Hi everyone, welcome back to my channel. So today I wanted to do a monthly favorites video. I haven't done one of these in a really, really long time but I thought that I would do one because November has been a crazy month. All right, so I'm just gonna go ahead and get started. I have a basket full of items here, not a whole lot of items, but just my top favorite. So I'm going to start off, almost everything in here is a beauty favorite but there is a couple of items that are not beauty favorites. So the first two items I'm gonna pull out are eyeshadow palettes and you guys have seen these before in previous videos. I did a Get Ready With Me video using one of them and then if you follow me on Instagram and have watched my Instagram story, then you saw when I purchased the other one. So these are the two makeup palettes that I'm talking about. The first one is the Tartlet Toasted Palette and the second one is the Just Peachy Matte Palette. One is by Tart, one is by Too Faced and I'm gonna talk about the Just Peachy Palette first. First of all, look at this packaging, it's adorable and then second of all, the colors in this palette are so, so pretty and they're all matte shades. I love these like peachy colors right here but I love this purple color.  There's not really a brown in there. They're all like dark purples in this berry colors really pretty as well. I bought this because I really like the warm tones especially for fall and because I'm gonna be getting back in two princess parties coming up pretty quickly so I thought that these colors would be perfect for Queen Elsa and all the, they're kind of like more natural colors which is what I like to use when I do princess makeup. So I really, really like this palette and of course it smells just amazing so I really, really like this palette. I had to order this online because Ulta didn't carry it and my Sephora didn't carry it so I did order this online. And then the Tartlet Toasted Palette. I actually got this one first. I like this one because it does have some shimmery shades and there's no really like pink. This is the only purple shade in here. The rest of them are more natural like brick colors and I actually did use this on my lid today and I really, really like this palette. I don't really know what else to say other than I really, really like it and I did get this at Ulta. Oh, hello Alice. The next beauty favorite is this BB Powder by Physicians Formula. This is a dupe for the Bare Minerals Foundation, the Powder Foundation. I'm wearing it today just on top of like a liquid foundation and it really does blur all of my imperfections. As you can see, I do have some breakouts right here and this really does blur everything out and I just use it with my Bare Minerals brush and just buff it into the skin and it really does get rid of a lot of imperfections and it's a lot cheaper than the Bare Minerals. Obviously there's not as much product in here but it does work and I get the light medium shade and you can get this at Ulta. I believe they sell this at Target as well. I'm not sure about Walmart probably if they sell Physicians Formula they sell this. The next thing that I've been loving and kind of needing and I've had it for a while but I just started using it again and that is the Mint Julep Lip Scrub by Lush. I don't know what it is but I think that once I gave birth to Cash and the combination between the hormones and the winter months and it being dry and cold, my lips have been super cracked and peeling and so I've been loving this lip scrub by Lush. Like I said, I've had it for quite a while. I think I've had this for maybe like two years. I don't think it expires. I don't know. If it does expire, it doesn't matter because it's still working but I really, really like this stuff. If you guys don't have this lip scrub by Lush definitely go pick some up because it is amazing. The next two products are hair care items. The first one is this Honest Conditioning Detangler Spray and I really like this because it does a great job of detangling my hair but it also smells really good. It's the Sweet Orange Manila. Oh my gosh, it smells amazing and I just sprayed this in my hair when it's still wet before I blow dry it and it makes it for brushing my hair out a lot easier and it also smells the same as the Orange Shampoo and Conditioner so my hair always smells like oranges. Like oranges and vanilla. So I really, really have been loving this. Then I always have my ultimate favorite, the Batiste Dry Shampoo. The Batiste Dry Shampoo. I always, always pick this up when I'm at TJ Maxx because it's way cheaper there and I always get the pink, flirty and floral blush scent. I think that it smells the best and it always makes my hair smell really good. I wish there was an orange flavor one because then my hair would always smell like oranges. That would be even. Awesomeer, more awesome. Yeah, so Batiste Dry Shampoo is always a favorite and I use the crap out of this because washing my hair with a newborn takes a lot longer so I haven't been doing it as often so that's why this is a favorite. Okay, so the next favorite is not a beauty item. This Polaroid Zip Printer, mobile printer. And I bought this during the summer. I think you guys remember when I hauled it. I bought it on Amazon. It was kind of expensive but I just started using it recently because I've been printing pictures of cash and being able to put them around in my room and just have them. And I have to pair the film with it because you need the film obviously. But I love having this printer because I can take a cute picture of cash and just print it right away and have it for my wallet. They're like little wallet-sized pictures and I can get this thing to open. I will show you what the printer looks like. So the printer just looks like this.  Mine's dead right now but it hooks up to your phone via Bluetooth and you just print the pictures and they come right out of here. It is that simple. And I'm obsessed with it. Like I said, I printed a bunch of pictures of cash. Scott printed a bunch of pictures of us before he left for work that he's keeping in his car. He's keeping in his wallet. He's keeping in his room down in the valley where he stays when he's at work. And we both really, really like it. So like I said, the Polaroid Zip Mobile Photo Printer is one of my top favorites. And of course, the film. The next favorite item is a pair of shoes and these are my Birkenstocks. And I have to admit, I was a little bit timid buying these at first because they're super like, I don't know. I used to make fun of people that wore Birkenstocks and now I have a pair. But I really do love these. They are super comfortable and they basically go with anything. And it's been really hot here in Arizona especially in the month of November. So I've been wearing the crop out of these just with a pair of jeans and a T-shirt. They'll be great for summertime. These are basically like the shoe that never goes away. They're great slip-ons for around the house for going outside. They're just amazing. These were around the $100 mark and I did get these from a local shop in Prescott. But you can obviously go online and order these. I really like the smaller straps because I do have large feet and I felt like the smaller straps made my feet look a little smaller. The bigger, like chunkier Birkenstock that you normally would see made my foot look a little bit bigger. So I really like these. And I got a size 40 and I have size 10 feet. So if you're interested in getting Birkenstocks New Era size 10, you're gonna want the size 40. And like I said, I really, really enjoy this color because brown basically goes with everything. And my last November favorite is my Apple Watch. I'm super, super excited to have this. Scott and I's two-year wedding anniversary is December 12th and we decided to get each other Apple Watches for our anniversary gifts for each other. And I just love it. I think that it's super convenient. It's nice because I can put different apps on here. I can play music and text and get all my notifications. And it will be great for teaching as well. But I just really, really like having this here. It's super convenient.  So I did get this black band from Target and I got the Rose Gold Watch itself. It came with a pink band, but I thought the black and gold would just match a little bit better. I didn't throw away the pink band because I do like pink, but I just really liked the black. So yeah, so that is everything for my November favorites. I hope you guys enjoyed. I really, really love those makeup palettes, so those are like my top favorites. I use them anytime I'm getting ready. Like my other palettes are just totally taken a backseat. I don't touch them at all. I should throw them away. No, I shouldn't. Don't say that. And I will see you in the next video. Bye guys. Hi guys, it's Shar. I just wanted to say thank you so much for watching my video today and for supporting my YouTube channel by subscribing. Don't forget to click the little bell next to the subscribe button so that you can see when I put up new videos. I hope you have a magical day.


Greetings from the National Archives flagship building in Washington, D.C., which sits on the ancestral lands of the Nacotchtank peoples. I'm David Terrio, Archivist of the United States, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to today's author virtual lecture with Jane Harman, author of Insanity Defense. Before we begin, I'd like to invite children age 9 to 13 and their families to tune into our YouTube channel in a couple of days to meet Teddy Roosevelt. On Thursday, July 22 at noon, the latest edition of the National Archives Comes Alive, Young Learners Program will bring you the 26th president as portrayed by actor Joe Wiegand. After talk about the expansion of National Parks during his administration, Teddy will answer questions from the audience. In a Washington Post interview, Jane Harman was asked to explain the title of her new book, Insanity Defense. She answered, it is because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I have seen how we keep trying the same things and we don't make the country safer. Since the end of the Cold War, Congresswoman Harman contends, America has cycled through the same defense and intelligence issues and its leaders have not realized that those policies no longer fit a transformed world. She examines why our failure to confront hard national security problems makes us less safe and looks for ways to solve these issues. In the National Archives, we hold a large number of national security records including those among congressional records and in the presidential libraries. These encompass records of the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency and its predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services, the National Security Agency, the Department of State, Military Intelligence Agencies and more. I turn you over now to Congresswoman Jane Harman and our moderator, Abraham Denmark, to begin this important conversation about national security. During her long public career, Jane Harman served nine terms in Congress including four years after 9-11 as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee and recently completed a decade at the Nonpartisan Wilson Center as its first female president and CEO. She is recognized as a national expert at the nexus of security and public policy issues and has received numerous awards for distinguished service. She has served on advisory boards for the CIA, Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense, Homeland Security and State. Joining Congresswoman Harman today is Abraham Denmark, Director of the Asia Program at the Wilson Center. Mr. Denmark leads the Wilson Center's research on geopolitical dynamics of the Indo-Pacific and contributes to its industry-leading analysis of U.S.-China relations. In addition to his duties at the Wilson Center, he is an adjunct associate professor at Georgetown University. Now let's hear from Jane Harman and Abraham Denmark. Thank you for joining us. Jane, congratulations on the book. It's wonderful to see you again. Well, thank you, Abraham, and thank you for your leadership at the Wilson Center. And thank you to the archives, and not only for featuring this conversation, I was looking at the list of what comes after us in future days and it's impressive in that live interview of Teddy Roosevelt with kids is such a spectacular notion.  This was, in some ways, but not in other ways, Woodrow Wilson, something we all learned and lived at the Wilson Center. So I'm delighted to be part of this. I also would say often that the only good thing that happened because of this pandemic and my family was lucky, unlike some other families, but the only good thing that happened to me during this pandemic was that I had enough time to finish my book. That's something I tried to write for years and I'm so happy. I finished it. I call it my first and last book. Well, let's start there. I'm wondering, beyond the time that you had because of the pandemic, I was hoping we could start by having you talk a bit about what motivated you to write the book, what you thought the world needed to know on these issues of what you call the insanity defense. Well, thank you for that good question. My whole life has been powered, my whole professional life, by my interest in public policy. I literally went, literally, myself, vertically as a human being, but not very old, to the 1960 Democratic Convention, where I got on the floor, there was basically no security, and I saw the nomination of John Kennedy for president and I met, no kidding, actually met Eleanor Roosevelt.  I did not come from a political family. I came from an immigrant family. My father was a medical doctor who fortunately was able to escape Nazi Germany, but at any rate, from that day, I love public policy and I still do. And so when I finally got to Congress, which was my dream, right after the Cold War, in the first post-Cold War class, that was 1992, I paid a close attention to public policy, especially foreign policy and national security policy, which was the business of my district, which still makes my former district intelligent satellites. But at any rate, I realized pretty quickly that the Cold War had ended and we really didn't have a doctrine to replace it. And we thought that we won, Russia lost, and team Russia lost. So everybody wanted to be us. And that was not the case. And I'm sure we'll go through it in questions. But as I watched this movie, I had not only a front row seat, but occasionally I had starring in supportive roles. I realized that we were making a lot of mistakes, including my mistakes. And so this book chronicles three decades of mistakes and successes focused around national security. And I make some recommendations for the future. And I hope that Congress and the executive branch are thinking forward. And there are some things that the Biden administration is doing right now that leads me to be optimistic that they are thinking forward and will correct some of the policy deficits of the last 30 years. Well, thanks, Jane. Your book really chronicles what you describe as this series of failures by American foreign policy leaders since the end of the Cold War, that we were unprepared for 9-11, that we over militarized our response, that we aired badly in supporting the invasion of Iraq. What do you believe is at the heart or at the foundation of these repeated failures of this trying the same thing over and over again? Well, I suggest hubris and laziness and political gridlock is three of those. It was interesting when the Cold War ended, as I already said, we won, they lost. Instead of learning the lessons from World War II, where instead of just saying Germany and Japan lost, we're going to ignore them or hurt them further, we included them in the new liberal order. We told them we would provide for their defense so they didn't need to develop huge armies and weapons systems, which they didn't. We set up bases in both countries. We made them part of the new world. That's a lesson we unlearned after the Cold War ended. And as I said, we kind of left Russia in the dirt. And that sense of grievance was nurtured for a decade. And I think that Vladimir Putin grew up on that. And that powers a lot of what he does, the mischiefs that he makes and the enmity that he holds us in. And so, especially in the 90s, before 9-11, our arrogance was on full display. We thought, for example, that China, which wasn't part of the Cold War specifically, China would want to be us. So of course, China was welcomed into the World Trade Organization and China's economy would be a mini version of ours. Well, guess what? China didn't want to be us. And China's economy isn't a mini version of ours. And China rose during that decade. The Wilson Center program that focuses on China specifically is named after Henry Kissinger, who after all was the man with Richard Nixon who opened China to the US. But the director of that program says, China isn't rising, it's risen. And it rose during the 90s. So we missed the rise of China. We also missed the rise of terrorism during the 90s. I mean, there was a bombing in the car park area of the World Trade Center in the early 90s. Two of our embassies were blown up in Africa. We had a fairly tempered response. There was a national commission on terrorism that was formed. I was on it. We predicted a major attack on US soil. Nobody paid attention. And so what I'm saying, I chronicled all this in the book, is we missed the decade there, then comes 9-11, and our response was looking back on it. And I was there, I was part of this response, enormously militaristic. They attacked us, we'll attack them. I wasn't against the first part of that at all. I thought we should go into Afghanistan against those who attacked us. And we did that. And it took a while, but we basically, once we decapitated Obama, Osama bin Laden, I mean, we finished that mission, but we stayed. And, well, I'm sure we'll get into this. We're still there, endless wars. And we're not only there, we're in Iraq, we're in numerous places. Congress is not asserting the oversight and drawing the boundaries it should be drawing. It's funding these things, but it's not doing its job and on a bipartisan basis to make certain that our executive branch operates within limits. And so, we can go through all these different mistakes. I just, one piece of good news today, or I thought it was good news, which is, we transferred one of the 40 remaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay Prison. Long story about how that was set up wrongly, in my view. We transferred one to Morocco, his home country. And we may be figuring out a careful way to close that prison, which, in my view, should never have been put up there, and which was the scene of a sadly torture of a number of prisoners, and which is a, you know, a recruiting tool and a stain on the US, a recruiting tool for the terrorists and a stain on the US. You know, so let's, since you talked about, since you brought up Afghanistan, let's dig into that. You were a key voice on national security issues at the time. You were a member of Congress on 9-11. We've talked about your experiences on that day, walking to the Capitol building. And you were part of the vote to support the authorization of the use of force. So I'd be curious about your thoughts on, beyond once we got bin Laden, what you think should have been different? How you think Afghanistan could have been done in a way that you think learns the lessons of history? That the term I've been hearing a lot lately is that the good war went bad. I'm so curious, how you think we could have done it better? It's a good, you put that well. We've had four presidents between the end of the Cold War and Joe Biden. None of them, Bill Clinton, George Bush 43, Obama and Trump had any foreign policy chops. And we paid a lot for that. The last president who really understood foreign policy before Joe Biden, who really understands foreign policy was George H.W. Bush, Bush 41. And Bush 41, to remind, went into Kuwait because Iraq had invaded Kuwait. And we all had agreed that Sam Hussein was a bad guy. Yes, lots of bad guys around the world. But that doesn't necessarily justify a war or a regime change, something we learned later about Iraq. But at any rate, we decided we had to go into Kuwait to push Sam Hussein back into Iraq. We went into Kuwait and we took care of it. And we pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And at the end of that, George H.W. Bush said, mission accomplished, he didn't fly a flag on an aircraft carrier the way his son did, which was a hugely horrific photo op for which he has never lived down. But anyway, Papa Bush knew that the mission was completed and got out. Was urged, go further, take out Sam Hussein. He said, no, that's not the mission. So we unlearned that lesson. We went into Afghanistan. There was a vote in Congress soon after 9-11. And every single member of Congress, Senate and House, but one, Barbara Lee, who still serves a very impressive woman who represents Berkeley, California, which is pretty much anti-war bastion. She voted no, but everyone else voted yes. But the mission was go after those who attacked us. And as you asked in your question, we did that. Unfortunately, we missed an opportunity to get Osama bin Laden then in Torah Bora. It's a long story about that. But at any rate, we did get him 10 years later in 2011 in Pakistan, where he had been hiding out. And during that time and since that time, I think the justification for staying in Afghanistan has been, I would say, and I say this with a little trepidation since General David Petraeus, who played major roles all through this time, just strongly disagreed with me and is co-chair of the advisory council at the Wilson Center. But at any rate, I think there was mission creep. And we developed a doctrine of clear hold and build, which meant clear out bad guys, hold the territory, and then presumably with the Afghans in the lead, but often we were in the lead, build or rebuild a more pluralist, democratic little V society in a place that never had one. And so we've propped up a lot of things in Afghanistan and we're still doing it. And I think that President Biden, who was, it turns out, not enthusiastic about some of the surges there, has decided properly that we need to change the mission. Doesn't mean end our relationship with Afghanistan, but it means change the mission, remove our troops, keep our intelligence resources nearby so we know what's happening, defend human rights abuses, do what we can to help the Middle East region, transition to better governance, et cetera, et cetera. But not keep our finger in the dike and prop up a government that or a society. It's really not a, I don't wanna blame the government. I don't even wanna blame the Afghan people, but prop up a situation where the interests of the U.S. are not central. They have to want peace, they have to go after it. And I hope they do. So let's dig into that. We're, the Wilson Center is just getting started with a new initiative looking at the implications of our withdrawal from Afghanistan. And it's often been said that foreign policy decision-making is often choosing between a bad option and a less bad option. Yeah. And there's a lot of people who expect that after the U.S. and its coalition partners leave Afghanistan at the Taliban may move in. It's already seems to be taking advantage of the withdrawal with the attendant implications for human rights, civil rights and stability in the region. So to your mind, are these the, is this still the least bad option or do you still have confidence that our work in the government and the military of Afghanistan will help sort of prevent the Taliban from taking over? Well, it's the least, it is the least bad option. There are no good options in Afghanistan and there haven't been. I can't think of a time. Let's remember, back in the day, the Soviets were in Afghanistan, they were pushed out. Remember Charlie Wilson's war, Charlie Wilson was a member of Congress and he helped the, with U.S. send U.S. arms there that freed the people of Afghanistan. Let's understand the Taliban is not the only group operating in Afghanistan, it's a very tribal place. And there was the Northern Alliance, which the leader of which was taken out just before 9-11, sadly, in a terrorist act. But there also is now an elected government in Afghanistan, there's a military of 300,000 people. Let me say that again, 300,000 people whom we have trained or helped train and equip. Some of them are very competent. Afghans are very good fighters, not just the Taliban. Afghans are very good fighters. So we're not leaving the surface of the moon. We're leaving a society that has built some success. We're leaving girls and women who have education for the first time, that's a huge plus. Let's give the Afghans credit for that. It's not us, the Afghans. And I've actually interviewed when I was at the Wilson Center several women who were on the Taliban negotiating team to remind President Trump decided we were leaving Afghanistan. And the US conducted a negotiation with the Taliban. I still do not understand why the government of Afghanistan was left out of that. But at any rate, we had a negotiation we set a timetable, which was supposed to mean our troops out by May 1st. Biden extended that, now our troops are out almost now, but certainly by September 11th. But at any rate, there were women on the team, the Taliban team. And I interviewed these women and they said, we are respected, we are members of the Afghan parliament. Women will not go backwards. Women will help build a new Afghanistan. Now, I understand the Taliban bombed a school fairly recently and killed a number of girls. And I don't condone that. And I hope that's not the future of the Taliban, but the society is bigger than the Taliban. And I think we ought to at least bet on good fighters, educated people fighting for their country. They have to want peace in their country. We can't just prevent the absence of war in their country. They have to want peace. And I think a lot of them do. One of the pieces that I remembered from the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan that kept echoing in my mind while I was reading your book was something that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said. I worked for Secretary Gates during the last years of the Bush administration. He's wonderful. And in 2008, he warned the defense bureaucracy against what he called next war itis. Saying that we're in a war. We need to win that war before we start thinking about the future. And that kept coming to my mind because your argument has been that this was the wrong focus that we need to understand the future a bit better. So in terms of Secretary Gates's warning against next war itis in 2008, according to your book, according to your approach, was he wrong? No, he's right. And let's remember, back it up a bit, Eisenhower, when he was president, warned in his farewell speech against the military industrial complex. Well, who supports next war itis? The military industrial complex, which also does a lot of good things. Again, I came from a space dependent district and a lot of the contractors there are hugely helpful in building our state of the art satellites and space systems, some of which are for peaceful purposes. Let's understand that almost everything you do these days depends on space, but it also drives our military. So good on the military industrial space, industrial aerospace base, but Gates is right. And he has written a book recently. In fact, we have talked recently about how we over militarized our response to 9-11. This book is really good. And I, by the way, taught a seminar at Harvard Law School last fall. And as I was finishing the book, and one of my guest speakers was Bob Gates, and it was exactly on this point. So Gates was right. And he left government soon after that. And guess what? Again, for inexperienced foreign policy presidents did not have the ability, in my view, to really stand apart and think anew about what is our post-Cold War strategy. And I'm sure we'll get to this, but I think Joe Biden is the first president because he has the experience. He also has the A team at the ready to do that, to stand apart and think about what is our new strategy. And part of that strategy is that ending endless wars in a way hopefully that will help the people of the countries where those wars were build their own peace. So that's, it's very interesting. And it brings me to another item that your book raised for me, that your book describes how American policy makers keep making the same mistakes over and over again. It made me think about the period after the war in Vietnam, that the Department of Defense shifted away from counterinsurgency lessons and capabilities saying we would never get ourselves involved in that sort of a mission again that we need to prepare for the high-end operations against the Soviet Union. But after 9-11, and especially after the invasion of Iraq, we found ourselves in a counterinsurgency operation that we were unprepared for. Now we're leaving Afghanistan and many, including myself, argue that DOD needs to focus on high-end challenges from China and the echo of those two decisions I thought was pretty strong. So in your sense, in the context of your book, do you believe that we're making the same mistakes again or do you think focusing on China is the right? Oh, that's a good question. Did we learn the lessons of Vietnam? Let's start with that. We certainly didn't learn all the lessons from Vietnam. And again, that was a mission creep exercise in so many ways. And if you watch the extraordinary Ken Burns documentaries on Vietnam, you just cringe. And I lived through that war. I was of age, barely, but my classmates stayed in school and avoided the draft but a lot of people didn't. And you look at the footage and you look at what they were up against and you wonder, why were we there? And then you read biographies of people like Richard Holbrook, whom I knew well. He ruffled a lot of feathers but I thought he was a brilliant diplomat who went there full of hope and came away so disillusioned about what we were doing. So, okay, segue to now. Properly after 9-11, I think our national security focus was on counter-terrorism. We were terrified as a nation. Raise my hand, me too, that we would be attacked again. We didn't see it coming. We should have, you know, there were warnings. We didn't plan properly. We had to plan and focus and get it right. And we did that as a country. We didn't have a shrill partisanship around foreign policy and all policy that we do now. That's something that is just horrifying to me and that's in the book too. But anyway, as a country, we focused on counter-terrorism. I think we stuck with that a little bit long because again, remember, we missed China's rise and it was Jim Mattis in the Trump administration, Secretary of Defense and HR McMaster, the National Security Advisor in the White House who came up with a new national security strategy which said we still will focus on terrorism but we will also add China and Russia. And they are not the same threat and it was, you know, a renewed focus on China. And I think that's correct. You know, good on Madison McMaster and good on Biden for keeping that and adding a few other things. I mean, Biden's sort of my shorthand for what Biden's doing here is he's taking the foreign out of foreign policy. I mean, it was certainly true, I described this in the book that as a member of Congress, I would set up a card table farmers markets in my district in West Los Angeles along the beach because that's where people came out and if I had town halls, I would always just get the the noise makers on either end who wanted to make a statement about whatever it was. In a farmer's market, I got real folks who were buying carrots and I got to hear what they had to say. So one of the refrains over all the years which was mind boggling to me was how come 50% of our budget is foreign aid? Now, hello, 0.001% of our budget may be foreign aid and people didn't understand at all what we were doing outside the US. So what Biden has done is he's taken the foreign out of foreign policy. And he said, if we want to be secure in the world we have to be secure at home. And our foreign policy has to focus on China, Russia foreign terrorism plus the pandemic who is missing this climate and domestic terrorism. And that is a doctrine that makes a heck of a lot more sense and China is still up there maybe as the top threat in the bunch. Although I think domestic terrorism is climbing fast and if you look at devastation throughout the US and now Germany and Europe, climate's up there too. And we still haven't resolved the pandemic. So I think Biden has, again, good on Trump for focusing on China, but Biden is now doing that big time and the actions that were taken yesterday by our government I think demonstrate that we're trying to be very intelligent about this. Since you raised the domestic politics and you talk about it a lot in your book it's no news to say that American politics is very polarized at a degree some say I'd agree that we haven't seen since the civil war but you've always worked when you were a member of Congress you always made a point to work in a bipartisan fashion and President Biden has also been very committed to working in a bipartisan way even to the degree of getting some criticism from his base for insisting on engaging with the Republican party. Instead of talking about how we just need to be bipartisan I was wondering if you could talk about your sense of how the partisanship sort of drives the tendency to keep making these mistakes to keep the failure to adjust, as you said but also if you have a sense of a realistic way that we can overcome some of these divides on issues of foreign policy. Well, I'm heartbroken about what has happened to the Congress as I said earlier my dream was to be elected to the US Congress and I remember the night before my first term started we were in Statuary Hall. Statuary Hall is a circular room off the house floor where there are statues of all kinds of former leaders that took a big fight to get some women in there and now I think we've taken away a few civil war generals not exactly sure who's in there anymore but at any rate the then speaker of the house Tom Foley had a dinner for the entering class all of us Democrats and Republicans and spouses were there and after the dinner we walked on to the house floor for the first time and on the wall was what's called the scoreboard and in the Senate you vote in person and you raise your hand and most people can remember John McCain and that photo going this way about I guess it was closure or something to do with healthcare or maybe it was this I can't remember which way but he was voting for healthcare but at any rate the Senate votes in person the house votes with a card and a slot and your card comes up how you vote yay or nay shows up on the dashboard on the wall. So anyway walking on the floor of the house seeing the names on the wall seeing my name there I just burst into tears it was such a amazing moment and my late husband had exactly the same reaction it was huge honor to serve there and it was a huge horror to watch over my nine terms the house become more and more partisan I'm not saying it wasn't partisan at all on my first day but two years later Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House the Republicans gained control after decades and Newt Gingrich intentionally was partisan I mean he says so he interviewed me for his blog fairly recently and I asked him about it and he said well I had to do it we would otherwise not have kept control if I hadn't been partisan and anyway so there's been a slide into partisanship there used to be the old adage that partisanship stops at the water's edge and even though there was partisanship domestically there wasn't in foreign policy not anymore and people feel free to criticize their government when they're abroad and criticize each other and what does this do? It makes the institution basically unable to solve the kinds of problems I'm talking about in the book and almost any other problem I was up in the Senate yesterday for lunch with Senator Susan Collins who blurbed my book and who was my key partner working on intelligence reform in 2004 we're in different parties, very close friends she's been working her heart out or working her head off she looks so exhausted it was you know I said go home go to sleep but she working on infrastructure if anyone's listening to the debates on infrastructure there is a proposal by Democrats and Republicans for a hard infrastructure reform you know bridges and roads and all that then there's a second proposal that's more partisan but on the first proposal all of a sudden it looks like the wheels are coming off and you know my goodness if we can't solve that how in the world are we gonna figure out what to do with Guantanamo Bay Prison how are we gonna authorize the use of military force or limit the use of military force in future wars how are we gonna come up with some really good rules on detention and interrogation what are we gonna do about cyber? I mean oh my God so I despair I think it is a tragedy for our country that we have become so toxically partisan I wanted to go back to China which I think you believe I believe is the next big challenge and what you think and this gets to some of the recommendations that you make in the book what you think we can do what are some of the changes that you think should be made in order to make ourselves more successful and a more competitive dynamic with a country like China? Well you know more about this than I do Abe and so does Robert Daley who heads the Kissinger Institute at the Wilson Center you're both very thoughtful and you have focused more broadly on the Indo-Pacific which I think has been underutilized by us as a kind of buffer against China for years and which the Biden administration says will become increasingly important as what's called the Quad which is Australia, Japan, India and us becomes more assertive in the region but at any rate what do I think? I think that Henry Kissinger and Nixon did a brave thing to open China and to open our relationship with China I think it changed over time again I think we misunderstood I think Henry Kissinger would say this and by the way he's only 98 his mind works very well and he's still thinking about this so I think we missed China's rise and I think we have to reconsider our relationship with China but what I think is that China bashing is not a strategy and both parties in Congress do that on a regular basis I think that being tough on China as the US was yesterday in these indictments and this conversation about with NATO and our allies in Europe is a good strategy but also engaging China on climate and other things where we can work together and competing with China where we need to I think our I don't know that I was asked this yesterday what does the business community in the US want? The business community wants to trade with China it's a huge market it's also a huge place of manufacturing it's not the only place and should we do more manufacturing at home? Yeah but should we build the walls around Fortress America and basically have no trade with China or with countries that trade with China? I think that's a totally wrong handed strategy and I also think it's impossible to execute given the rise of technology and the way that national boundaries are not the same as they were before so nuanced strategy, confrontation, cooperation and competition all three at the same time is I think what we need to do and the Wilson Center for one especially UA, this is your assignment for tonight after you put your kids to bed I have to think as creatively as possible about how to do all three at the same time do them all well at the same time Yeah, I'll get working on that So one of the pieces that came to my mind as reading your book was you mentioned Henry Kissinger I was thinking it reminded me of one of his books that doesn't get as much attention as the others but I think it's important to call them does America need a foreign policy? Something he published about 20 years ago and in that book he talks a lot about understanding the future and having a sense of what's going to happen and at the same time there's a tremendous a tremendously interesting sociologist named Phil Tedlock who has tested the ability of experts to predict what's going to happen in the future of the field basically finding that experts are pretty lousy at prediction So you and I both think that China is the next big challenge that we need to orient towards that but also both of our crystal balls aren't necessarily infallible So as we go ahead as we continue to try to drive these investments how do we guard against risk or distraction if there's instability in an area of the world that we think is less important for American interests than the Indo-Pacific if Afghanistan starts to fall apart and people start calling for the United States to re-intervene into Afghanistan What are the best arguments to avoid what you would say this insanity just going at it again and again with no real benefit what do you think would stop us from going down that road again? Well I think most of our foreign and national security policy certainly in the last three decades has been tactical there's a problem let's go there and fix it or let's go there and not fix it or let's not go there and not fix it but we haven't had this overarching strategy we haven't and why we need that is so that we can put the problem into a context and decide what we need to do we can't intervene everywhere I've been interested in how we're handling Haiti where the president apparently there were lots of warnings during the Trump administration and I assume to be fair the first six months of the Biden administration that it was a very precarious government we didn't do enough the president was just sounds like it was there was inside participation but I don't know that the president was just brutally murdered and we were asked to intervene militarily well we're not doing that so far as I know but we are trying to help stand up a new government and we are consulting and that is consistent with a Biden foreign policy that basically says our focus has to be on China, Russia, et cetera what I just said which doesn't mean we're uninterested it's the Western Hemisphere they're a near neighbor there are a lot of Haitian there's a Haitian diaspora in the US and so forth but that's to me a mature response so that would be my answer basically interestingly Henry Kissinger at age 98 years young has written a brilliant article about artificial intelligence and I remember sitting next to him I had that delight to sit next to him for 10 years on the defense policy board where we served until late in the Trump administration when he relieved us of responsibility not just me but also Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright Eric Cantor who used to be in the Republican leadership in the House and most of us go figure but at any rate I remember when that term came up AI and Henry basically says I don't really understand this and surrounded himself not by me but by some brilliant people and by the way we have brilliant people at the Wilson Center in our science and technology program led by Meg King who actually not only understand AI but teach it to Capitol Hill staff but Henry went on to write an article with some others I think Eric Schmidt was the other one so I remember this right in the Atlantic magazine about AI and what kind of thread it posed mind blowing he taught himself about this future threat and at age he was probably not only 96 at the time and recently I heard him on a Zoom call and he's asked about what are the threats in the future and he said cyber and AI he didn't say China he said cyber and AI but China has a major role in most of those so you know a short hand might be China and Henry's counsel on China is more militant than it used to be he has spoken at the Wilson Center several times and says that it's important now to be tougher on China not as the exclusive focus but that confrontation it has to be a part of our toolkit and so when with the flat defense budget or relatively flat defense budget and challenges all over the world if we're going to be competing effectively against China it's going to that every defense policymaker over the last few administrations have been saying it means it means that we have to accept risk in other areas of the world especially in Central Asia the Middle East Africa but as you said when something bad happens there's an instinct in American politics to go go do something about it to go fix it to go to go help Samantha Power talked about the responsibility to protect when she was a journalist before she became a policymaker do you think how do we integrate that to a humanitarian instinct and the ethical aspects that folks see the normative aspects of American foreign policy with the more hard nosed impulse which says no that's not our interest we need to keep focus our eyes on the prize how do we how do we square that all right well there is a wonky term for you know policy junkies like me that is called whole of government and when you talk about problems like this it's important not just to talk about how big is our defense budget let's understand it's big I think the defense budgets of all but two countries of the world or something like that added up together our defense budget it's bigger than than the GDP of most countries etc etc 700 plus billion dollars so it ain't small and oh by the way the so-called tooth to tail ratio the fighting hardware part to the overhead part the tooth is 30% and the overhead is 70% so certain room for improvement and some would argue that we keep investing in legacy systems you know aircraft carriers and such which are very vulnerable in future wars especially if those wars are about cyber and AI so just saying but whole of government means that there are other resources of government that could be as good or better than the hard power resources of the Pentagon and one of the things that Biden has pledged to do it is doing is to invest in soft power to replenish the state department which was basically hollowed out by Trump a point very capable people to represent us around the world invest in foreign aid and other tools of democracy building around the world and we restore our alliances that's why this recent action against China is so important I mean we did it with every country of NATO and the EU and the I don't know how many of these meetings have been in person or were virtual like this meeting but certainly there's been a focus on the quad and the key role that India can play and so on and so forth so we are using whole a whole of government approach against and with China remember part of this is climate so that's that's not a confrontation that's cooperation and that is to me a much more sensible and effective way to deal with China as it is not China the bookie man that you know some are safer rattling against well um we're I'm cognizant of the time just have a few questions left I'm keeping an eye on from our friends at the National Archives if they are going to be sending us questions as well um I wanted to ask you a couple things that's still left for me when I asked you initially towards the beginning of this discussion what's at the heart of the the insanity defense issues that you said it was hubris laziness and gridlock and that made me a bit a bit depressed because I don't know about laziness but I think that we're still seeing a significant amount of hubris and gridlock in in our politics do you think that's a right read of where things are do you are you are you a bit more optimistic than I am well laziness I mean intellectual laziness I don't mean that people don't come to work and but uh thinking a new about problems unless you're Henry Kissinger is very hard for folks uh and uh they don't and uh the defense department for example I say in the book is in the widget protection business meaning that if you're in the office of you know helicopter wings uh you want us to build more helicopter wings regardless of whether helicopters are the most useful I think they actually are useful but I just you know it's a random topic and Abe you worked at the defense department you can't escape this uh I bet I say as a member of Congress I was in the widget protection business I fought to keep the production facilities in my district I fought to keep the the so-called LA Air Force Base which is the uh the purchasing arm of missiles and satellites for our defense in in Los Angeles because it was a economic engine and I also thought our universities produced the best and brightest people to work there blah blah blah but you know uh in in some ways that's very protectionist so uh I'm saying that that uh there's a lot of inertia I should have added an inertia okay that's another one but what else is there there is a lot of talent like okay let's close on something more hopeful I keep saying about Congress not just that there's good luck but that the business model is broken not all the people I just had lunch yesterday with this very impressive exhausted Republican Susan Collins uh who has been there uh did she's now in her fifth term I think she just had a really hard election she's the longest-serving Republican woman senator in history um and um wow and she's you know let's just see what happens but she's in line for major committee chairmanship if the Republicans would come chair but major ranking position if they don't I'm trying to be nonpartisan here uh but but my point is she's excellent and there are members in both parties who are excellent there are also some members in both parties who are disruptive let's leave it there I won't characterize them further um but the business model now is blame the other side for not solving the problem because if you work with the other side you are bipartisan and if you're bipartisan somebody will run against you in a primary because our primary system it it doesn't work this way everywhere but in most states uh is rewards noise very very small turnout those on the far left and the far right make a lot more noise and they turn out and so there is you know we've seen this movie many times where the more center politician loses so if you don't want to get primaried it's a new verb uh you don't work with other people so you're not accused of being bipartisan and you know I was saying before the show started that I had a primary my last three elections uh somebody from the far left I was accused of being a traitor and a spy etc and uh it's you know it's not a fun experience I defended myself and I won every time I didn't lose uh but um uh we where are the people where is a critical mass of people now serving that puts country first country over party and that's a challenge and so there are some and I that gives me hope that there are some and uh I just hope that very good people want to serve in the future and don't uh look elsewhere because uh it's it it's it's so uh so there's so much gridlock but um you know I my whole life has been focused around policy and trying to help shape good policy outcomes and so I have to believe that uh congress the article one branch of government will rise to the challenge again well Jane I um I wish you were still at the Wilson Center um full-time I wish you were still in congress full-time it's a pleasure to see you um it's a pleasure to hear your voice and congratulations again I thought it was a terrific book a terrific read um encourage everybody uh on the on this uh video on this call to uh give it a look um I think it makes a very important contribution to the debate and I hope that it will be a a word of caution and a word of inspiration for people shaping American foreign policy forward um so Jane wonderful to see you thank you for all that and uh thank you for your continuing service and to my other colleagues at the Wilson Center which is a a great place uh you know a safe political space as I always used to say uh and thank you to the archives not just for hosting the conversation but for remembering and reminding us of our history you know the founding documents of the United States are extraordinary and a whole bunch of folks have never read them or don't even uh want to read them I mean shame on them and it is so good that you are teaching our history to younger people uh who forget it at their peril I mean this is a great unique country and my parents uh my father was an immigrant as I said my mother came from was born in the U.S. but from an immigrant family they thought America was uh the best place on earth and I still do um but I want us to live up to our ideals you know and and and uh the and I want us to be worthy of the great people who currently serve in office and I salute them and uh you know on behalf of a grateful country I don't think their service really matters so thank you Abe uh see you soon thank you dream


Live from the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose, California, it's theCUBE at Big Data SV 2015. Live inside theCUBE, inside Silicon Valley's core Big Data community and we are theCUBE broadcasting all the signal, all the data sharing that with you. I'm John Furrier with SiliconANGLE. I'm my co-host Jeff Kelly, Big Data Analyst at Wikibon.org. Our next guest is Rick Stelwagen, Data Lake Program Director, Think Big, Teradata Company, welcome to theCUBE. Thanks, happy to be here. Great to have you, I love the word Data Lake. Dave knows I don't like that word, but I like data ocean. But, you know, data is a changing market and we always like to joke and we always have to debate. You know, big data, fast data, small data, Internet of Things certainly changes the game. So, like, this data market is evolving very, very rapidly. Obviously, customers are deploying Hadoop and other solutions in memory analytics. It's exploding. Big Data is the killer app. You're seeing it embedded in applications, you're seeing it on the agenda for everybody out there. All the customers, and certainly you follow the money, companies are going public and startups are rallying around. So, Rick, give us a take, okay? The Data Lake really implies, okay, data warehouse, you gotta have data, you gotta put it into applications in real time. What's your take on the current state of the big data market? Well, I think, you know, things have really evolved over the last few years. I got involved with Big Data about three years ago for Teradata, doing POCs and benchmarks for Global Benchmarks Center, kind of globally. So, had a lot of experience as Teradata rolled things out. And then, when Think Big came along, we were really excited to join them because they were able to provide a lot of guidance along that way. So, what we've seen is customers, they were dipping their toe in the water, they were playing around with it, they were dumping data into the lake or the reservoir or the ocean, whatever you want to call it. It was a landfill. Yeah, and you know, they really weren't doing all the standard stuff that everybody's always done in data management forever, right? I mean, things that I've been doing and Teradata have been doing and all the other big companies have been doing, they weren't really putting the governance in place, they weren't making sure authentication of not only the users, but the data before it was adjusted, right? And they weren't doing all the normal things where you track and trace and understand the lineage of your data. Because now we've added a lot more lineage points, and that's really the big difference here. The plain lineage, because you bring up a good point. People, from a compliance standpoint, would store everything. Storage business has been booming because of it. Okay, store it, I'll get to it later. But lineage brings up some knowledge about the front end of it. Can you explain what that means? Well, you need to know where data came from, you know, who was the source of it, who had the original rights to it, how did it originally get created, right? And that's really important to be able to track it all the way end to end, right? So that's really the big part lineage. And then as the data transforms and moves into different forms, first to be just accessible, then to be maybe used for analytics and maybe to use for downstream facilities. You know, data warehouses may actually get involved towards the back end of it as well. So, you know, lineage points will track anywhere from four to 12, lineage points oftentimes, sometimes even more depending on error handling and those kinds of things, so. Yeah, I think, you know, to your point, data lineage is important for a couple of reasons. One, because it helps you assess the validity of that data, the quality of that data to some extent, where did it come from? So when you're doing analysis, you can actually have some confidence that it's gonna deliver good results. But of course also, there's the compliance question and you've got to show, you know, when the feds come knocking, you've got to show who touched that data, when, where, came from, that kind of thing. Talk a little bit about lineage though in a big data context and specifically a Hadoop context. Are there challenges that are not, that we don't see in the more traditional data warehouse space and more traditional database space when it comes to tracking that kind of thing, understanding it? Are there some nuances that are specific to big data and Hadoop that you need to tackle? I think it's more of a cultural thing. It's not really a technology thing. It's really kind of people said, this is the new thing. I'm gonna, I'm gonna use it real quick as fast as I can. And they kind of forgot about their roots and what really needs to be there. There really isn't anything preventing you the same kind of security and providence and authentication. It's all still there and it's not, it's not that it is missing. It's just, it's whether it's being used and really people, how do you apply that practice to this new kind of thing? So I just want to take a step back actually and just let's, you talked about the different terms, John, data ocean, data reservoir, from whatever you call it. How, how? I was not gonna be a doctor at any time, so I'll tell you that. You're right, so from a think-based perspective, I mean, how do you define what is a data lake? Because I think we're seeing a few different concepts out there. From your perspective, what is a data lake? Well, to us a data lake is a jumping in point to use another metaphor, but fundamentally, you know, it's the point where you get data into a Hadoop cluster or a set of clusters. And we want to make sure that we track how, where it came from, all right? And that's kind of the beginning because what we want to see is, what you're gonna see is as the data comes in, it gets schooled and organized and transformed, it then becomes like a data reservoir. In a matter of fact, what we build, what we like to say is our data lake program is all about building a data reservoir. Yeah, so talk a little bit about that and how you actually go about actually building out a data lake in a, you gotta be agile, but you also have to be secure, compliant, data lineage, all those kind of things. What's Think Big's approach to actually practically accomplishing that? Well, we always start off with kind of an architecture strategy session. We try to understand the objectives and understand the data streams that they want to flow into the lake, all right? So kind of start off by understanding that and sometimes we do where we kind of boil the ocean and look at everything with big companies and look at all the sources and just come out with a plan. Sometimes we get real focused. We have some starter things that where we kind of like, let's just look at a couple streams and get one data owner or steward so you can really show success. And most of the time those data owners or stewards already have an application in mind, all right? They may have an application or they may be doing something like offloading a reporting system. They may be doing something like adding a new thing where they're trying to look at their machine data and try to optimize their manufacturing process. So we kind of started at the very beginning, do this planning type of approach. We have a team-based, okay? So we're just not like a couple unicorns, this is the new term, right? Where you come in and have an expertise, but there's like, we have several experts in lots of areas and we're able to look at holistically, right? So we have a data scientist, we have cluster management guys, we have Hive guys, we've got Spark guys, we have everything you name it. We kind of cover the gambit and each area is focused and we're able to come in and look at that strategy. So once we kind of like laid out an architecture and design and, you know, two to four week timeframe, you know, then we start to deploy, right? And we actually, and part of our architecture and design is to deploy serious governance, right? So right at the beginning, like we talked about at the source, we gather and capture metadata. Operational, not just schema metadata, but operational business security, business index types of metadata. All those kinds of things, it's gonna require some customization in the front to understand the engagement, right? To understand the people and the organization so that you can capture that up. What's so cool when I joined Think Big is that they've been doing this for four years where they capture that metadata up front. They kind of work on, you know, Hadoop has some issues with ingesting data, either it's big file problems or small file problems that we all know about them or anyone who just played around with it. So Think Big kind of started to say, you know, we gotta understand the data. We need to get it ready for ingest. Let's really understand the, and then we throw it across the wall. Whatever transport, secure transport method you have, we do the ingest, lay in the data and the metadata together, right? Use the metadata to know how to do the next step. Maybe even push the metadata into a tool that allows you a visualization so you can graphically see your lineage. Sir, can I ask you the POC? You mentioned global benchmarking. Global is a huge issue. Every time we talk about cloud and our big data, the global consumption contract with customers becomes pretty big. I mean, so it's hard for startups to compete at a global level. They have to have these partnerships. You guys are doing a lot of global bench. Talk about that specific global impact in terms of the customer. Obviously large customers are gonna have that kind of global requirement. And then the question I just posted on the crowd chat is to add on to that is that the Wikibon data shows that the buyers are shifting workloads. How is Teradata dealing with that shift specifically? The global and then the shifting of workloads and how does that impact the data lake and whatnot? Sure, global. Well, this depends on the company and the business they're in, whether or not they're gonna do everything on-premise versus they start to move to cloud, right? So we've got some customers that most of them are staying on-premise because Teradata is used to the forge in 2000, right? And we have a lot of banks. None of that stuff is ever gonna go to cloud, right? But there's a lot of high-tech manufacturers where they can kind of control things and really the interpretation of this binary log data is not a secret. It's not, you know, only they can understand it and actually Teradata think they help them to understand that data. So that kind of stuff goes to the cloud a lot. So we see deployments going either way, you know? It's really a combination of secure and public, but frankly what we're seeing a lot more emergence is the private cloud. And so that's really where you can guarantee end-to-end security and, you know, there's VPNs in place. And so you can make sure that those things can, so that's really what we're seeing a bigger shift right now with our customer base is going towards that private cloud, not so much the public cloud, where you can drive the cost down a lot more into public cloud. There's no doubt about it, but you also open yourself up from our vulnerability, right? And then the second question, it was around- Shifting the workloads, how are you guys dealing with that workload shift? Exactly, so that's exactly what I've been doing for the last three years with Teradata base. A lot of the Teradata base wanted to move their history off of Teradata, the warehouse and be able to concentrate and focus on the most recent few years. And so we've seen a big shift of moving historical data, some stuff that's cold, mostly off of Teradata and into the data lake, okay? And actually Teradata has built all kinds of tools to promote that, to tell you the truth. We have federated query, we have this thing called query grid and all those kinds of things that help you do that. So Teradata as a company has seen that shift, some archiving going on. Sometimes the deep history is necessary, it needs to stay inside. Because you still can't touch the analytics on the Teradata side, but you can certainly do deep history and lightweight analysis, aggregation, multi-dimensional analysis over in the lake very readily. So it's interesting. So in the past, is this essentially causing any kind of issue around the revenue stream of Teradata? So you've got moving some of the older data off to the data lake. In the past, was that data kept on Teradata or was it just maybe discarded and put on tape somewhere else? Or is this kind of a new approach? Well, no, usually they would keep the history as long as they could, right? And they may offload it and then bring it back online. So what really allows them to do is be able to bring the more history online quicker. And that's really, so they're really not changing the practice, they really had to consolidate what they did or add more nodes, right? So we see a lot of that. But I'll tell you the truth. Teradata has made its business out of unplugging Oracle and SQL server instances and consolidating silos, okay? And so we've always done that with the analytic workload. What we're seeing now is more the operational workload moving over to Hadoop. That's really been the big focus because frankly, the technology in this space lends itself more to that kind of workload. So it's not really so much an erosion of what we've seen in our actually expanding of our revenue base, including more things that we didn't normally do. It's not really in our wheelhouse. Not from a cost-effectiveness. So when you say operational workloads, what do you mean? What are some examples? You know, BI reporting, multi-dimensional analysis, that kind of stuff, right? Rollups, traditional OLAP kind of stuff, right? Those kind of things, we see a lot of that happening in the data like. Matter of fact, Think Big is built IP around that. Very reporting. So kind of building on that. Talk a little bit about building and running this professional services business in the big data context. So we've got, part of, we talked to practitioners in the early days, of course, it's, what is Hadoop? How do I bring it in? How do I integrate it? But you're seeing things like yesterday with the open data platform announcement, which Teradata is a part of. The goal there is to really solidify the core of Hadoop so it can kind of spur adoption. As Hadoop itself matures, how does that change what a professional services firm like Think Big does? Are you finding you're doing less work around kind of that initial building out the foundation and moving more to more of some of the advanced analytics? How do you see that playing out as the technology itself kind of matures and gets stronger? Well, it's important to note that Think Big is really agnostic to all of these things. And we plan to deploy it on Cloudera, Mapbar and Hortonworks equally and whatever our customer base sends us to. It's also important to note that we're always hardware agnostic as well. So we're a pure play Hadoop vendor, professional services. So these things like the consortium that you mentioned before is cool. I understand it and we'll be able to leverage some things more. Maybe they'll actually be a meaningful metadata standard someday. I've been part of many over the years that never seem to have taken off. So I'm hopeful maybe that will happen and consolidate but the forces usually drive away from that. So it's challenging to talk about how hard that is to pull off. The metadata piece of it is really a critical piece but it's hard to just start. Well, every software component has its own metadata and needs to manage it and control it. So the last thing they want to do is to be dependent on somebody else's metadata repository, right? So that's the reason why it's always kind of never happened. But, and there's consortiums and it happened and there's products out there, really big ones that are very expensive that allow you to be able to bridge between all those metadata pieces but most people don't want to spend that million dollar plus on that kind of stuff. It's a customer forcing function too. The customers at some point have to move down and evolve and say, okay, what's state of the art? What's bleeding edge? What do I need as a requirement kind of table stake? So with that I got to ask the question from a customer's perspective, looking at the big data SV landscape or the Stratoconference and Hadoop world, what is the customer's view of, if they're looking down on the stage, if you look from the balcony of the industry, because they're the ones who really will be deploying these solutions. What do they think of all this acting going on?  What's the view from the customer? Are they moving along nicely? Are they confused? Are they looking at board consolidation? What's your takeaway if you could tease that out? Well, I think they really are looking for, both two things really important is practices with open source, the right practices to be able to use, and also they're really looking towards this consolidation where you've seen these components that are kind of loosely coupled now to be much more tightly coupled, right? Because it's one big system of integration nightmare sometimes, to pull all these things together. And so, professional services organizations like Think Big become experts at being able to pull those pieces together. And out of that, kind of grew IP to actually accelerate that, right? So that's kind of the natural evolution of what happened, reusable assets, and moving on like that. So the customer is looking for any kind of help, they're looking for a team to come in and guide them in all different aspects of it and kind of give them an overall strategy and try to figure out exactly what path to take based on their particular data sets or their streams or their enterprise requirements because their system environment could be different every place. So really they're looking for guidance. Consolidation is really gonna be critical. I think there's no doubt about it. So these consortiums, I hope things go good for them. From our perspective, it could just be another piece, another less things we have to integrate with. As an industry observer, obviously, and a participant at Territor House, you're not a VC or you work for Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, the big guys, there's a lot of action going on. People are getting funded, super funding. There's a lot of startups out there that are looking for a home and we were saying on our intro, consolidation's happening, we see new waves coming like internet of things, just seeing things like metadata discussions is critical.  We think that's gonna be part of the force of the cloud and also the infrastructure with virtualization, seeing some cool things there. So there's always another wave coming. So what do you think about that? I mean, if you look at, you know, your friends all work for startups, we have friends who work for big companies. What's your personal take on this market? Do you think there is another wave coming? Is it internet of things? What's your take on startups? What should they do? Some starts might not make it, some will be acquired or acquired for hiring purposes. This growth certainly in this market. So what's your personal take on this? Well, you see the growth in all the real activities in Spark right now, right? So that's kind of where Spark is starting to grow up, right? We've been using it and playing with it. And it's great stuff and it has great promise. I think it's got a lot of growing up to do still. And that's where we're seeing a lot of the money go towards these days, right? And all the startups, a lot of the startups are focused on that and leveraging that in some way. Because that's the next wave of open source kind of thing that's really hot. So we're seeing that as one of the big trends right now and, you know, it'll be interesting to see, the people that have focused and invested so much in MapReduce, what's going to happen, right? Because is this another shift for them? Right now it's clearly not yet, but as a technology maturation, it'll be real interesting to see the migration. And companies that are able to navigate and be able to move their customers quickly from one open source platform to another are going to be really successful, right? And so you see the value opportunity for companies to provide value to customers in what? What's the number one thing you see right now on the table for value creation on behalf of the customer? Migration, new apps, what's your take on that? Well, you know, frankly, I think it's both migration and new apps. What's super exciting and what's always gonna be the highest revenue is the new apps for businesses, right? So, unable to do more streamlining and quality control, right? So we've seen a lot, especially with machine data, log data, that's really what it's all about, right? Is tuning up the quality, getting rid of the scrap, making sure you fix the process, be able to react to how your product operates in the field and in a real-time kind of basis, yeah. So, Rick, we really appreciate you coming on, you sharing your personal opinion as well as what's going on with the company. Final question for you is what's your take on the show this week? What are you expecting out of Stratoconverse, Hadoop World and all the activities? Certainly there's a slew of parties, we're having ours tonight at seven o'clock, there's a lot of networking, a lot of cool stuff happening. What do you see evolving this week? What's your big focus and what would you say is gonna be the big outcome from this week? Well, I'm gonna really be paying attention to the startups, okay? And I'm really excited to join Think Big, who really focuses on, likes to really get involved with startups and that's where my background was for a long time, is being involved with startups. So really taking a look at the new technologies to see how far I notice some metadata startups out there, they just popped up all of a sudden. You know, people notice me on LinkedIn and say, oh, better did it, you want to know about this, right? So there's a lot of stuff. We need you to come talk to us. Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah. So there's a lot of interesting stuff there, the machine learning stuff, always been a fantastic thing. And I think we're gonna see more AI happen, right? So that's really what's exciting right now. We love startups too. And I think that's gonna be a great innovation engine. Certainly has the big whales starting to leverage their expertise, but the startups are an interesting spot, so I gotta ask you the kind of final, final question. What's the mindset of a startup, in your opinion? What would you say to your startup brothers out there and sisters saying, in this week, what's the mindset? Partnerships survive, get revenue all the above? If you had to say to the startups, focus, what would that be? Customers, they need partnerships. That's the number one thing. They need to partner up, line up with companies, like us that have a lot of customers that are ready and eager for this technology because these companies, they don't want to invest in early stage startups, but companies like Teradata or Think Big, they're able to bring all these startups to be able to be useful. Yeah, introductions, right? Absolutely. So just to put it bluntly, do you think there's all these comfortable startups out there on the floor at Hadoop World, Hadoop Summit, and some other shows? Is that floor gonna get smaller next year and the year after? Are we gonna see acquisitions? Are a lot of those companies gonna make it? How do you see this market evolving in that sense? I think it's gonna stay pretty close. I think you're gonna have consolidation, but you're still gonna have a whole new branch of stuff within memory happening to take into forefront, right? So if that can really scale, like we hope it does, right? And memory prices keep going down, but I think that you're gonna see a lot of shift over there, right? And some consolidation will happen, right? All right, Rick, thanks for coming on theCUBE. We appreciate your stalling. Data Lake program director, Think Big, a Teradata company. Obviously, it starts where the innovation happens and we think it's gonna be a great growing market, but people are gonna have to start making their moves and it's certainly exciting for theCUBE. We'll be sharing that with you. We'll be right back after this short break. This is theCUBE. I'm John Furrier with Jeff Kelly.