Thinking this is a accident maybe I'll just go back to poverty this day is almost 50% jutui watata na iiwa yata kuna geniusa niwa stati 6 Oh below $1 It's done employment rate we know it's almost 49% We see now, this is a big chunk of our population who have children to take care of and all that and then I mean like, it was just an accident, I don't think she really intended for this to happen. But all the best to the kids, we hope they get well soon at Kenyatta National Hospital being treated at Kenyatta and we hope all goes well for them. It's a sad story, it's a very sad way to start our Friday but we are VDJ Khalifa to lighten us up with really really good music. And they're still alive. And they're still alive, we can celebrate that. And yes, we hope we find solutions to this. So all you guys are saying, the solution is not to take this woman to prison and we should empower them. Yeah, because she was just trying to provide for our children at the end of the day. Whatever she was doing, when if it was illegal, it's not something she would do in front of people. So maybe she's been doing it for a minute maybe that's how she's been feeding them and it's just an accident. Just an accident. Alright, I really wish you could hear our judges talk when they meet such cases. It's just an accident. But anyway, people should be empowered. They should not be taken to jails, that's what you guys are saying. People should be empowered. Give people jobs, give people a chance to work, be fair, stop corruption. People actually hustling out here but because of corruption, everything is just going to the dogs. Yes. So yes, but it's about how we tough out from this intro bag. Please let us know if you would like to, if you would be daring enough like Larry Madao and taste a mouse, a mouse. Just remember mice is the plural. If you taste a mouse, I don't know if it tastes like chicken. If you've tasted it, make sure you dislike it. I'll try to find 4 channels on Twitter. Hashtag we're in the morning. Hashtag social Friday. Tell us now, you know, let us know. What? What you come and Larry wakoengi. Chinia waji. I know. What is a chinia? I know. We know who wakoengi. Anyway, yes, I come and I never buy moses or eat buy water in social media platform. Yes, please don't go anywhere. My connect is coming up right next. My name is Hilda Wazidi. We are having a fun field show today for you. So please don't go anywhere.


Going on everyone Sam here with late sports cards Riffin 23 tops come black baseball hobby 12 bucks case number 38 pick your team style Read off list for names in our teams Anthony C with the A's Bobby L Dodgers Chris M Brewers David G Blue J's Edward P Cardinals Eric M twins Guardians Eric L with the White Sox Gregory J Braves Phillies Jane W Astros Jason G Royals Joe T Mariners John W Nationals Kyle T D-Bax Larry P with the Tigers Larry S Giants Matthew B Yanks Michael V Cubs Michael D Marlins and Padres Michael B with the Rays Paul B Rangers Rowland R Rockies pirates We're on our Mets Sandor K Orioles song like as angels Stefan a Reds and William L with the Red Sox So good luck here everybody Brandon picking up a couple of you know Boman's best you random team styles as well. Thank you, buddy. Let's get rocking here on TC black Again three to go in the next one three to go bowman draft jumbo Orioles a's and Giants I believe So pretty good value teams there as well Orioles are looking at Bradfield We look like Mac Horvath a couple guys there a's obviously Jake Wilson and then the Giants Eldridge Now you who know you other names as well there. Look TC black No one Gorman rookie green and 99 Sandy El Contra For the Marlins Congrats Miami and Eerie Perez rookie and then in case John Smoltz. Go to the Braves Congrats on that Nice one there. What's up Wally? How you doing, buddy? John Smoltz. I Red Whatever it is a tenant under Just autographs Alright, there's a magenta speaking of Mason Miller. It's a met Justin Verlander 10 of 10 Congrats Mets That's awesome. Take that JV is a met not gonna be too many of those guards Riley green And Prince fielder. Let's go for the brew crew. That's awesome Love me some Prince fielder. I think the Geronimo. I think that that's a good hire Wally, I do think it's a good hire Alright, we've got Frey Freeman refractor to 199 Logan Webb for the Giants and then a Miguel Amaya rookie This one there as well Got aphoshot picking up the Giants. We're down to two. Thank you aphoshot s appreciate you buddy and Starling Marta for the Mets Congrats on that Mets Yeah, I know honestly And what do we think do we think Pete Carroll is gonna coach next year? Sandial Contra the 150 CJ Abrams purple many diamonds and Jacob deGrone and Green auto to 99 Ken Waldechuck. Congrats ease Yes, probably should not have that that's gonna be the big thing is not gonna have Belichick as a GM That's like a huge thing. There you go quicks Orioles and Royals left in the next one everybody No, they're not gonna they're not gonna find that the Tomlin's not getting fired Tom like Tomlin will not be will not be getting fired.  Yeah, and they said like Ravens one in the chiefs one in the Niners one in Like everybody else like the Steelers probably wouldn't as well. Yeah, I keep Tomlin to Aaron judge variation is Josh young for the Rangers Congrats on that and Matt McLean to 50 Nice one there gold mini diamonds and then a gold max free 42 a 50 Many diamonds auto going to the Braves. Congrats on that Bravo's auto coming up here That is Asturio Ruiz the 50 Nolan Arnato And Joy Manassas. Yeah, dude. That's awesome Bailey Falter 20 of 25 orange rookie auto going to the Phillies Congrats on that Phyllis It's real quick. I'm gonna mark down teams and NT baseball as well. Everybody some good deals to be had there on some of the bigger teams Reds still available Yeah, so I'm Jay Melinda is essentially is offering a Bounty for a couple of his cards his sterling 101 From next year Glenn K with the Orioles down to one everybody one to go on the next one just the ease Just the Royals on draft He's offering on his sterling 101 and His world baseball classic Personally fly you out to a game and make a trade for it 99 Sandiel Contra That is 275 Masataki Yoshida Tray turn auto Byron Buxton going to the twins Appreciate that Anthony live traffic fun, man Yeah, any questions on anything? Let us know so we're here to answer But yeah, I mean there's there's a lot of there There's speculations you that like there's a couple of playoff teams that if they don't go far They're like there's a potential McCarthy's done if they don't make it like There's a lot of them saying if they don't win this or lose in the Super Bowl they lose before the Super Bowl McCarthy's done that Shane Bieber orange to 25 Oscar Coloss nice one there for the White socks and Yeah, and Vinny Pascantino to 199. That's gone to the Royals. Congrats, Casey. No, it is cut for sure There's no doubt on that at all that that's true, too Like I don't at Belichick's gonna hold out I think for a bit here Jram to 199 Raffy Devers and Von Grissom, that's why I don't think we're gonna see a lot of head coaches get hired right off rip Matthew Liebetor to 150 congrats on that To the Cardinals very nice one there Cardinals refractor auto There's also like McDermott Potentially to be on the hot seat. I mean the bill has got Very hot toward the end of the year so McDermott might have bought himself another year But the other one I'm hearing potentially if they if they really flop would be serious Morrell rookie to 199 Miguel Cabrera and Chris Bryant, there's been a lot of dysfunction of Philly. I think though Gold Marcus Simeon 43 of 50 nice one there Rangers.  Yeah The development has not been there for some of their rookies. That is Michael Harris to 150 urie Perez purple many diamonds Nice one there and Matt Olson and Lubeb for the white socks nice one there on the auto Congrats white socks Very nice. I Do too. I ultimately do as well Nick. I do think Pierce. I think Pierce deserves the head coach and job He's a lot like Mayo. He's a big players guy. I mean they played well when he took over The players love him to on green wave to 99 Freddy Freeman and Vinnie Pasquantino rookie and we've got auto Jimmy Rollins nice J-Roll going to the Phillies as well Nice one there Philadelphia All right, do a quick recap of our autos here. Let me grab you guys the link to NT baseball really quick NT baseball. Oh, he's a proud member of the mafia. Hell yeah, right exactly All on sale and NT baseball everybody. Thanks, sir. We've got to 10 JV base autos of Jimmy Rollins Lubeb Byron Buxton Starling Marta Prince fielder and John Smalls We've got two at 150 at Matthew Libertor Vinnie Pasquantino to 99 Ken Walde truck to 50 Max Freed Marcus Simeon and a 25 Bailey Falter Do it for the break everybody. Thanks again for the fill on that one up next moment draft jumbo