I am Dr. Sumit Talwar. I am the Chairman of Paryatric Surgery of Manipal Health and Prizes Private Limited. Apart from the most obvious benefit that you will become thinner and look better, there are numerous health benefits. You become fitter, your activity level increases. If you have had diabetes or blood pressure or hypertension or obstructive sleep apnea, most of these elements become better in all of these patients. And it is possible for many of these patients to stop their treatment for all these illnesses altogether. And most importantly, it increases your lifespan by at least 5 to 10 years.


My name is Stephanie Sanic-Costrow and I want to welcome you to this event. Before we get started, I do want to remind you, if you could turn your phones to silent or stun, I'd really appreciate it, they do actually interfere a little bit with our mics up here. And I promise I'm not turning my thing on, this is the most expensive cheap wrist watch I've ever had, so this is going to keep me on time today. As I mentioned, I'm Stephanie Sanic-Costrow, I'm the acting director for the Homeland Security Encounter Terrorism Program here at CSIS, and I'm glad you're all here to talk about this topic. Both natural and man-made disasters are a pressing topic here in the United States, facing the Homeland Security Enterprise. As natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy continue to impact the United States, and as terrorists continue to attempt to strike within our borders, it's crucial to explore not only our immediate short-term response, but also the long-term coordinated efforts that are vital for building resiliency. Resilience is a topic that our program, Homeland Security Encounter Terrorism, has recently explored in depth. We had a series last year called the CSIS Pennington Family Foundation series on community resilience, which, as you can imagine, explored community resilience. But in essence, it was designed to examine the most effective means to strengthen resilience in disaster-prone areas. The series' content, including our recommendations to the Hill, to the executive branch and to the private sector, is all available on the CSIS website, and that includes my plug for our program. To continue that important conversation, today we are lucky enough to be enjoyed by Dr. Dane Egley for a discussion of his new book, Beyond the Storms, Strengthening Homeland Security and Disaster Management to Achieve Resilience. Dane brings with him extensive Homeland Security experience. Currently a national security advisor at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, Dane spent much of his career as a Coast Guard officer. He served on the national security staff as a director for counterterrorism and as the president's advisor on hostages and global counter-narcotics policy, who's also a senior maritime advisor to the commander out at NORAD and U.S. Northern Command from 2006 to 2008. Dane, thank you for joining us today. Before we turn over to the audience for their questions, I'd like to ask you a few about your book and about around 4.30 or so, I will turn to the audience to pose some challenging questions to you. So to lead off, what was the genesis of this book? What prompted you to write it? What do you hope to achieve by having your thoughts out there? Well, I went to Johns Hopkins, not really knowing where this would lead. It's an organization which has been there for 70 years. It's a university-affiliated research center. They have gone after the toughest challenges in the country, winning the Cold War, putting a man on the moon, working a lot with the Navy, the Air Force. It was clear that they had a sharp focus already on cybersecurity. So when I came in two years ago, they made the mistake of asking me the question where I thought they should put a focus, and I said critical infrastructure. At the time, a lot of talk focused on critical infrastructure protection. So that's where we started, and we were bound and determined to let the research take us wherever it took us and try and make a difference. And I think that's what we're hoping to have will happen. To press you a little bit on that, what kind of difference? Who's your intended audience for this kind of book? Well, initially, we simply wanted to do the due diligence on the research. We wanted to go out and ask the question, where are we 12 years after 9-11? Where are we in these terms that are floating around in policy, whole of nation, public-private partnerships, community resilience? Even the term resilience itself, well-traveled. So our hope was to be able to distinguish ourselves and say, okay, where are we at? We read the books that started off, America is Vulnerable, Steve Flynn. We read Talib, The Black Swan, looked at Ramo, The Age of the Unthinkable, Zoli, Resilience, Why Things Bounce Back. And my reaction was, when I read those books and you ask what do we hope to make a difference, I would just start off by say, the subtitle for The Black Swan is, The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Well, if you look at the weather patterns and look at the trends, these things are probable, they're not improbable. We need to look at them differently. Ramo said, Age of the Unthinkable, which was why the New World Disorder constantly surprises us. But we need to move from being surprised to expecting these things and not being surprised. And then Zoli, Why Things Bounce Back, our observation was that things weren't necessarily bouncing back. So we found ourselves looking at this issue from a different angle and saying, how could we make a difference? So, being a applied physics lab, we have a bias towards collecting the data, doing rigorous analytics, and having a quantitative impact at the front end. And understanding how decision makers can make better decisions in a resource scarce environment. You've mentioned sort of how resilience has been pervasive, sort of in the vernacular and in conversations lately. Why is resilience such a hot topic right now? I mean, we see it on the hill, we see it in series like the one that we had, but also ones that are elsewhere. Why now? What has triggered something in people's brains to think, right, we need to work on resilience? Well, I mean, if you look at the world of athletics, I see coaches be interviewed and they go, our team was resilient. We were able to take a hit and keep going. So, this generation of leadership, whether it's on Capitol Hill, in the private sector, at the state or local level realizes that it's inevitable that we're going to be faced with a level of complexity and uncertainty that we have never seen before. So, these are not outliers. 9-11 and these active shooters, these, the effects of climate change, the demographic changes for the first time since 1950, our large cities have the migration of people moving inward. Not outward. There are some very significant inflection points, which I think our culture, this generation, my teenagers, have come to realize that something has to change. The words preparedness, readiness, prevention, protection, they're saying something's got to be different. Now, resilience, I think, has a spot in there because what it allows them to do is say there's something for everybody. That's interesting because I also find in talking to everyone from the Hill to the executive branch to think tanks at academia, is there a common definition of what resilience is? Let me see your smile already. Because I've found that everyone brings their own, say, baggage to the game, right? You know, I was in this situation or I saw this happen and we weren't resilient, we didn't bounce back. What, in your book, how do you define resilience? That's a great, great question. Well, after waterboarding myself for two years, working on this book, I was reflecting on my career, working with people like Jim Loy and Thad Allen. And they kind of challenged us during my time in the Coast Guard and even in the interagency, that oftentimes it's not either or rigid definition. It's an asymmetric definition for an asymmetric world. What I mean by that is I was briefing at the Pentagon and at another large intelligence organization and I was stopped by a room of SESs and they said that. That definition, what's your definition? And where we've come down on this is really if you take the policies, PPD 8, PPD 21 from the White House and then you work your way through the states and you go to the mayors of our small communities, here's a definition that we've landed on that I think has the research, the empirical data has brought us there. That is anything you do before, during or after an event which is inevitable in any, in any area because resilience is disaster agnostic that will allow you to better withstand and recover your operations, whatever they are. So we really go very broad, go very flexible and agile because that's what we're gonna have to do. We're gonna have to look at some of the non-traditional ways that we can be more able to react. It may be somewhat contrarian as we were talking earlier. If you have a storm like Sandy come into the Staten Island area or the New Jersey barrier islands, New York, Long Island barrier islands, do you just continue to bring in the Army Corps of Engineers last open that same channel? You may not. Do you just rebuild and put them on stilts and go higher? That may not be the best way to do it. So I think in the book, by the way, I have some back there. Admiral Allen said something in the forward which is, I think is very significant. He said, no one private or public entity can accomplish this. So there is no one silver bullet on Capitol Hill legislation that will allow us to understand the complexity of this issue. There is no one wealthy city. Mayor Bloomberg did some very good things after Sandy and two governors. But it's gonna take more than the private or public individuals. It's gonna take collective action. I think this is a very complex area because you are dealing with so many players. You're not just dealing with the interagency such as it is here in D.C. But you're dealing with 54 governors and territorial governors. You're dealing with city and municipal. You're dealing with local. And then you have to layer on top of that private sector which in critical infrastructure is everywhere, the private sector. Now you and I talked a little bit about in some places they may own 90 to 95% of the critical infrastructure but in other areas only about 50 or so percent of it. So when you talk about resilience to the private sector, knowing that their interests generally are to maintain operations just as any mayor would but also knowing that they have a bottom line to consider, how do you approach the topic of resilience with them? Profit and loss. I spent 33 years in the service. I did not deal with profit loss a whole lot. If you're in the public sector, oftentimes we want you not to be distracted by that. You wanna deploy, you wanna serve your nation but here's the issue. We have to become far more engaged with the private sector on profit loss. We have to make the case for a value proposition, the return on investment that they will see. After Hurricane Andrew, the number two insurance wise, disaster that we've had, GEICO no longer did mortgage insurance. It's just a matter of cash flow. In the insurance industry, the number one industry in the world is private insurance, three trillion. In the US it's the largest, it's 1.2, 1.3. Where are they on this? We have to get smart on this. It's gonna be the place where it's gonna be the hardest but I think as you allude to, Stephanie, we're gonna have to engage the private sector now. I mentioned the insurance industry, we mentioned legislation, that's gonna be important but the private sector is gonna have to see the incentive and we have some great examples in the international community. We cannot add another item to the family budget. We cannot add another item to it. So how do we go after those entities where a small to medium sized business actually begins to view resilience not as a foreign concept or an esoteric abstract idea or that the army or the civil engineers say give you a four to one ratio but rather I am gonna see an advantage to this. If you're a realtor, you're gonna take the people to look at houses in a neighborhood that has the ability to keep the power on, where they've cleared the trees from the power lines, where they've done some of these issues on wastewater treatment and even in that county or that borough they've begun to do some things that reflect a resilient mindset. Well that sounded a little bit like some recommendations already coming out so let me ask you a little bit about your book and your conclusions and recommendations. Where does the nation go from here as of today, January 8th? What steps can various actors take to become more resilient or to increase the discussions about resilience? So if critical infrastructure is the sin quantan of our livelihood, it is the essential ingredient for us to live the way we live in our society. We're gonna have to first of all look at the issue of what kind of investment are we making? We are under investing across the air, land, sea, space, cyber world in a way that is gonna have to change because of the industrialized nations in Europe, the average percentage of GDP that they invest in infrastructure is around five to 6% in Europe. China invests 9 to 10% of their GDP infrastructure in the United States, it's around two to 2.5, somewhere in there over the past 10 years.  We basically wake up in the morning, whether you're the local police chief or in the transportation sector, whichever of the 16 critical infrastructures you're in, you wake up and you say, it's gonna be there. I pull out my smartphone, the GPS signal is gonna be there. So the assumption, the mindset in our culture where we assume it's gonna be there, this public good, which I think resilience is, is gonna have to change, and it's not just gonna be in appropriations and authorization, it's gonna go down to all levels of our society where they realize this is an investment we need to make. So we've lost track of the life cycle costs of our infrastructure. So my other big point would be this, and we can go into this area of questions, but if you look at the Census Bureau, the Department of Commerce does some phenomenal gathering of statistics. The economic census contains information which I think is sobering on this issue of resilience. We have 11 mega communities in this country. If you take the metropolitan statistical areas, MSAs, as part of the economic census, there's about 370 of them, over 50,000 population, and you start to map and gain an understanding of where is our economy anchored? What are the arteries, the essential ligaments of our economy? And what you find are these 11 mega communities. Now, we have 90,000 flood maps at FEMA. We wanna understand where the water flows and how the tributaries affect flooding. In Lycoming, Pennsylvania, they look at those flood maps carefully because they are near the Susquehanna River. We have soil maps. We're 200 years' worth of information for farmers to better know how to work the crops and the content of the soil. We have canopy maps so we know where to put the power lines and we map our brains so we know how to better take care of our body. Have we done the mapping of the dependencies and interdependencies of those mega communities to gain an understanding of what I would call a risk map or a process map for those mega communities. That's where we see the biggest breakthrough and to that end, to answer your question, come back to what you ask, we at Johns Hopkins were basically told after we did the book by leaders of the nation, some of whom are here today. That's great. You've admired the problem. You've codified the problem. You have interviewed the problem. What are you gonna do about it? And the answer is we're gonna operationalize resilience. So we put together a report that puts a framework together and we are actually going into a couple of the key ports and we're gonna start collecting the data, some of which is, much of which is already there and beginning to model and bring the quantitative piece to the qualitative and actually determine the impact so that we can go out to leaders and equip them with a decision support tool, various models anchored to the research in the economic sense. So we've landed on the economic issue. Well, it's funny that you mentioned free writerism in that, our studies have shown that some 40% of small businesses impacted by a natural disaster. And I'm assuming this may be true for man-made disasters, but 40% of them don't return. And they cite, well, I had insurance, but that insurance isn't working for me. If you look at places like Christchurch in New Zealand, still recovering from their earthquake years later because of insurance holdup. Now it seems to me that a lot of people out, I'll admit it, my parents, look it and go, hey, we have the necessary insurance, we will be fine, we can rebuild. But as you stated in the, as we discussed in the back room, insurance is oftentimes rebuild it where it was, the way it was. They will do everything necessary to bring you back to that state in which you were vulnerable to begin with. And so I think in addition to being free writers, a lot of folks think about resilience and think they're actually covered in, but we've seen time and again, they're just not. And so it could take more PPDs maybe, but also legislation and put it in statute and codify it and say, here are some recommended steps or here are some protections for you that you might not have thought about. My concern really is for the citizenry, but also the small businesses, particularly maybe in that place that you mentioned in Michigan, I'm not sure. But what has been the reaction so far to your book? And it's been out a little while. Have your thoughts, your analysis been well received? Yes, I'm the author, I'm a little biased. All disasters essentially are local. They have arteries that go back to a local situation. Because of globalization, no one's out of the game. It's all hands on deck. Everybody is affected by this. No one is immune from the cascading effects which come along with this great technology that we have. Simultaneously, with all the advantages of speed, accuracy, transparency, have come these single points of failure. So we have a situation where the reason I think it's gotten traction is because whether it's the mayor in my little town of Riverside, about 800 people, or it's Craig Fugate at FEMA. I think that we have common ground here where a tree can fall on a power line in Cleveland. And because of software errors, human error, and globalization and cyber efficiencies that we spend 48 hours without power in the entire Northeast in 2003, and a lot of Canada. We have a situation where Fukushima can occur in Japan, and because of the need for pigmentation from a sole source and the supply chains that we have, and outsourcing these single points of failure shut down our auto industry. You can have a situation in the Gulf of Mexico where a major shipyard is ready to reopen and get back to work. 40%, 50% of the workforce is gone. Not because they're not healthy or there's a pandemic, but because they can't get their kids to the daycare center that's been affected by Katrina. So the complexity of these interdependencies, we would argue that when you start to map those mega communities, or you begin to focus in a new way on how the 16 critical infrastructures interact, we would now begin to say, we understand the power grid as about as resilient as they can afford to be perhaps. The communications, the transportation, the water, the banking, how do they interact with one another in this complex web of global supply chain, demographics where 23 of our 28 most populated counties are on the coastline. They're out there with their chin right out there waiting for the hurricane that's coming next hurricane season. So we have the effects of climate change we haven't really talked about, but regardless of where you stand on this issue, you can't ignore cold weather that comes in, sets records, 118 year records in Baltimore this week. Typhoon Haiyan brought wind velocity that we've never recorded before. It happened in the Philippines, but again, due to globalization and also the uncertainty of future weather patterns, you have to be, you know, you have to be, you can no longer remain in your own world and not pay attention. In 2011, it was the first time that we ever opened all the spillways for the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. All three of them were opened first time ever. In 2012, we had record drought across the nation. 60% of the country was in some way affected by these droughts. This past year, the last two years, we've had wildfires, unprecedented, that went from forest fires, not unusual, but these blew into areas that turned into an urban fire. So I think if you take the collection of all those things, the book kind of arrived at a time when people are ready to say, there's gotta be a better way. We cannot continue to have a proliferation. There's been a proliferation of doctrine, policy, guidance, documents that frame the problem, that shape the landscape, that admire the problem. What we have not done is that breakthrough to map the critical interdependencies in our metropolitan areas and then do the analytics that will allow us to model it and make decisions in a prioritized way such that we could optimize our resilient decisions in a resource scarce environment. Look, the grant money is gone. We spent $34 billion in Uasi grant money. That money has receded. The FEMA grant subsidies are receding. So it's not just the 2008 housing bubble and the after effects of that, but the demands of our infrastructure overwhelm any budget that we could come up with. So what are you left with? By the process of elimination, you're left with taking oftentimes a process or a non-material, low-cost solution to be more resilient, which we can talk more about. Yeah. That also comes into play. That's a good segue to public-private partnership and what is the government responsible for and what are areas in which they can ask to give that profit motive argument a chance with private counterparts? Public-private partnerships are hard. It's an easy, it rolls off the tongue very easily. What I would say, and I don't want to take too much time on this unless people are interested, I would suggest that when something's really hard to do but essential, go to someplace where it's absolutely vital, it's critical to the local economy to function and regional resilience. So I'll offer one example if I can. As critical as LA-LB, Los Angeles-Long Beach is to our economy. 43 to 45% of all containers come through that port. If containers stop coming in there for whatever reason, some disruptive event or extreme weather. The shelves in Winamuck and Nevada and St. Louis are gonna start feeling it in three to five days. That's how fragile that supply chain is. However, those of us that have sailed the waters and worked with the maritime industry know that it won't take long for those ships to go elsewhere.  Same way with New York. So New York's number two on cargo and we are a maritime nation. We are an island nation dependent on maritime trade to the tune of 94 to 95%. So that's not insignificant. However, we could recover by shifting those ships to other ports. What we will not recover from is a place like Houston and Texas City where we have single point of failure for petrochemicals. If you approach any of the trucks that are delivering fuel today around Virginia, around Maryland and you ask that truck driver that's carrying hundreds of thousands of gallons, where did you come from? You can follow that trail basically back to a pipeline, back to Houston. And so therein is my exemplar for public-private partnerships. I have discovered two really effective public-private partnerships which were very hard to put together but it required a legal team, emergency planners, politicians, all to come together and say, we've got to make this work and it's got to have a positive return on investment and value proposition. And so I won't go into any more time on that. I probably should mention Los Angeles Long Beach. We have an impulse, Stephanie, in this country when bombers show up at the finish line of the Boston Marathon or they fly planes into buildings that we have a natural impulse to default to that which we've trained to do and that is shut down. But crime scene tape around the scene and force ourselves to collect the evidence for the crime. In Israel, a nation surrounded by threats, their motto is if we shut down economically or physically, the enemy wins. Or in our case, the disaster wins. So I would argue that we have the initial trauma of the attack, the terrorist event, the natural disaster and then we potentially amplify that with a second disaster and that is how we shut down the economy. So on this issue of resilience and where we've got attraction, I would have to say that we learned a lot. Port of LA did not shut down on 9-11 unlike the other ports in the country. They got the same order, the captain of the port got the same direction from Washington DC. They had done the resilient thinking, the resilient preparation beforehand. They had gone to the congressional delegation. They had gone to the local leaders across many different municipalities. You know, 83 different municipalities. They said to themselves, if a storm comes or a terrorist attack or anything that cascades into our area and we shut down, we lose. We go home without a job. It could be a secretarial strike or it could be a terrorist attack. So I think there's some very valuable lessons domestically and internationally that we can ask ourselves what did they do and catalog that and that's what we did 13 case studies in the book to try and illuminate the fact that this is not a lost cause but we're gonna have to have some empowered visionary political leaders who champion this cause and as you well know from your background, this is one of those several key issues that if it's important enough, we need to put someone in charge. Not just have an office on the national security staff and a few bills prepared on Capitol Hill. This is gonna have to be a serious focus where we realize in a post World War II, post 9-11, 21st century that we can no longer be free riders. On that happy note, let me turn it over to the audience. I would ask that you raise your hand and I'll recognize you if you could state your name and your affiliation if you have one and my last request is that you actually ask a question. You're free to make a couple of sentences of statement beforehand but please do ask our guest a question. So anyone? Sir here in the front row. There's a microphone coming to you. I'm Bob Hershey, I'm a consulting engineer in getting together a consensus on what's going to be done to prepare how does the internet come into the picture? How does the internet come into the picture? Well, I have a flashback that I can't get out of my mind. Last summer in Colorado Springs, one of those forest fires turned into an urban fire in Black Forest and we had to evacuate. So my wife called me and said, what are you doing in Washington? Get out here. And with three horses and chickens and dogs, she's saying this ranch needs to be evacuated. So my wife and I from our generation were operating on the normal cycle, the news cycle, the telephone cycle, the TV cycle. Meanwhile, our four teenagers are on the social network cycle. They are Twittering, texting, Facebooking. They are real time evacuating their teenage friends. They're doing it real time. We're still operating in our context. So I think that the degree of uncertainty and complexity that we're talking about, sir, is gonna require innovation, serious innovation, not just the internet, but all that comes with this innovation. I was recently up at the Cambridge Innovation Center between Harvard and MIT. There's 500 startups looking for a place to point their creativity and innovation. We have no lack of innovation, no lack of technology, no lack of a new generation of leaders who get this issue. So I think if I could answer the question, I think what I'd say is maybe this isn't a perfect metaphor, but if you look at the Arab Spring that's swept and is still arguably sweeping across the Middle East, one of the things that has fueled that, as I understand it, would be that just the awareness of this generation between the ages of 18 and 32, which is 60 to 70% of their population, is awareness. The internet has made them aware that they do not have to live under the same dictator as that their parents did, and they're not gonna take it. Well, in some ways, we have an issue here, we've gotta win. When World War II took place, this nation mobilized. We cannot afford to lose this battle. And empowered visionary political leaders of our nation rose up and articulated in a way that the population could understand it, and they got behind it. The book is an attempt to take some of this issue, and I think the internet is symbolic, in some ways, of where we could potentially go, and we have to win this. This is not an issue that's gonna go away. There is nobody that can sit at their computer and their cubicle and continue to work on their projects and be agnostic to this issue. I was recently speaking to a group in Austin, Texas, and some of the folks said, well, we're not seeing this. I mean, it sounds like it's a lot of policy stuff. It sounds like it's a lot of, where is this? I said, do you need your ATM today? Do you need your smartphone to work? Do you need to get on the phone and figure out where your kids are? Because when the earthquake took place in DC, what happened to the cell phones was the same thing that happened during Katrina. They were, the bandwidth was saturated and you could not call. You could maybe change your Facebook status. You could maybe do some texting. So a lot of ways to answer that question, but in my mind, all that's on the table, and we're gonna have to take a different approach. So I don't know if that. Please. Thank you. My name is Diana Hachabegovich and I am with the Department of Health and Human Services. We talk about, you talk about resilience, going back to normal, and you gave us a very broad definition, which I like, resilience, and everyone can plug under that definition. But did you talk in your book and I have a question, how can we measure our success? We have some lessons learned, but still we need to measure that in order to be successful. How are we gonna measure the success? So I'm gonna answer it hopefully with a little confidence in one sense, but I hope you also detect some humility because I think there's not only some definite anchor points that we can stand on, but I think there's a lot yet to be learned, I think in the exploratory sense. So let me start by where I think we can stand on the shoulders of some good work. When we did the book, we interviewed 50 odd people. We did 13 case studies. We went out and really looked at what had been learned, where there had been successes and so forth. So the first area of measuring success, I think, is the deterrent to the enemy. Our country, the largest cost is gonna be natural disasters, but we're traumatized and affected tremendously by these man-made events, these terrorists that are persistent, patient, and among us, active shooters or radicals. If we're more resilient and you subscribe to the definition that risk is a function of threat vulnerability and consequence, resilience brings all of those down. It brings the consequence down, it brings the vulnerability down, and indirectly begins to bring the threat down because as they see in Israel, outside Gaza, outside Lebanon, the enemy sees the futility of making an attack on your infrastructure or on your economy when you have a resilient posture, when you have a certain attitude, a certain framework. So if they see our pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Alaska, 800 and some odd miles long, and they see how dependent we are on that, what we wanna do is have a measurable, visible, publicized situation whereby we would say to the public, in 48 hours we can restore this because we have a ready response team, and we show that, we demonstrate it, we publicize it. And that raises the confidence of our population, of our people, of our economy. It also is observed by the enemy and they see that if you hit that facility or that pipeline, we're gonna be back up in 48 hours or less. That's a measurable thing where we see in the intelligence world, some classified, some unclassified, where we know for sure that their objective is not just to fly planes into buildings and traumatize us, their goal is to have a long-term detrimental effect on our economy. Dr. Zawihiri has said that. In our response to Boston. So we can have a measurable of our success that way. And my second point would be more humble, more exploratory in that we have not compiled the data in a way that would allow us to make the kind of decisions we need. We do not have the models analytically. We haven't brought together the Opti Research Systems Engineers and all those disciplines, cross-discipline, cross-jurisdiction like we need to. We've looked, we've interviewed, we've gone out and we have found a handful of examples where quantitatively you can show the analytical rigor. But I would submit to you that that's where my book revealed the most opportunity to measure that. And I think we are being challenged by the leadership of the nation, the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, the private sector leaders and even Johns Hopkins is saying quantify this, show us how we can measure success on it and it's gonna have to be in the economic, we're gonna have to show direct economic impact. Cause that's where the profit loss piece of this is at. The private sector who owns and operates and governs the infrastructures are operating day in and day out on profit loss. I think if I could, we've talked a lot about metrics here cause I don't know if any of you know him but Dr. Anthony Cordesman sits upstairs near us and he's all about metrics and measuring things. And he often says to first take a snapshot assessment of where you are and then think about the tools you have at your disposal. What does resilience mean to a port to whatever area of critical infrastructure you're looking at. And then you can start coming up with metrics but it does take that initial groundwork which I think is what you often talk about or you've said earlier is what people like to admire and discuss but it's not really taking hold. So from a metrics perspective, it's difficult. I think everything Dane has said has been right on point but from my perspective it always, you have to take a snapshot of where you are right now and then you can figure out where your priorities lie. So I just wanted to add that a little bit. Did you wanna respond? I mean, I would just amp second that that the risk mapping that I mentioned earlier, the mapping of the terrain is looking at your existing situation.  Well, not really. We tend to go to what we would like indigenously to our unit. But if you back up and say what if I mapped and understood the interconnections of my current terrain as I currently exist blue sky before the event, before the stressor. That's really what I hear you saying which I think we're in agreement on to collect that data and understand your current dependencies and interdependencies. So we can get as many questions in as possible if we can have this gentleman in the second row followed by the gentleman right behind him We'll take two questions at once. Just to get the maximum number answered. First of all, compliments, Dr. Egley, on a wonderful presentation with very thought provoking ideas. I'd like to recap two of those ideas and then ask two questions that are very much interrelated. The recap first starts with the definition of resilience which I believe can be termed the ability to resume or recover operations, whatever those are. And you implied that that high level operations are dependent on a hierarchy of lower level dependencies all the way down to the individual, the private partner, the government, everybody. So that's that hierarchy. The second recap is that you said the nature of vulnerabilities and threats are evolving. So now the questions. First of all, if I asserted that this business of mapping and modeling is too complex to really do, what would you have to say about that and how might you attack the complexity of that problem? And second, if you were able to map and model, analyze and prescribe an optimal use of resources in the wake of some event, who would direct that? Does the government, the central government, for example, have the ability to redirect the flow of ships at sea to different ports? Or is there some kind of self-organizing mechanism that will magically appear? And then, gentlemen, behind. Thank you, Dr. Middleton. I think I better just take that one because I heard two questions there. Okay. Got one. Yeah, right. Yeah, so part one, it's highly complex. It's very difficult. We've got to take a shot at it. And you have to bound the problem. So whether it's the University of Maryland or CSIS experts, think tanks, there isn't a whole lot of disagreement on this one. You need to keep bounding the problem in until you can manage it. So in this case, because of the complexity and the challenge you're describing, we started with a port. I mean, ports are the intermodal hub of our economy. That's where all the pieces come together. You can touch everything that's coming in and going out. What we found was our initial effort because of the complexity is we bounded it into cargo. Then we found ourselves really going down to a type of cargo. All in an effort to begin to map this issue with the great software that we have, the great technology we have and the innovation. But you have to begin to realize that there's been no lack of effort on these silos of the infrastructure sectors. So within transportation, within power, within water, banking, they are looking well at what they do. What we're, the proposition here is, the imperative is to start looking at how we're integrated horizontally. So that's the complexity. We're gonna continue to bound the problem to look at a type of cargo and begin to do discovery learning as we go. Like we've done in other disciplines and cross jurisdiction. So that's my first thing in TBD. Secondly, I would say the nature of our constitution, our federalist system is that different people are doing prevent, protect. Different people are doing mitigation. Different people are doing response and recovery. The private sector is not real keen on sharing with anyone, rightfully so, proprietary and beyond, their prevent, protect piece. So the people that are doing the law enforcement piece have a challenge there. How are we gonna do information sharing? Another one of those popular words. I think in the response recovery, we're much more willing in the private sector to share that because that's something we can get after. We all wanna be part of. So for starters, we look at that response recovery, realizing that we have to be able to identify where we can get decisions made. There are some things that are elusive in that way. As much as I would like to have a czar in the maritime domain, to look at the maritime commons and be looking at shifting ports, it's probably never gonna happen because the nature of the maritime commons that they leverage to their advantage is the flexibility, the ubiquitous nature of the transportation system, and that's not gonna happen. So the next best thing is back to where we are, whether it's working on a presidential policy directive or here at a think tank or in the private sector. We're trying to create the conditions where you can have the best information available to make that decision. And what we're gonna have to do, John, I think is identify those people in key places where in the past they've said this is my traditional portfolio. We're gonna have to help bring that resilience piece in in a way that's quantifiable, as we've talked about already, in a way that has a return on investment. And people who have never had to really look at profit loss in the public sector are gonna have to be trained and introduced. So I don't have a good answer for you on anyone czar who'd be in charge. And the last thing I think we should do is try and artificially shape that. But if you begin to have decision support tools, the state of New Jersey has done some phenomenal work at exit 14 where they have a choke point of everything and they put all their efforts on that in a way that has been very helpful. So we have pockets in the US and internationally where they've had some success. And out of that emerges decision makers and leadership, I think. Gentlemen, third row, and I think we may have time for one more question after this question. Peter O'Dell with Swann Island Networks. You mentioned two public-private partnerships you found which is terrible in the sense that you can only find two but I'd love to know who those are because I've been heavily involved in this and it's just been an unmitigated waste of dollars and effort to try to put some of these together and just not have them carry forward. Despite the fact they have huge promise to really bridge some of the problems you're talking about. So my question was, what are the two that you found that were great? Let me back up. I think just a qualification here.  It's the only two I kind of had time to find because I'm doing this on the clock. Where there's a crisis of faith, a crisis of the culture, let's say, on these issues, all of a sudden people are willing to work together and public-private partnerships become a possibility where they are willing to pay for access to information. The private sector is putting out phenomenal amount of money in Houston alone on one disaster, Hurricane Ike in 2008, $300 billion. Now, juxtapose that with Sandy, two governors, saying is it $65 billion or $66 billion. You have one industry spending $160 million to just restore power within that Hurricane Ike. So my point is there's no lack of motivation and no lack of money in this sense. You have to create the context where it'll work. So the two that I, and I don't think they're the only ones, but they're in the, one is in the medical field. And it's at a major metropolitan area and they are collecting 500 different types of data. They have 90 different hospitals and they have matured this thing over the past six, seven years where the public and private sector are anxious to work together. They have to work together to make it work. The other one is really like a school district, but it's a special security district where there are unique statutes and authorities where a good legal team can come in in this area where you are dealing with law enforcement, has cameras, law enforcement has data and information and the private sector is willing to pay for it because they use it and they add their work to it. So without telling you exactly where it's at, I would just say that those are encouraging signs and there are individuals out there in the country that have been working on this and we're gonna work hard to find them and bring them into our team if we can because we wanna take those exemplars and leverage the lessons they've learned. So one more question, this gentleman in the middle of the third row. Thank you, Philip Baylor from LMI and my question is regarding long-term recovery and where do you kind of identify the gaps in resiliency in long-term recovery, whether it be the funding going down levels of government or how they're kind of just coordinating with each other? We're still recovering from Katrina. Been down there and watched, they're still recovering. We're still recovering from Irene. Came up the East Coast, affected 12 states, one eighth of the US population. We're definitely still recovering from Sandy. They have staffs that are working full-time on FEMA reimbursements. Our system of reimbursements and recovery are hard to navigate and complex. So there's one for you right there, just our system of public recovery. I think the larger market that we have to look at, which again I said it before and I'm not an expert on it, would be the private sector insurance where we can create a market space that may not even exist yet. But there are some very smart people who do understand that and we're talking to them and we're gonna all need to work together on this. I think that, I guess where I would leave this, since that's my last question, would be it always comes back to this elusive quality of leadership. And I think my parents are in their 80s. Let's say that I am lucky enough to live until I'm 100, I'm about halfway there. Okay, in my little hometown, they used to have a flood from the Susquehanna River once every 100 years. They had one in 36, 42, 72, and 11. They're happening more frequently. So I think the conditions are upon us such that if ever we were gonna share information, if ever we were gonna lay down our personal agendas, this is an issue worth doing. The reason I wrote a book and water boarded myself for two years was because I think there's some gaps here that we can close. I think with leadership, if we bring the right people together, they're looking forward to help and solve this problem. So the subheadings would be information sharing, credentialing, huge challenges on credentialing and access, cyber security, communications, all those areas in the 16 critical infrastructures. Now, if you go into the economic census I mentioned, they break those down in far more granularity. So you're up to about 2,500 different categories under those 16 critical infrastructures. We have the technology and the capability to go after this in a way that would be a deterrent to the enemy and storms, if that's possible, and I think to raise the confidence of our current generation who are looking for careers to go after this issue. Resilience needs to be an area that we study carefully and get people like you involved. With that, I want to apologize for those of you I didn't get to, but we are on a tight timeline and I wanted to get you all out before temperatures drop and the wind picks up again. In closing, I want to thank Dane for being here. Thank you very much and for sharing your insights. I will also note that Dane will be here for a few more minutes. There are books he has brought with him and you can get them at a discounted rate if you don't have time or you want to think about it a little. They're also available at Amazon.com. It's called Beyond the Storms. And I always forget the rest of it. Strengthening Homeland Security and Disaster Management to achieve resilience. But Beyond the Storm is by Dane Egley. So please join me in wishing him well with his book endeavor and also to thank him for being here. Great, I've never done anything like that. You made it easy.


Section 134 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 4, 1900 through 1906. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain read by John Greenman. December 8, 1906, Mark Twain in white amuses congressmen, advocates new copyright law and dress reform, wears light flannel suit, says at seventy-one dark colors depress him, talks seriously of author's right to profits. Special to the New York Times, Washington, December 7. Mark Twain spent a busy afternoon at the Capitol today, and for half an hour entertained the newspaper correspondence with a characteristic talk. Despite the blustering wind which swept down Pennsylvania Avenue, the author wore a suit of white flannels, in the member's gallery which he first visited to watch the proceedings of the House, he attracted general attention. Later Mr. Clemens visited the speaker's room, and while awaiting the arrival of Uncle Joe entertained a dozen congressmen, including Groverner, Payne, Dalzel, and Foster, who hastened to pay him their respects. With the speaker Mr. Clemens discussed briefly the pending copyright bill. With William Dean Howells and a party of other authors and publishers, Mr. Clemens came here to be present at the hearings on this bill, which are now being conducted in the Senate reading room at the Congressional Library, by the Committee on Patents of the Senate and the House. With Mr. Howells, Edward Everett Hale, Thomas Nelson Page, and a number of other authors, he appeared before the committee this afternoon. The new copyright bill extends the author's copyright for the term of his life and for fifty years thereafter. It is also for the benefit of artists, musicians, and others, but the authors did most of the talking. F. D. Millet made a speech for the artists, and John Philip Sousa for the musicians. Committee Enjoys Twain Speech Mr. Clemens was the last speaker of the day and its chief feature. He made a speech the serious parts of which created a strong impression, and the humorous parts set the senators and representatives in roars of laughter. "'I have read this, Bill,' he began. "'At least I have read such portions as I could understand. Nobody but a practiced legislator can read the bill and thoroughly understand it, and I am not a practiced legislator. I am interested, particularly and especially, in the part of the bill which concerns my trade. I like that extension of copyright life to the author's life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author because it would take care of his children. Let the grandchildren take care of themselves. That would take care of my daughters, and after that I am not particular. I shall then have long been out of this struggle, independent of it, indifferent to it. It isn't objectionable to me that all the trades and professions in the United States are protected by the bill. I like that. They are all important and worthy, and if we can take care of them under the copyright law, I should like to see it done. I should like to see oyster culture added, and anything else. I am aware that copyright must have a limit because that is required by the Constitution of the United States which sets aside the earlier Constitution, which we call the decalogue. The decalogue says you shall not take away from any man his profit. I don't like, he explained, to use the harsh term. What the decalogue really says is thou shalt not steal, but I am trying to use more polite language. The laws of England and America do take it away, do select, but one class, the people who create the literature of the land. They always talk handsomely about the literature of the land, always what a fine, great monumental thing a great literature is, and in the myths of their enthusiasm they turn around and do what they can to discourage it. I know we must have a limit, but 42 years is too much of a limit. I am quite unable to guess why there should be a limit at all to the possession of the product of a man's labor. There is no limit to real estate. Dr. Hale has suggested that a man might just as well, after discovering a coal mine and working it 42 years, have the government step in and take it away. Says publishers never die. What is the excuse? It is that the author who produced that book has had the profit of it long enough, and therefore the government takes a profit which does not belong to it and generously gives it to the eighty-eight million of people. But it doesn't do anything of the kind. It merely takes the author's property, takes his children's bread, and gives the publisher double profit. He goes on publishing the book, and as many of his confederates as choose to go into the conspiracy do so, and they rear families in affluence, and they continue the enjoyment of those ill-gotten gains generation after generation forever, for they never die. In a few weeks or months or years I shall be out of it. I hope under a monument. I hope I shall not be entirely forgotten, and I shall subscribe to the monument myself. But I shall not be caring what happens if there is fifty years left of my copyright. My copyright produces annually a good deal more than I can use. But my children can use it. I can get along. I know a lot of trades. But that goes to my daughters, who can't get along as well as I can, because I have carefully raised them as young ladies, who don't know anything, and can't do anything. I hope Congress will extend to them the charity which they have failed to get from me. No limit on families. Why, if a man who is not even mad, but only strenuous, strenuous about race-suicide, should come to me and try to get me to use my large political and ecclesiastical influence to get a bill passed by this Congress, limiting families to twenty-two children by one mother, I should try to calm him down. I should reason with him. I should say to him, leave it alone. Leave it alone, and it will take care of itself. Only one couple a year in the United States can reach that limit. If they have reached that limit, let them go right on. Let them have all the liberty they want. In restricting that family to twenty-two children, you are merely conferring discomfort and unhappiness on one family per year in a nation of eighty-eight million, which is not worthwhile. It is the very same with copyright. One author per year produces a book which can outlive the forty-two year limit. That's all. This nation can't produce two authors a year that can do it. The thing is demonstrably impossible. All that the limited copyright can do is to take the bread out of the mouths of the children of that one author per year. The books that live. I made an estimate some years ago, when I appeared before a committee of the House of Lords, that we had published in this country, since the Declaration of Independence, two hundred and twenty thousand books. They have all gone.  It is only one book in a thousand that can outlive the forty-two year limit. Therefore why put a limit at all? You might as well limit the family to twenty-two children. If you recall, the Americans in the nineteenth century who wrote books that lived forty-two years, you will have to begin with Cooper. You can follow with Washington Irving, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Edgar Allen Poe, and there you have to wait a long time. You come to Emerson, and you have to stand still and look further. You find Howells and T. B. Aldrich, and then your numbers begin to run pretty thin. And you question if you can name twenty persons in the United States who in a whole century have written books that would live forty-two years. Why, you could take them all and put them on one bench there, pointing. Add the wives and children, and you could put the result in two or three more benches. One hundred persons. That is the little insignificant crowd whose bread and butter is to be taken away for what purpose? For what profit to anybody? You turn these few books into the hands of the pirate and of the legitimate publisher too, and they get the profit that should have gone to the wife and children. Property in Ideas When I appeared before that committee of the House of Lords, the chairman asked me what limit I would propose. I said, perpetuity. I could see some resentment in his manner, and he said the idea was illogical, for the reason that it has long ago been decided that there can be no such thing as property in ideas. I said there was property in ideas before Queen Anne's time. They had perpetual copyright. He said, what is a book? A book is just built from base to roof on ideas, and there can be no property in it. I said I wished he could mention any kind of property on this planet that had a pecuniary value which was not derived from an idea or ideas. He said real estate. I put a suppositious case, a dozen Englishmen who travel through South Africa and camp out, and eleven of them see nothing at all. They are mentally blind, but there is one in the party who knows what this harbour means and what the lay of the land means. To him it means that some day a railway will go through here and there on that harbour a great city will spring up. That is his idea, and he has another idea which is to go and trade his last bottle of scotch whiskey and his last horse blanket to the principal chief of that region and buy a piece of land the size of Pennsylvania. Laughter. That was the value of an idea that the day would come when the Cape to Cairo railway would be built. Every improvement that is put upon the real estate is the result of an idea in somebody's head. The skyscraper is another idea. The railroad is another. The telephone and all those things are merely symbols which represent ideas. An and iron, a wash tub, is the result of an idea that did not exist before. So if, as that gentleman said, a book does consist solely of ideas, that is the best argument in the world that it is property and should not be under any limitations at all. We don't ask for that. Fifty years from now we shall ask for it. And then he tells a story. I hope the bill will pass without any deleterious amendments. I do seem to be extraordinarily interested in a whole lot of arts and things that I have got nothing to do with. It is a part of my generous liberal nature. I can't help it. I feel the same sort of charity to everybody that was manifested by a gentleman who arrived at home at two o'clock in the morning from the club and was feeling so perfectly satisfied with life, so happy, and so comfortable, and there was his house weaving, weaving, weaving around. He watched his chance, and by and by, when the steps got in his neighborhood, he made a jump and climbed up and got on the portico. And the house went on weaving and weaving, but he watched the door, and when it came around his way he plunged through it. He got to the stairs, and when he went up on all fours, the house was so unsteady that he could hardly make his way. But at last he got to the top and raised his foot and put it on the top step. But only the toe hitched on the step, and he rolled down and fetched up on the bottom step with his arm around the Newell Post, and he said, God pity the poor sailors out at sea on a night like this, an advocate of dress reform. While waiting to appear before the committee, Mr. Clemens talked to the reporters. Why don't you ask why I am wearing such apparently unseasonable cloths? I'll tell you. I have found that when a man reaches the advanced age of seventy-one years, as I have, the continual sight of dark clothing is likely to have a depressing effect upon him. Light-colored clothing is more pleasing to the eye and enlivens the spirit. Now, of course, I cannot compel everyone to wear such clothing just for my special benefit, so I do the next best thing, and wear it myself. Of course, before a man reaches my years, the fear of criticism might prevent him from indulging his fancy. I am not afraid of that. I am decidedly for pleasing color combinations in dress. I like to see the women's clothes, say, at the opera. What can be more depressing than the somber black which custom requires men to wear upon state occasions? A group of men in evening clothes looks like a flock of crows and is just about as inspiring. After all, what is the purpose of clothing? Are not clothes intended primarily to preserve dignity and also to afford comfort to the wearer? Now, I know of nothing more uncomfortable than the present-day clothes of men. The finest clothing made is a person's own skin. But, of course, society demands something more than this. The best-dressed man I have ever seen, however, was a native of the Sandwich Islands who attracted my attention thirty years ago. Now, when that man wanted to don a special dress to honor a public occasion or a holiday, why he occasionally put on a pair of spectacles? Otherwise, the clothing with which God had provided him sufficed. Of course, I have ideas of dress reform. For one thing, why not adopt some of the women's styles? Goodness knows they adopt enough of ours. Take the peek-a-boo waist, for instance. It has the obvious advantages of being cool and comfortable, and, in addition, it is almost always made up in pleasing colors which cheer and do not depress. It is true that I dressed the Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court in a plug hat. But let's see, that was twenty-five years ago. Then no man was considered fully dressed until he donned a plug hat. Nowadays, I think that no man is dressed until he leaves it home. Why, when I left home yesterday, they trotted out a plug hat for me to wear. You must wear it, they told me. Why, just think of going to Washington without a plug hat. But I said no. I would wear a derby or nothing. Why, I believe I could walk along the streets of New York—I never do, but still I think I could—and I should never see a well-dressed man wearing a plug hat. If I did, I should suspect him of something. I don't know just what, but I would suspect him. Why, when I got up on the second story of that Pennsylvania ferry boat coming down here yesterday, I saw Howells coming along. He was the only man on the boat with a plug hat, and I tell you, he felt ashamed of himself. He said he had been persuaded to wear it against his better sense. But just think of a man nearly seventy years old who has not a mind of his own on such matters. Asks Uncle Joe to get it from Congress quickly, too. Special to the New York Times. Washington, December 8. Mark Twain, who is here doing what he can to get the new copyright bill passed, finds that he is handicapped as a lobbyist by not being able to go on the floor of the house and talk to congressmen while the house is in session. He finds that, aside from ex-office holders, the only outsiders who can get in are persons to whom the thanks of Congress have been extended. So he wrote the following letter to the speaker today. Dear Uncle Joseph, please get me the thanks of Congress, not next week, but right away. It is very necessary to accomplish this for your affectionate old friend, right away. By persuasion if you can, by violence if you must, for it is imperatively necessary that I get on the floor for two or three hours and talk to the members, man by man, in behalf of support, encouragement, and protection of one of the nation's most valuable assets and industries, its literature. I have arguments with me, also a barrel with liquid in it. Give me a chance. Get me the thanks of Congress. Don't wait for others. There isn't time. Furnish them to me yourself and let Congress ratify it later. I have stayed away and let Congress alone for seventy-one years amn't entitled to its thanks.  Send me an order on the sergeant at arms. Quick! When shall I come? With love and benediction. Mark Twain. End of Section 135, December 9, 1906. Twain Pleads for Thanks. Read by John Greenman. Section 136 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 4, 1900 through 1906. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain read by John Greenman. December 10, 1906. Editorial. A Humorist at His Best. Mark Twain was the star performer for the authors and publishers at the copyright hearing in Washington last week, and it was certainly a star performance that he gave. Wearing a white suit on a cold December day was a new development of his humor, but we would all do that if, as Mr. Clemens has apparently come to be, we were as wise as the polar bears. The bears, however, wear white not only because it keeps them warmer than black wood, but because it enables them to traverse the arctic landscape unseen by their watchful dinners, and the amiable humorist could not have had that motive when he selected garments for this journey. His white suit did not enable him to leap unexpectedly upon the senators and representatives forming the committees on patents, but it may have helped him in some mysterious way to emphasize the magnificent speech he made in vindication of the author's property right in the product of his brain. That speech presented the copyright subject most pleasingly variegated by shifting lights of many colors and made it absolutely interesting, which was a great achievement for copyright arguments are apt to be rather dull, and to hurt us by revealing that the authors whom we so much revere do not write wholly for fame and a cause, as we would like to believe, since it would decrease the price of books. Mr. Clemens was not modest in his demands, for he confessed that only a copyright running forever would really content him, but he said that he was willing to compromise on a robbery of the author that should not begin until it affected only the author's grandchildren. He will probably get something less than that, for we didn't all have pirate ancestors for nothing. End of Segment 136, December 10th, 1906. A Humorist at His Best. Red by John Greenman. Section 137 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 4, 1900 through 1906. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, Red by John Greenman. December 11th, 1906, Mark Twain Lobbyist. He cuts loose from artists and musicians on copyright bill. Special to the New York Times. Washington, December 10th. Uncle Joe Cannon did not comply with Mark Twain's request to get him the thanks of Congress in a hurry, so that Mark, in his new capacity as lobbyist, could go on the floor and seek votes for the copyright bill. Uncle Joe would have done it if he could, for he would do anything for Mark, but even as Tsar's power is limited. However, he did the next best thing. He turned his private room over to Mark Twain today to do his lobbying in. As soon as the speaker spread the tidings, congressmen began to pour in. Mark Twain talked incessantly for five hours and a half. He saw a hundred and eighty members, very nearly half the membership of the House. All the leaders of both parties came in. Grovener, Dalzel, Payne, Williams, Champ Clark, and all the rest. Mark Twain did not try to be funny with these a hundred and eighty congressmen. He fired solid argument at them, and when he got through, he had learned something as well as they. He had learned that the authors had made a mistake in tying up their cause to that of the musicians, artists, and other professional men. He discovered that not even his influence and popularity were great enough to save the musicians and artists, that they were doomed anyhow, and that the authors were likely to fall with them unless the bill were split. He also learned that if it was split and the authors got a bill of their own before Congress, it would pass. Endow, Section 137, December 11, 1906, Mark Twain, Lobbyist, read by John Greenman. Section 138 of Mark Twain in The New York Times, Part 4, 1900-1906. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain read by John Greenman. December 12, 1906, Twain's plan to beat the copyright law and Watterson says freely that he is a jingo. Twain's plan to beat the copyright law will run autobiography in new editions of his old works, to put pirates to route. His task as a lobbyist finished, so he will return to New York today. Special to The New York Times, Washington, December 11. Mark Twain has the copyright law beaten to a frazzle. It is from pure altruism, pure interest in authorship as a profession that he is here booming the copyright extension bill. It doesn't affect him. He has a scheme which puts his children beyond the reach of want till they shall be old ladies, and makes the present copyright law look like a very sick and discomforted pirate indeed. The weapon whereby Mark Twain has vanquished the copyright law is his much heralded autobiography. Hitherto the manner of publication of that work has been shrouded in mystery. It has been given out that it would not be published in book form or published at all in its entirety until after Mark Twain's death. He consented to the publication of a few extracts in the North American Review where it is now running. Mark Twain looks upon the copyright law as pure robbery. He believes that it is not designed in the interest of the public, but is simply a mechanism whereby after the author has enjoyed the fruits of his labor for forty-two years, his property can be taken from him and handed over to a lot of publishers who had nothing to do with it. He considers it a law for the robbery of an author's children in the interest of the publishers. This is a tolerably conservative statement of his views. A radical statement of them would cause this issue of the times to be excluded from the males. For years Mark Twain has devoted his intellect to the question how to beat this law, how to foil this robbery, how to ensure to his children the profit of their father's labor, and prevented from being handed over by the government to some publishers who have never done anything for Mark. How the scheme is worked. And he has devised a way. He has written between a quarter and a half a million words of his autobiography and is adding to it continually. As soon as the copyright expires on one of his books, Mark Twain or his executors will apply for a new copyright on the book with a portion of the autobiography run as a footnote. For example, when the copyright on Tom Sawyer expires, a new edition of that book will be published. On each page a rule will be run about two-thirds of the way down the page, and below these lines will be printed the autobiography, or so much of it as is designed for publication in that volume. About one-third of this new edition of Tom Sawyer will be autobiography, separated from the old text only by the rules or lines. The same course will be followed with each book as the copyright expires. So far as possible the part of the autobiography will be germane to the book in which it appears. For instance, the part which is printed with Innocence Abroad will be mostly that section which relates to the trip of the innocence and to Mark Twain's other European visits. The part printed with Tom Sawyer will be made up chiefly of Mark Twain's early life in the Little Missouri town where he, the real Tom Sawyer, lived. The part printed with Roughing It will consist largely, if not entirely, of the author's life in the West. All arrangements and provisions for the carrying out of this plan, which Mark Twain means as seriously as any man ever meant anything, have been made, and long after his death the autobiography will continue to appear in this form. It is not true that no part will be published in his lifetime. If he is living in 1910, and he certainly looks as if he intended to be alive and lusty then, the first part of the autobiography will appear in that year, for in 1910 the copyright on his first book, Innocence Abroad, will expire. It is true that The Jumping Frog was published first, but that was only a collection of sketches not lending itself to Mark Twain's present purpose. The copyright on Innocence Abroad will expire late in that year, and the new edition will appear as soon as it does. A new copyright can be obtained on each of these books. Of course it will not entirely prevent piracy, but Mark Twain figures that it will vitiate the sale of editions which do not contain the autobiography and make them worthless. He calculates that it will be as difficult to sell an edition of Innocence Abroad, which does not contain any of the autobiography, as it would be to sell an edition which contained only half or two-thirds of the chapters in the original Innocence Abroad. Got the Idea From Scott He is confirmed in this by the experience of Sir Walter Scott, from whom he got the germ of his idea. Scott kept his copyrights alive by publishing new editions with commentaries. The result was that all editions which did not contain the commentaries were a drug on the market. Nobody would buy them. Mark Twain is certain that what was done with mere commentaries can be done in a much-sure fashion with an autobiography. There is no compunction in Mark Twain's mind for the dismay his scheme will spread among the publishers. He holds that they are waiting for his copyrights to expire to rob his daughters, and that after much thought he has devised a way to save his daughters. About its success he has no doubt in the world, and he has planned his execution in the most methodical and elaborate way. He believes his scheme will ensure a copyright of eighty-four years instead of forty-two, and, as he said the other day, the children are all I am interested in, let the grandchildren look out for themselves. He finished his legislative work in behalf of the copyright bill today, and will return to New York tomorrow morning. My duties, as an occasional, unsalaried, professional lobbyist, are at an end for the present, he said. He spent the day seeing Senators, Mr. Lodge having turned over his committee room for the purpose, as Mr. Cannon had turned over his own room yesterday. In the afternoon he and Albert Bigelow Payne, his secretary, went out to Rock Creek Cemetery for a drive. Strangers paw him. His stay here has been a sort of triumph. Wherever he has gone, crowds of people have hurled themselves upon him to shake his hand. He cannot appear in the lobby of the Willard without becoming instantly the center of a swarm of men and women, strangers to him, who fairly paw him in the exuberance of their joy. This morning he registered his opinion of the elaborate Thingamabobs, out of which one has to pour cream in high-toned hotels. Payne, he said, after he had tried to pour some cream into his cup and had landed it in the saucer, damn this, damn, Payne, I am frightfully short of adequate profanity. This article has been edited to include only the portions related to Mark Twain's letter. Waterson says freely that he is a jingo. At a dinner in his honor the editor wraps Roosevelt. Kentuckians, his hosts. He says the Constitution was framed to shut off arbitrary powers. Home state, God's country. Colonel Henry Waterson, who is soon to sail for Europe, had a farewell last night from the Kentuckians, who gave him a dinner in the grand ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria. Cheered him repeatedly, praised him unstintingly, and listened to a speech by him in which he said that the Constitution of the United States was the organic law of the land, in the light of which the events of the times must be read. He quoted as his view the opinion of Justice Harlan of the Supreme Court that the Constitution was drawn for the purpose of making arbitrary power impossible. The ballroom was filled with upward of two hundred Kentuckians, and in the boxes above the diners were many southern women. The decorations were composed only of American flags. John G. Carlyle presided, and Colonel Waterson sat on his right. Mark Twain writes, before introducing Colonel Waterson Mr. Carlyle read this letter from Mark Twain. I am sorryer than I can convey in words that I shall have to be absent when the Kentuckians foregather to do honor to my age-long friend and kinsman Henry Waterson, but such is the case. My sixteen years of annual bronchial attacks have consolidated, in accordance with present-day policy, and become a permanent trust, carrying on business all the year round, without vacations. Therefore my physician has forbidden me to attend public gatherings at night this winter, this with the idea of saving what health is left to me. May Waterson long keep his superfluidity of it, since it comes of his being about the best man in the country at the present time, and as far as I think the only one without sin. End of Section 138, December 12, 1906, Twain's plan to beat the copyright law, and Waterson says freely that he is a jingo, read by John Greenman. Section 139 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 4, 1900 through 1906. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain read by John Greenman. December 23, 1906, Twain and the Telephone. He hears the tellharmonium and, incidentally, tells a story. The trouble about these beautiful novel things is that they interfere so with one's arrangements. Every time I see or hear a new wonder like this, I have to postpone my death right off. I couldn't possibly leave the world, until I have heard this thing again and again. Mark Twain said this as he lounged on the keyboard days in the tellharmonium music room in Upper Broadway, swinging his legs yesterday afternoon. The instrument has just played the Lowengrin Wedding March for him. You see, I read about this in the New York Times last Sunday, said he, and I wanted to hear it. If a great princess marries, what is to hinder all the lamps along the streets on her wedding night playing that march together? Or if a great man should die here? I, for example, they could all be tuned up for a dirge. Of course, I know that it is intended to deliver music all over the town through the telephone, but that hardly appeals as much as it might to a man who, for years, because of his addiction to strong language, has tried to conceal his telephone number, just like a chauffeur running away from an accident. When I lived up in Hartford, I was the very first man, in that part of New England, at least, to put in a telephone, but it was constantly getting me into trouble because of the things I said carelessly, and the family were all so thoughtless. One day, when I was in the garden, fifty feet from the house, somebody on the long-distance wire who was publishing a story of mine wanted to get the title. Well, the title was the first sentence.  Before my daughter got it through the wire and through him, there was a perfect eruption of profanity in that region. All New England seemed to be listening in, and each time my daughter repeated it, she did so with rising emphasis. It was awful! I broke into a cold perspiration, and while the neighbourhood rang with it, rushed in and implored her to desist. But she would have the last word, and it was hell, sure enough, every time. Soon after, I moved to New York. Perhaps that had something to do with my moving. When I got here, and asked for a fire-proof telephone, the company sent up a man to me. I opened up all my troubles to him. But he laughed, and said, it was all right in New York. There was a clause in their contract, he said, allowing every subscriber to talk in his native tongue. And, of course, they would not make an exception against me. That clause has been a godsend in my case. End of Section 139, December 23, 1906, Twain and the Telephone. And end of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 4, 1900 through 1906, read by John Greenman.


Today we're going to pick on the topic of the market being stuck at 4000 in BTC dollar. I remember last year or at the beginning of the year people were also sort of bored and were looking at this six and a half, six thousand level for quite a while. We were actually in that range for three to four months till we broke through to the downside. It's similar these days. For like four months we're now within an ascending triangle and especially over the past two months we're just not moving anymore. We're within a few hundred dollars range but I think it is a sign that something is going to happen. Volatility is very low and market activities as such are I would even say too low. So we're looking for some action to come on that side so just stay tuned. Fake volume is a big topic as well. I mean it has been a topic for quite a while now and if you're an active trader and sitting in front of the screens you know that coin market cap volumes are not the volumes which are actually going through on the exchanges but now mesari.io actually brought it to the next level and they're reporting now they call it a real 10 volume so they use 10 exchanges they trust and they're regulated and they now have a column on their overview market overview where you can actually see what they think the real traded volume is or was over the past 24 hours. I think it's a good thing. It sort of gives now professional traders the confirmation of what is actually trading and it helps market makers to determine the spread stage to quote if they need to quote OTC transactions by actually knowing what the volume is which is going through the market over a certain period of time. It also helps that we see the volume is concentrated on proper regulated exchanges especially in the derivatives market for example on BTC we see roughly 100 million going through the CME futures contracts where the total cash market is roughly 250 million dollars worth so there is a lot of volume going through regulated exchanges which is in fact a good sign so there is not that much of manipulation out there what act what people thought there would be. There are some reports out there Bloomberg for example mentioned that BTC dollar looks overbought. I'm not a believer in looking at analysis or indicators which are showing overbought or oversold signals. I look at patterns the chart you see is an ascending triangle of the BTC dollar price action and that is a bullish pattern. If we break out to the top side it will be a confirmation then so for me it doesn't really matter what the indications show on these overbought or oversold signs. Also people are getting nervous or impatient about can BTC maintain the positive momentum well at the moment it just trades within that pattern and you need to be patient you need to wait till a pattern resolves either to the positive side break up to the upside or if the pattern gets dismissed and we see a break to the downside but it's not it's not up to me to determine if it can hold the positive momentum just watch the charts watch the price action it's all there. Obviously volume is a big topic that one is missing it's even less volume going through the market in in March compared to February so seeing a resultment of the pattern to the upside hopefully we need to see volume to undermine and confirm then the positive momentum that was it and I hope to see you next time again thank you. This episode is sponsored by Trade Santa. Trade Santa is a cloud-based trading bot set it up in less than two minutes trade multiple pairs choose between long and short strategies use tech analysis indicators and see your results in real time. Trade Santa works 24-7 to get you the profit you set the platform is already integrated with Binance, BitTracks, Bitfinex and HitBTC the link is in the description below.


David Brower was a Spartan and he said capitalism is a great idea, we ought to try it. By that he meant, recognize the value of trees standing, of ocean thriving, of the many things that we rely on, the web of life that supports us all, that has value too and should be figured into the any economic model. I think in all this the biggest problem is this idea in human mind that every other life is here to serve us, that idea needs to go. This is a religious idea which has gotten into everybody's heads. I have lived in jungles, I see reptiles, ants, grasshoppers, bees, elephants, they have a full-fledged life of their own, complete life of their own. And how come we think we are the only life that's worthwhile here? This is a wrong idea that's gone into human head, every other life is here to serve us, this needs to go. For our own well-being we can't lose those species, it's like how many rivets can you lose from an airplane before it ceases to fly? For our own well-being, for our own survival we need that web of life to live. If we lose the bees, the pollinators, we know that what that will do to our food supply we've seen what the loss of trees has done around the world. We need all those many species, they keep us all aloft, they keep us all thriving. Some of the studies show that if all the worms disappear right now, all life on the planet will disappear in eighteen months' time. If all the insects disappear, in three-and-a-half to four years' time all life will disappear. But if all of us disappear, the planet will flourish. We must know what is the significance of our life with theirs. All this should be figured into economic models as you wisely did with the rally for rivers. You went and involved the economic agencies and what have you. Because when you look at the cost of this home, for instance, people normally look at the cost of the home as labor and materials. That's the cost. What's the cost of running the home? The cost of running this home over its long life, it's built out of steel, will be a fraction of what it would be with a normal home. So the cost of the home, to look at just the cost of labor and materials, that's like looking at an iceberg, just a piece above the water line. The piece below the water line is huge. That's the cost of running the home. And there's an economic case to be made for that, I think. Yes, it should be. Right now, the way we are running our homes, our commercial establishment, our cities, in my opinion, tell me if I'm wrong. I think it's seventy percent just waste. With thirty percent, we could do pretty well. Just maybe we have to walk a little more, we have to do a few more things. And we would be much healthier and fitter by doing those things. We don't have to simply walk on the treadmill. We could walk on the street. As people came from another planet, could you explain that to them? Where you get in your car and you drive to the gym and when you get to the gym, you get on a bicycle. Could you be able to explain that to somebody? It's nothing if not amusing. What vision can you see for what could happen on this continent that is somehow similar to what happened with the rally for rivers? Is there a vision that you have for what could happen here? See in comparison if you want to see between India and North America, because you said the continent, right? Not the country, okay. The population and land ratio is extremely good here. So here I think right now the most important thing that America should do is, I was today morning also speaking to someone about this. See for whatever reasons, America has kind of found a leadership position in the world, not just as political and military power. See today if you go to most parts of the world, at least in the urban world, everywhere in India, in China, in any part of Asia or Africa, if you look at people, you stand in a main street and look at people below their knees, they're all wearing blue denims, fifty percent of the people at least. So if America wears blue-colored clothes, everybody is wearing blue-colored clothes.  Not wound down, they're putting a hole.  So there is a leadership position. It doesn't matter what you do, you do the right thing or the wrong thing, somewhere the world is following. So you must do the right thing now. This is your responsibility because you have a leadership position. If you do the right things, the world will do the same things. Very easily it can be done. So one reason I'm spending a certain amount of time in America is, right now in America everybody is drinking alcohol, whole world is trying to drink alcohol. So for example, in India twenty-five years ago, not even six to seven percent of the people consumed alcohol. Today nearly sixty percent of the people are consuming alcohol in a matter of twenty-five years because they think it is modern, it is fashionable, if they don't drink they're left out of life and the drugs are also coming in equal proportions. If America meditates, the world will meditate. Why are you guys going to do it? That's all I'm asking. So ecologically also America needs to do the right things. Right now one of the biggest concerns is the plastics. See people are thinking plastic is some kind of an evil. No, plastic is a fantastic material. It's one of the best things we have produced in all these years of whatever we have done because you can reuse this a thousand times if you wish. Only problem is right now plastics are of different grades, all kinds of things, everybody is doing their own thing and you cannot recycle them together. If you recycle them together it becomes downgraded and it just goes waste and then you don't know what to do with it. If you fix a certain grade of plastic as a compulsory usage, nobody in America can use any other plastic than properly recyclable plastic. Whether you take a Coke bottle or you take a vegetable crate or you take some other package, everything is same grade plastic. If you do it by law, it's going to cost you a little bit. But if you do that then everything can be recycled effortlessly.  You cannot sort it. It's too complex, everybody throws everything how to sort it.  This is nearly one million pet bottles per minute we are producing, okay? The pet means what you are using now for water, Coca-Cola, everything is in that... So now if everything is one single grade, very easily we will recycle. This bottle recycling in India is nearly hundred percent. Sixty-five percent in organized sector, fifteen percent in unorganized sector, ten percent of the bottles are simply being reused in homes. Very little is lost because we have manpower to pick it. But now one of the biggest challenges is the paper label, that's on it, they are not willing to change that. You just have to print your Coca-Cola directly on the thing. You cannot separate the paper and the plastic, this is not allowing us to recycle, do you understand? In India, they hire people, women and children sitting there and ripping off the papers. With that paper you cannot recycle, if the paper goes into the recycle the plastic gets downgraded. So like this there are very simple problems, it's just because we don't care it's not happened, not because there's no technology, not because it's economically impossible for us to do, we've not cared enough to pay attention to these things. This is a simple thing, if all of you here, if you push for this in your governments, that America uses only one grade of plastic, there are six grades of recyclable plastic, hundred percent recyclable plastics, only one you use. Believe me, if this becomes the law everywhere in the world, one big problem is gone, right now they're saying by 2050, the amount of plastic in the oceans in weight will be equal to the amount of fish in the ocean. Can you beat that? What's… what's wrong with us? It's not a simple problem. I'll tell you, the Wellingey Hills, our backyard, where we are our India center, our backyard is ten thousand square miles of rainforest. There are elephants, tigers and all kinds of wildlife. There is one pilgrim place where people climb up and go down. There's only once a year, two months, lots of pilgrims nearly, a million pilgrims go. So they were just throwing plastic all over the place. Some elephants died, lot of deer died. Then we decided we will stop all the pilgrims at the base of the mountain and give them a cloth bag, take away all their plastic bags and give a cloth bag.  And we went up the mountain with about six thousand volunteers and we brought back eighteen tons of plastic just in the form of covers, okay? Just the covers.  So this we stopped by just putting a cloth bag. What does it cost us? Nothing, okay? It costs us really nothing. Just a few handful of small businesses come together and sponsor these bags and it's a done thing and this bag is reusable. They can use it twenty-five times. It's a cloth bag. So these are all simple solutions. It's not some great technology is needed, just attention is needed. Human attention is missing. What would you say is the best way that we can approach transforming our agricultural system? See, there are ways of looking at it as to what is ideal thing to do or what is the small corrections we can do so that we are in a little better place. These are two ways to look at it. Because if we talk about the ideal, people will anyway give it up. They're not going to make all those changes in their life. Well, Ed is growing everything that he needs, I believe. Not everybody can do that. Somebody is living on the twentieth floor. So one thing is the usage of pesticide and this I call them freaked out seeds, not normal seeds, they're freaked. You take out the freaked out seeds and bring, reduce the usage of pesticide and fertilizer. If not getting rid of it, at least let there be a law in ten years time, you can use only fifty percent, in twenty years time you can use only twenty percent. This must happen. If you don't do this now, the worst thing that you're doing is you're taking away the insect population. If you take away the insect population, believe me, there is nothing you can do on this planet. They're not small. They're small in size, but their role on making of this planet is very, very big. So we've been spraying insecticides from airplanes. The most criminal thing we have done is this. From airplanes, we've just sprayed large scale killing everything. This is chemical warfare. This is not agriculture. All this comes from that fundamental idea which I mentioned earlier, that we think we are the only life. Everything else is subservient to us. We can just mass murder everything and somehow have a con for ourselves. It's very conny. Now the important thing is this is not going to happen out of people's awareness. I don't believe that. There must be laws. Clearly we must set for. From today in five years time, twenty-five percent of the insecticide that you're using per hectare must go down. In ten years time, I'm just saying off the cuff, the numbers can be arrived at for different crops. But for different crops at different levels, we must say it must go down like this and aim at thirty to forty years time, there should be no pesticide, no fertilizer. Everybody must produce the necessary organic material to grow a crop. If you don't do this now, we may not all die, but we will suffer immensely due to variety of problems in our systems, physiological and psychological problems. Just see the number of problems we are going through. See, you take United States as an example, considered to be the most affluent country on the planet. Why does an individual human being seek affluence or a society seeks affluence? On the first level, it is a choice of nourishment. I can eat what I want. When a man is poor, he seeks affluence because choice of nourishment. Once that is taken care of, it's a choice of lifestyles. So a society which has an enormous choice of nourishment and lifestyle spends three trillion dollars on its health care for three hundred million people. This is a crime against humanity because to be healthy, you need chemicals. To be peaceful, you need chemicals. To be joyful, you need chemicals. For everything, you need chemicals. So if this is not cut down, forget about the people who on the back street drugs they are doing, but what about the mainstream? Today the pharmaceutical industry in the world is larger than food industry. Can you beat it? We take consuming more medicine than food. What's wrong with us? In this sixty percent of the consumption I believe is in United States. The wealthiest nation on the planet is not healthy because they don't know what to eat. Everything they eat, they've poisoned it themselves. Somewhere one little farm organic here, organic there, no, by law it should be so. The time is over for that, where thinking people will do it consciously and it will happen. It has to be enforced. If it's not enforced, now it's going to be late. Because the amount of human suffering we are causing with this is too much. Generations will pass like this.


Today, January 13th, 2021, the Ministry of Health and Wellness received confirmation of 12 new cases of COVID-19. This brings a total number of cases diagnosed in country to date to 502. 11 of the cases are St. Lucia Nationals, ranging in age from 1 year to 73 years. They are from Castries, Barbono and Groseley districts. These individuals were seen at the Community Respiratory Clinic where they were assessed and tested for COVID-19. They were placed in quarantine by health practitioners pending the receipt of their test results. Arrangements have been made to place these individuals into isolation. Epidemiological links have been established for five of those cases thus far and investigations are ongoing by the contact tracing team to determine the possible existence of epidemiological links for the other six cases. One of the 12 cases is a non-national, which has been recorded as the country's sixth COVID-19 related death. The individual is a 52-year-old male, a national of the United Kingdom. He arrived in St. Lucia on December 30th, 2020 and died on January 9th, 2021 and he was not in care at the time of his passing. Condolences are extended to the family and loved ones of this individual on their recent loss. The Ministry of Health also reported four recoveries for today, January 13th, 2021. They are currently 177 active cases and all are stable and none of them are requiring critical care. The Ministry of Health and Wellness will once again take the opportunity to remind everyone of the importance of remaining well and maintaining the behaviors to reduce the exposure to COVID-19 virus and the possibility of becoming infected. Frequently wash your hands with flowing water and soap, wear mask when in public places and ensure that it covers your mouth, your nose and your chin. Maintain a distance of six feet from others when possible and use a bleed solution to sanitize frequently touched surfaces and frequently handled objects. If you are experiencing flu-like symptoms, keep away from others and seek medical care at your closest community respiratory clinic for an assessment. The Ministry of Health and Wellness will continue providing updates as new information becomes available.