Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's case breaks calm coming at you with 2020 Panini origins football eight box half case picker team Number 10 there it is right there. You can see I think Sean did this last for the first half last night He marked them Pyt 10 so you all know that they're from the same case big things all of these folks right here for getting into the action You can see there's two different number blocks that we did a KC one and a Miami one And last spot mojo officially went to Stephen Krause who got the Patriots last Here's the first one right here. It's the Miami group and the next one here is the Kansas City group right here, which we Which we just did I think that's uploading right now if I remember to do that I did so that's uploading right now. Excellent. So I guess we'll this one next to me right over here Good luck. I haven't taken a look at this origins in a long time. I think Couple base cards right here and then the hits on the bottom. All right. There's DJ more to 299 That'll be for the Panthers Panthers number block team Carolina It's right over here Marlin max 78 out of 99 that'll be for the Colts Colts go to King. We got Tyron Matthew and then we've got DK Metcalf From Oxford, Mississippi. I love these origins cards see the roots on the bottom there their hometown roots cards DK Metcalf Relic going to Ryan s and the Seahawks Hey, Brad. How's it going? We've got a Jalen Régor rookie on-card autograph It's a good-looking one for oh, that's a number block team and look at this Not numbered so that's going to be part of the non numbered group So that'll be for this list right here KC Green Bay, Philadelphia, blah, blah, blah, blah So that's all is one lot. So I'll set that next to me. So I don't forget and behind Kenyon Drake is Kishon Vaughn Hatch and autograph for the Buccaneers. That's also not numbered and part of a number block group Tampa Bay non numbered Is going to be let's put that right up here. So we'll remember to do that It's Kenyon Drake. All right, Brett. You think the brave will close it out tomorrow. I apologize. It's your opinion We'll see I'm surprised the Dodgers even got it this far. I thought they were they were done two games ago All right, they're say Con Barkley to 175 that'll be for the Giants Derek Molanson Jamal Adams for the Jets 27 out of 79 that goes to Dustin. There's Michael Thomas And there's two a tag of Iola the relic Origin relic 50 out of 199 for Miami. That's part of a number block team And that goes to Derek Mortensen Derek got randomized zero. Nice put my bell put that right there check the schedule, Brett I'll give you all the answers you need on that James Morgan on-card autograph for the Jets Dustin Palmer and back here is Antonio Gandhi Golden three-color patch and autograph guy with the Washington football team and there's charade Taylor right here chargers All right, next box. Good luck. This is pick your team number 10 Here's Matt Ryan 277 out of 299 for the Falcons It's part of the Falcons number block group which is over here Mitchell Trebisky 52 out of 79 for the Bears that's going to be for Robert Casper's Another base card behind Sony Michelle is going to be Khalil Mack And then your hits. We got Saquon Bargley future fabrics 40 out of 75 I wish I knew a good good future song off the top of my head And I could do that That goes to Derek Molanson the New York football Giants Jonathan Taylor is your on-card autograph 81 out of 99 for King and the blue horseshoes And the patch auto is Gabriel Davis 56 out of 99 Buffalo Then that goes to The Miami Dallas blah blah blah blah number block, which is up here So that's 56 Buffalo 6 Derek Molanson nice. All right next one Hello. Hello. Ask the host on the IG channel. He'll be able to give you all the details That that only lives on Instagram live at Jasper's breaks There's Devin Singletary to 299 for Buffalo In the description should be pretty clear on that too if you just read the description on the on that website Origin stories, I think these are only these only fall one per case. This goes to Carolina This will be part of the Carolina non numbered group Which is over here along with that Jalen Régord Drew Brees Devonte Adams reveals the Devonte Adams Drew Brees reveals a Thurman Thomas Devin Singletary origins of greatness 9 out of 25 Buffalo 9 is gonna be Steve Locke. That's a cool dual relic I mean, they hope you can turn out to be that Gonna be nice Buffalo fans would love that The autograph Joe Burrow on-card autograph 34 out of 49 going to Sean Maddock who picked up The Bengals straight up Very nice our first first quarterback autograph in this break There's Darynton Evans three-color patch in auto 48 out of 75. You're welcome Sean. There he is You're welcome Scared might all make money folks EA with the Titans gets the Darynton Evans There's Drew Brees going to the Saints that might be part of a non number of the non-number block group But our shipping team will be able to sort all that out Stevan Gilmore 299 Pats Steven Krauss Cooper cup 84 out of 99 Rams Rams for behind Darius Leonard. We got Christian McCaffrey Behind Darius Leonard is Henry rugs the third nice silver and black patch for Vegas 24 out of 25 Raiders for is gonna be for King Nice one. Keep those hammies stretched out Henry rugs. We saw what he could do last week Redemption any guesses on that and T Higgins Joe Burroughs teammate Three-color patch an autograph for Sean Maddock. It looks like no no one wants to guess redemption. Well, here it is It's Lynn Bowden jr. Raiders and Raiders zero is gonna be Derek Mortensen There's Miles Sanders to 299 for Philadelphia There's poor Dak Prescott 65 out of 99 What a horrific injury That'll go to Dallas whatever that number was Dallas five Dallas whatever the number was Austin Echler behind him Chris Godwin behind Austin Echler is Deandre swift Big lettering or numbers or something like that six out of ten on that one That'll be for the Lions And that's gonna be for the Detroit Detroit number block Detroit six He's gonna be Alex Ayala nice Another redemption he guesses on that and there's Brian Edwards. Hopefully the bye week We'll get him healthy Silver and black patch an autograph. No number. So there's two RPA is gonna be going to to this group up here Two non numbered RPAs to one person in that particular group Logan says Hicks and it's Cam Acres I was like, I'll give Logan ten dollars a break credit if it's any kind of Hicks, but it's not Rams zero Rams are on this side over here Patrick Fernanda with that one too late Logan. You missed your shot This Carson Wentz Philadelphia eight Aaron Jones 24 out of 99 for Green Bay Green Bay four He's over here as well Behind Miles Sanders Shaquille Barrett, we got Brett Favre 26 out of four, I know it's far some people don't get that joke That goes to Green Bay Green Bay six that'll be for Alex Any guesses on this redemption right there? For bragging rights to color patch and autograph Michael Pittman King with that RP and a Rookie patch and autograph. All right, it's JK Dobbins rookie autographs turquoise I think the other one was turquoise to that goes to Anthony and the Baltimore Ravens. There you go All right last box ladies and gentlemen. Good luck Colton go dogs. Are they are they beating that elephant team? 60 out of 175 Joe Mixon, Alabama Goes to Sean in the Bengals Mark Andrews 21 out of 79 for the Ravens Anthony Devin Singletary bills CD lamb Nice 133 out of 199 nice origins relic for Dallas Which is on this top list over here? Dallas three is Andy Andy de Souza. We've got another redemption. They guess is on that There's another Brian Edward, but this time it's numbered 21 out of 49 Raiders one Chris P. There you go, Chris Nice Colton Carver Colton says they are currently tied with Alabama I Get that joke All right, last redemption is gonna be Coming into focus. It's it's another cam acres for Patrick Fernando and the Rams All right, there you go and let's do some randomizing folks Remember the Joey Burrell Joey B. That was nice. All right, so for this let's do this side first So for the Kansas City group you get the one per case origin story Christian McCaffrey and a Jalen Ray Gork on card autograph So let's go to the KC Philadelphia blah blah blah blah blah group. You can see all the teams down there Let's grab everybody's names and put them into this list here And we'll use one dice roll for both randomizers, but the first one Seven times for each list five and two here's the first one one two three four five six and Seventh and final time after seven Andy there you go Andy DeSousa after seven times You'll get the Christian McCaffrey origins card and the Jalen Ray Gork on card autograph All right, the other one to RPA. We've got quiche on Vaughan and my guy Brian Edwards Who I'm looking forward to being healthy after this week's buy So let's go back to the list right here now, let's grab the other list That's Miami Dallas Vegas, Minnesota blah blah blah blah blah and there will probably be some base cards in here That could go to this person as well. So let's put their names in here Using the same dice roll five and two seven times name on top after seven one two three four five Six and good luck seven then final time Chris P. There you go Chris Got him this time.  That was a great break of origins football. Thanks for breaking with us I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for the next break. Bye. Bye


I'd like to, in this session, invite those of you who have questions or comments to be able to participate. This would be a very interactive session and it will be a conversation. So what we'll do is I will start to ask two questions, one of each panelist will open the floor for you to ask a few questions. I'll turn back and ask some other questions for our other panelists. So the topic of this discussion is on the future of foreign assistance. How can we make foreign assistance for gender equality results which are core to development results? How can we get that traction, give that traction? What do we do going forward? So I'd like to start with, and let me introduce our panelists before we start. We've got Cindy Clark with the Association for Women's Rights in Development, which is one of the foremost women's rights organizations around the world. Patty O'Neill, who introduced herself earlier as with the OECD DAC gender net with the secretariat. Lucia Hanmer, who's in the gender team at the World Bank, which has done quite a lot of work on gender equality as smart economics over the last few years. And we have Carolina Vennerhorn from Swedish Sida, who has been a model for many, many donors for many years. So we are really thrilled to have all of you as part of this panel. So I'd like to start with Patty, the Busan Agenda. This has been a very interesting process of thinking about how we get gender equality results central to the aid effectiveness agenda. We started in earnest prior to Accra, but certainly in Accra, and then in Busan. And there was really some progress in terms of language and rhetoric. How do we actually get, in terms of we're starting to think about this agenda for the next round, we're thinking about these kinds of policy dialogues, what are we going to do to get traction for implementation? Okay, that's a slightly different question. That's the first question. So that's an important one. And you've been working on this for a long time. That's right. Well, actually what Karen said to me, she was going to ask me, is where will we be? And I thought, oh, that's a really easy question. So I will begin in part with how we're going to get there, because the fantastic post-2015 development framework that we are going to agree on in September 2015 will have a really strong and memorable standalone goal on gender equality and empowering women and girls. Secondly, we will have really well integrated gender equality throughout all other relevant goals, particularly the ones relating to keeping girls in school. Women's leadership, voice and agency will come through. Sexual and reproductive rights with a focus on family planning will come through. If it was good enough for us, it's good enough for every other woman in the world. Violence against women and girls, economic empowerment, as I said, and women, peace and security. So it's going to be a fantastic framework, but it will only work if the partner countries are there loud and clear. At this moment, we've actually got donors standing back saying, we can't pre-empt what countries think, and I think they might just wait too long. The other really important thing that will come about because of that fantastic framework is that developing countries themselves. And by that, I do indeed mean the governments. You didn't need me here when we had the woman from Pakistan here. Development countries will own and they'll lead the agenda for women's rights. And there will be sufficient investment. Donor funds will only be supplementary. They won't be essential. And in fact, the key implementers will be the governments because unless the governments own gender equality and women's rights, we'll never get anywhere. We will remain marginalised forever. And it's really important that we don't. And I'll just share one little anecdote before I give this back, which is I recently worked with UN agencies just a month ago to hold a huge workshop on the post-2015 framework. We received 27 proposals for presentation at that workshop from our donors and from UN agencies. In all but one workshop case study, all but one were implemented by either CSOs or by UN agencies. And I think that that is extremely concerning. It made me raise the question immediately, where are the governments? Where are the governments? Who are the governments that are implementing these? Show us the governments. And I think we donors, this is the one area that I really want to see improvement. Yes, I want improvements to the quality and quantity of aid, but I want us to be really focusing on who's implementing. I think that's really important. And I want to actually pick up on something that you said and maybe we'll invite some comments from the audience on this. You mentioned that you want to see that donor funds will be supplementary and not essential. I think that's actually critical because countries need to own this agenda. Back in 2005 when I was working with the UN Millennium Project, we were asked to do an exercise to cost how much gender equality would be as part of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. And in the process of doing that work, we looked at country-owned resources for this agenda relative to donor resources. And it turns out that a lot of the resources for gender equality and women's empowerment are off budget. They're donor financed. And that less than 3% of countries' own expenditures were going to these objectives as part of their sectoral programs. And that's a very difficult situation. Countries themselves need to commit their own resources. And we have some examples of how we at least follow the money to do that. So for instance, gender budgeting, which is something that has been in Bangladesh, has been in India, has been in many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The evaluation, though, is a little mixed. So it would be interesting to hear from others that experience because that might be one way that country ownership can be improved in terms of this particular agenda. But speaking about money, Cindy and A-Wid have just produced a milestone report called Watering the Leaves and Starving the Roots. And it's tracking the money to women's organizations and women's movements. So Cindy, maybe you can tell us a little bit about your findings. And one thing that's interesting about this report is this is the second report. So what has changed when you first did it? Thanks, Karen. I guess one of the biggest shifts that we see in the report, which just came out in October, is really the context that we've been talking about all day today. So on the one hand, the original report came out, I believe it was in 2006 after research that we've been doing in 2005. One big shift now is that women and girls are everywhere in mainstream agendas in development agencies and donor agencies in the media. So it's not that we have to be out there saying, what about women, where are the women? Everyone's taken that on, which in itself raises other questions about how are we informing the ways that that gets taken on and picked up. The other big shift that we see in the landscape is what was described earlier today, the huge diversity of new actors that are part of these conversations. So whether that's the corporate sector, whether that's so-called social businesses, again, some media actors trying to engage. So there's a really large diversity of entities that are interested in supporting and investing in women and girls. So that was the other big shift. And I don't think it's new, but I think it's more pronounced in recent years, what we might call the corporatization of some development or really the emphasis on investment over aid. And we can understand some of the argumentation and the rationale for why we would want to see returns on investment and frame it in that way, but it's also been highly problematic in many ways. Jasmine was talking in her presentation about the reductionism. So we see how these agendas are driving very narrow slices of the issues, whether it be a single focus on family planning instead of broader approaches to sexual reproductive health and rights, whether in education it be a very narrow focus on certain approaches, voucher systems or particular scholarships that may not respond to the local community. So those were some big shifts. In terms of the sources of funding, we saw something of an increase, because we do a large survey over 1,000 women's organizations, respond to a survey where we ask them, where is your income coming from and what kinds of work do you do? So between 2005 and 2010, we've seen an increase in the source of funds coming from bilateral and multilateral agencies, which reinforces the important role that these groups are playing for women's organizations. Private foundations stayed around the same at about 15%, but what was particularly interesting, there was a very sizable increase from 11% to 20% in women's organizations receiving support from local governments and country governments. So I think increasingly a lot of what we hear anecdotally is that they're finding that as international funders or aid agencies withdraw from a context they're going more and more to their local governments, there was also an important increase in self-generated resources, membership fees and individual contributions, particularly for smaller organizations. One other important change in terms of the sources was international NGOs with an important decrease. So from 14% down to 7%, which we think is somewhat indicative of trends that we're seeing among international NGOs to do more of the implementation themselves and less to support local partners and women's organizations among them. But one of the things that's maybe most interesting is what hasn't changed very much in this time. So I mentioned the survey that we did, over 1,000 organizations. The median income of these organizations in 2010 was just over 20,000 US dollars. So that's very small. Now that's double what it was in 2005. So on the one hand, that's an important increase, but it's not nearly where we'd like to see it in terms of the important work that these groups are doing and also because we think they are key drivers for change for gender equality and women's rights in the context where they're working. The other thing that hasn't changed very much is who the champions are. And it's a lot of the donors in this room. So the Nordic countries, we see the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark. How can we work together and really bring other donors more on board to support women's rights and women's organizations? Thank you. I'd like to pause. Do we have any questions or comments from the audience? You've all been so silent today and now it's your opportunity to talk. I think I'd like to go to the back of the room and not have the speakers who have been up here speaking. So is there anybody from the participant? Yes, back there, please. Hi, my name is Gro Lindstedt and I am with the Focus Forum for Women in Development in Norway. I just wanted to comment on post-2015 and what we want because the way it really is today we're nowhere near the illusion that you're painting up there. And I think that we seriously have to address what the real situation is and what challenges we have to meet in the next two years to actually have that standalone goal because it's not... I mean, there was someone saying here before that are the Western countries losing kind of their view in this? I don't think that's true at all. I think it's more that different countries are working where it suits them on pulling back on women's issues, bargaining for other things. We're sitting at too many conferences where women's issues are being challenged and are used as bargaining chips, whereas men's issues never are. And I think these are the issues that we seriously need to address here before we do anything else. Important comment. Anybody else want to comment on related to that theme of post-2015 or any of the other issues that Patty or Cindy have raised? Patty, do you want to respond? What can I say? Other than that, I obviously 100% agree. A standalone goal is not in the bag. There is no question about that. And I think what we really have to think about very smartly and very strategically is what absolutely must be in a standalone goal. And when I say that we have to be very strategic, we have to think very hard about, for instance, where we would put family planning. And it's what I really mean by, the question I think we need to ask is, I always get this wrong because I have to double negative it, but it's what could not be achieved anywhere else by the development framework? So I would have thought that becomes issues which are going to be highly contentious, like violence against women and girls. Exactly as you say, the sorts of issues where women's lives and girls' lives are used as bargaining chips. So violence against women and girls. Issues around early marriage. Women's leadership, voice and agency and aspects of women's economic empowerment, such as the control of assets which has come up today. So we'd have to be very careful about which ones we chose. I think we've got a hard road ahead of us. And this is one of the reasons I went out so hard on saying this just now, because I think already we're in a very heavy duty political negotiation. And where, if anything, both the UN agencies and the donor countries in this room are actually standing back saying, we mustn't pre-empt what's going to come through the process. I mean, if you can't see that we're all, people can't see that we're already negotiating and that by the second week of February, the open working group on the SDGs will no longer be open. Its door will be, I would think, firmly closed. And what comes out of that group will be the base below which we probably go.  Cindy, do you want to add anything to that? No. Roger, you had a question and then I'll answer to the other. My question was a follow up to Cindy. Isn't it good that resources are being mobilized locally because domestic resource mobilization is one of the key goals. So if women's groups are doing it, I think that's fantastic. Absolutely. No, I absolutely, I don't mean to say it's a bad thing. I definitely think it's a good thing. I think it's just an interesting shift to note that that's also happening. And also to appreciate the diversity of resources that are important to mobilize. So I think that this issue of the post-2015 framework is so important. Donors actually work within UN frameworks, use these frameworks. So these negotiations are really quite critical. And I think one issue that we haven't heard so much on, which I think was very important, has been important in all international processes. This was particularly important for Cairo, the agenda that you referred to back in 1994, is funding women's movements and women's organizations to be involved in negotiations. So I think CEDA has historically done some of that. I don't know if you're, Carolina, I'm looking at you and you're making a face. Not to put you on the spot, but maybe you and Cindy could comment a little bit on that. And then I'll turn to you, ask you another question about CEDA. Well, it's a tricky question actually. I think we should do much more in funding women's organizations. And one of the questions we're having to me later on how to do what is happening with our restructuring of the aid and bilateral agencies. And if I may say one aspect of that has to do with this, and that is that even though in the Swedish context, we haven't merged CEDA into the Ministry for Foreign Affairs as some of our other donors have done, we've had a major shift in terms of staff cuts and shifting focus. And not necessarily in terms of gender experts actually, well, they have the number of gender staff has increased and that has to do with the political well. But the fact that we have less people doing the same job or even more job and focusing very much on administration and going more and more into programs, large programs in the name of aid effectiveness. That is a problem because we don't have staff and we can't prioritize that kind of small strategic work, particularly targeted small organizations. I know our colleagues from Netherlands have done an impressive work in addressing this through the MDG fund, the Flow Fund, et cetera. But sometimes we see also from the embassies. What is this? Yeah, we can see it here. But even at the embassies, I hear complaints from the colleagues that they don't have the capacity, they don't have the time simply to do that kind of strategic work. So that is a challenge and we are very aware of that because we see the importance of it. Maybe just to add, I think several presentations earlier today talked about how important contextualizing these debates are and the questions of who's at the table and that really goes to the point around women's organizations' engagement in these processes. And so AWIT has been participating with the Women's Coalition on Post-2015 with the women's major group that's been working around these processes. And as Patty was saying, both interested in seeing that there be a dedicated goal and how we can work to ensure that it's as strong as possible around gender equality, that clear gender equality targets and indicators be cutting throughout the other dimensions or other goals that may emerge from the post-2015 process. And thirdly, that women's organizations and civil society groups be supported to actively engage in the negotiations. Now the challenge with that that we are finding among AWIT is a membership organization and we have members around the world. The processes Patty is describing can be incredibly complex, dense and really is not very compelling for those doing work on the ground that they feel is much more pressing. So one of the reflections that we're making is how do we allow for some division of labor? How do we still keep this issue on the table? Because it's important that women's rights groups know that this agenda is going to influence funding and opportunities for their work well into the future. But how can we break down that information, do information sharing where possible, not expect that we all now dedicate all of our resources into that process? One piece of that I think is also recognizing the timing of Beijing plus 20. So that can be something that I think is much more exciting and engaging for a lot of women's organizations to celebrate. It is a broad agenda that we all fought for and want to be able to appreciate and keep on the table even as some of the debates around post-2015 may narrow and narrow further. So we're trying to put some attention to how we use that to engage women's organizations for the post-2015 agenda as well. I'd like to turn to the floor. Any further questions? Paivi. Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask now when we are discussing, is there any risk that gender equality might not be post-2015 target, a standalone target? Because looking at how, for example, past discussions for eco-soc resolutions have gone. There are lots of government representatives who are saying gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights are Western values. They are not for us. We don't want this kind of, and somebody used word, new rights. And what, and I know that in, for example, in commissioner status of women, women from all around the world are very strong but saying gender equality is goal for everyone and sexual and reproductive health is important for everyone. So what can we do to make sure that also, for example, women from countries but now are saying gender equality is a Western value, get more voice in this decision making. Any risk? Yes, and the risk is considerable in my view. The one and a half days when the open working group will consider gender equality in early February is an incredibly critical moment. The donor or the DAC member countries are quite well represented, that's to say the Western and others group, for those of you who know the processes. The partner developing countries are less so, less well represented. And what I feel sad about sitting here is that I have to look at the three women from Cambodia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and hope that they will be able to influence their governments. So that's immensely important. The other really immensely important key milestone coming up is the commission on the status of women in the middle of March. And for that, the UN women will be preparing two reports on behalf of the Secretary General, one that will look at global trends, and that is on the MDGs, by the way. But it will necessarily, I hope, have lessons learned that will look forward. One of those papers will be global, one of those papers will be based on national reports. But the agreed conclusions from that commission on the status of women will need to be very clear, it will need to be very bold, and it will need to be very ambitious. And getting there will be extremely painful. It's not going to be easy. But it needs to be all of those things. So when we, the people who know about these negotiations will know that probably around the end of the first week of February, we'll see a zero draft that to a large extent UN women is holding the pen on. It's really critical that that zero draft is very, very strong. And we thought, those of us involved in the negotiations last year, that violence was going to be very difficult. And it was. But violence, we were much more concrete with that when you precisely what we wanted in that. Looking at the MDGs and then looking forward to post 2015 is a lot, lot tougher. So I want to make one comment before moving on and asking Lucia and Carolina for another question. Let me just say that this is why I think it's just a strategic to have at the ready targets and indicators for every other likely MDG. So for instance, reduction of extreme poverty. What would be a gendered indicator? The proportion of women in vulnerable work might be a proxy. But we have to have at the ready a short set of indicators that will be quite important or thinking about fragile states and post-conflict reconstruction. What would be the indicators at the ready? I'm gonna actually come back to you. This tomorrow is the 17th of December when the open working group is meeting on precisely this topic. Okay. Sorry. So let me turn the conversation to another theme that we've been talking about all day. To some extent. And it also goes, by the way, this targets and indicators in the other post-millennium development goals are part of mainstreaming. This is what mainstreaming would be in that context. So let's talk a little bit about another dimension of mainstreaming. And there's some things that came out today that really struck me. That make me feel very disappointed in some ways. Syracuse presentation. 1325 being a parallel process and not being integrated in the main processes of transitional justice in the DRC and in Kenya is disturbing to me. The fact that we focus on women in a parallel way as opposed to in our mainstream employment creation approaches. And I wanna say something from my experience at aid and ask you this, Lucia, to think about it from the World Bank experience. My colleagues at USAID, when I was there, would say we can get mainstreaming when it comes to health and education because it's about people. It's about girls and boys and it's about training teachers and so forth. But we don't know how to do mainstreaming when you're talking about the issues that they also talked about earlier. You're talking about tax policy or you're talking about transport. And I would say to them, all issues in all sectors are gendered. Just because they're not necessarily about males or females doesn't mean that they don't have the biases that reflect disadvantage, socially constructed disadvantage embedded in them. So with respect to tax policy, I would turn around and say, what's the composition of the types of taxes that we're encouraging countries to adopt between personal income taxes or corporate taxes or value added taxes or trade taxes. Each of these may have biases embedded in them either explicitly in the sense of personal income taxes where the rules determine what a tax filer is or even in value added taxes where the burden may fall on women and men differently because of their different consumption expenditure patterns. So we have to be thinking about these issues or transport and studies that we've done around the world. We know that women don't own cars and vehicles. They rely much more heavily on public transport and they walk. So how our transport systems to be inclusive, this would be good development, to be inclusive, respond to those needs as much as the development of private cars. And to give you an example of what I did at USAID, a colleague said, we're in construction, we're building a bridge. We had a fabulous gender advisor in the Philippines who insisted that the engineers talk to the women who happened to be shorter, who walked, who carried, who had strollers. And they said the bridges that you're designing don't meet our needs. The steps are too high. There's not wide enough sidewalks. We're in the traffic and we're carrying small children and we can't reach the hand whales and we don't have the right ramps. And the engineers redesigned the bridge. That's inclusive development. It's not doing something separately for women. It's about making main processes work for everybody in important ways. And that for me is mainstreaming. So in 10 years from now, I'd like to see bridges designed like that. I'd like to see our transport policies or our tax policies be reflective of being able to respond to these differential burdens and biases. So how is the bank thinking about that? And where would it go in 10 years from now? And then I wanna ask for Sita as well in terms of how Sita's thinking about this. Okay, thank you, Karen. Yeah, that's a really good question. I think I would like to see gender mainstream throughout bank projects in ways that we can see and count and see the results of. And I think that's the other part of the equation actually about how the bank is going about this. We have since the WDR 2013, which was a massive deal for the bank. It's the first WDR on gender. And there's a reason for that. There's probably two or three other deep world development reports on agriculture or on poverty or on the other sectoral issues. This is the first on gender. And it was a big step forward. One of the biggest steps for the bank was actually recognizing gender inequality as having to be addressed in its own right because it's integral to development rather than because it is instrumental to it in some way. And that's very big for the bank and you'll find what Jim Kim or any of our other leaders now will say is we're doing gender. We want to promote gender equality because it's the right thing to do. It happens to be smart economics so that's great for us too. But, you know, and that's been a real sea change in the bank that it's shifted away from having to have an instrumentalist is good for growth kind of story to all the investments around gender. But the other kind of spin-off that happened from the WDR where there were a number of commitments which the bank made to report to its board about how it was going to take the gender equality agenda forward in its work. And some of those, this is a long-winded way of coming back to your point about how you get gender into operations. So what, there were five main commitments. One was to get gender into country dialogue and that comes back to your ownership point, Patty, because with the bank, even when it's IDA and they're nearly, you know, 70% grant equivalent or whatever, you will still find that country authorities, country governments have quite strong ideas about what they should use their IDA money for as opposed to their grant money. So to actually say that you need to have gender-informed policies and the gender dialogue or that we should be having gender dialogues about all our lending is a big step forward for the bank. And then there was also using gender analysis in the data, in the diagnostics, using gender analysis in the lending or using gender-informed lending programs, addressing knowledge gaps and leveraging up partnerships. Those were the five main things and they're reported to the board every year and all the reports are online. So the big kind of changes since in the last five years that the amount of gender-informed operations has kind of moved up to from about 54% overall to now up to 98%. And a lot of that has been led by the IDA lending which had gender targets very much as a result of a lot of the bilaterals in this room here. It's a gender target. Oh, it had the gender targets. It had particular components of the lending had to be related to gender equality goals and the gender targets were about improving certain sorts of outcome indicators like primary enrollment or like particular health indicators. So the IDA deputies introduced those kind of gender criteria for the IDA and that actually spilled over into the rest of the bank's lending as well. So it means that this is why we've got to the position where all the IBRD lending and the IDA lending is now 98% gender-informed. Now gender-informed can be stretched in some way because it means that the loans have either had some gender analytic work behind them that the country assistance strategy has drawn on a country gender diagnostic or it can be the components that actual loans or programmatic loans have gender, have a gender content or it can be that there's some sort of gender monitoring. But we want to move more to looking at the gender content of lending, the gender actions and the gender monitoring. Monitoring is the next step of kind of pushing those performance criteria for the bank. I think the other aspect in terms of how we look across the sectors is if the bank has been really quite successful in some of the hardest sectors of introducing gender into the lending and what has really worked, I think, because a lot of the people in the bank who do the operational work or economists is having quite a clear result and quite a clear line of analysis and to have the buy-in from country partners and ministers. So for instance, in China, the presentation I went to from the transport sector there, one of the big changes was having a consultation with Chinese women in one of the towns that they were doing urban infrastructure and having a consultation which was a separate women only one and the local government official came to that consultation and the women all bombarded him for more street lighting, more safety, better sidewalks, all the things that we can predict will come up but the actual, the story is that the official being there having the women say things to him directly and being able to meet them because those components are tiny compared to, they don't cost very much to do compared to doing big trunk roads or something like that, putting in decent sidewalks, walks and street lighting and security around bus stops or transport interchanges are actually quite a small component of a million dollar loan for transport lending. So once you get that sort of demonstration effect then other task team leaders who control the loans who negotiate with the officials will move on and do the same things and that's where also the work on looking at results and knowing what happens when you lend money and how you make real, how you get improvements on the ground which deliver real changes in women's lives on a day to day basis, I think is very important in all of this. What you said is really striking in a certain way which is that to achieve gender equality and women's empowerment in what we care about it's not very costly in some ways. That goes back to the money that we were talking about that significant, that secondary category should be much larger because that's where you're effectively getting the results. How are you thinking about this now? How do you think about this in the context of the kinds of changes? I'm now moving to Carolina. The kinds of changes that are, eight agencies are going through. There's several agencies, Sweden, Norway, Canada now, Australia, all struggling with this. What are some lessons that you think we could take away? Well, as I said, we haven't had exactly the same process but actually we have a new minister for development corporations since a few months back and she actually got the question in Swedish television on whether we were moving into that same process of merging into the minister of foreign affairs and she said very clearly no, that will not be the case in the Swedish context. But then we've had other challenges as I was mentioning earlier with cuts in staffing, et cetera, et cetera. But actually during the last years, in parallel to these cuts, our aid budget has increased and in terms of addressing gender equality that has been strengthened and that has only to do with political will. We've had female ministers for development corporation before but suddenly with this new minister that came into power in 2007 with a shift of government and which also was, it was not, I think one of the presentation was saying that one more left wing government would be more proactive to gender equality. Actually this was a right wing government and she became, she was very decisive on that gender equality was one of three thematic priorities and she has been so strong on that. So that's the single most important thing that we can see in the increase and how people also address these issues because I've been following and working in gender equality in the Swedish corporation for 20 years and if we just go back five, seven years, we will always have the struggling, we'll always have to convince that why is gender equality important, et cetera, et cetera. I don't have to do that fight anymore. People agree, this is important. We have the evidence even though we always can learn more. This is now how and in terms of and I would also like to comment on what we are doing. As you, I think you saw one of the charts that we are, we have a very high level of integration of gender equality in terms of the policy markers, 85%. We know that from with the new minister now, she wants to see how we can reach 100%. So we, and that we were actually planning to look at what is happening with those last 15% why is that these are not related to gender equality because my response when I get these questions is how do we do the bridge? I say, well, everything that has to do with development is about human beings and who are the human beings? Start looking around you, all sorts of different kinds with gender cuts across everything. So there is always a link there. So we're going to look at that but we also know that in this 85%, there is a big gap in terms of the quality and we need to look at the quality. So, and one of the things we want to do then as a third step is to shift the focus on not only looking at how are the different projects and programs in terms of policy, in terms of saying if it's significant or principle but rather look on the results. It will take time but we're just in the middle of that dialogue and seems that our management wants to introduce that. So one quick question that comes from earlier, I'm going to open it up to the floor. We've had, when you think about results, do you specify what the results are? Do you ask your partners to define what the results are? How do you think about the issue of setting targets or having indicators to monitor that one? We've talked about indicator, what is it? Indicatorism and so forth and the challenges and the tensions around targets. How do you think about that? That's an extremely important and difficult question which we are working on. We actually, I have tomorrow morning, I have to sit and work with a group on the issue of indicators because our management wants us to have standard indicators beforehand of the 2015, which is an extremely difficult question and we have to tackle that somehow. But since we are discussing this, I couldn't give a clear cut answer but it would have to do with what the implementing partners, how they are addressing and then see what is it that we have achieved by the end of the day. But it will be a very interesting process to develop that work. The floor is open for some comments. I'm going to start with Atya and then Mina and Nels and others from the back. Yeah, Atya. Thank you very much. I have four short questions. One I want to compliment the World Bank and the World Bank on your WDR report. It's come late, but thank God it's come. My question to you is that how are you putting the findings, the four critical findings regarding women into the PRSP documents? The in-country PRSP documents because those are the strategies of the national governments. So that's one. The second is on the centrality of gender in the framework which we reached at the post 2015 and the centrality of gender and the need for transformational targets. Patti looked at three of us here. I would like to tell you that we are considered as noisy females. And what our strategy in Pakistan is quiet conversation with the strong men and try and persuade them. So this is my comment to you. We've heard a lot and I want to compliment the OECD DAC on the gender equality policy markers which are used very extensively. My suggestion to you is that when you come into countries and where we are partners in development, unfortunately you don't share or give orientations on what this gender equality policy framework is which DAC and OECD are using. And it's a very important document for you but the recipient countries over there people who are concerned need to know more about it. So if you could share this and there could be the orientation of the country, recipient country that is getting the assistance from OECD DAC countries. If you could incorporate that because you mentioned embassies and their role in this work. Is it possible in this very good methodology which has been developed to incorporate the environment, employment and agriculture? Because these are the three emerging issues relating to women which I think are important. And then the last, there was a lot of, number of times the question was raised about the BRIC countries. And how do we work with them and what do we do? I would simply suggest to you they are there to stay. And is it not possible, you talked about the Paris Declaration, Paris Principles, sorry, which are four. And I think that the dialogue with the BRIC countries is very much an order on the Paris Principles and everything else. You have to bring them into the tent. And maybe you and Weider can do that for us. Yeah, Nina. Thank you. I have three quick points. The first one is related to what Leonce talked about in the morning that there is not enough focus on institutions or no focus on institutions. But that's really problematic because if that country starts focusing on institutions they are giving aid on the one hand and then China is giving aid on the other hand and then they say we don't want to focus on institutions who are doing just business, guess who's going to lose? Both the recipient countries and that countries will not have lots of credibility there towards the recipient countries. More importantly, China has high gender inequality. India has high gender inequality. The Arab world has high gender inequality. All these regions, well, China and India, they give aid, right? But then in the Arab world there are some countries that receive a lot of aid from the Arab Gulf countries but the Arab Gulf countries are not going to say here, take aid, it's for gender equality and power women. It's not going to happen. So really by not bringing everybody together and this is a question for you really because you represent it, but also the World Bank, the DAC member countries have to make a serious effort to bring China on, India and the Arab countries, the Arab Gulf countries, the oil producing countries. Because if they don't do that, I think women at the end in these regions will really suffer. So that's the first point. The second one is that was the finding by Kai this morning that really kind of disturbed me even though I was aware of this by looking at the data because they used the same data. I saw that there was a high, that money was going to the countries that already had higher share of women in parliament and then it turned out that actually the donors were rewarded in countries. So if they are rewarded in countries after they have women in parliament, who's going to take care of those women in the countries where there is very low share, low empowerment of women. That's really, so what they're doing is they're just keeping things as they are and that's not good. So they have to find a way and I don't know how this works but there should be a way of actually contributing to promoting women's participation in political arena. And the third one is this and I have to stand up for this to look because there are many men in the country. Men not only need to support the efforts to promote gender equality, not just because women are their sisters, mothers, wife or daughters, but because in 50 or 60 years when the tide shifts and there is gender inequality going the other way, if they invest today in the instruments and the policies that work to reduce gender inequality then we would have learned lessons and so in the tide shifts and the other ones who are discriminated against it's very easy to go to the books and say oh yeah we use this policy, it works, let's use it again. So really it's an investment in your future as well, not just ours, thank you. Nina stole my thunder, my actually last question was gonna be at the role of men because we have to talk about men as champions of change for women, but for themselves as well. So, Leonce, up to you. Now you can see why I'm here. No, my questions are going to be very, very simple and actually addressed to panelists but also to the coordinators of the project, you and you either. One is about how we measure aid and the dataset that people have been referring to is the one we all use and it has two types of aid measures. Aid commitment and aid disbursement. To me, aid commitment means nothing. So if you had available data on aid disbursement, I don't see why you're using aid commitment. The second is on within the same data is the gender marker. When I saw the gender marker and I was starting that I really jump up and I say, wow we have now an indicator, direct indicator of aid allocation to gender, it doesn't work. Because again, it's a wishes and you don't know what gender is, you don't know, it relates to the point that Karen was saying that gender is affected by directly, indirectly, by many things. You have gender implications of infrastructure development. You have gender implications of school building. You have gender implications of clinic building. So if you're going to do a gender marker, I don't know where you start and where you end. And I don't know whether you're talking about money that actually went up to improve gender or whether it was a declaration in a document because I know if I'm a loan, if I'm a project officer and I want my project to be approved, if you want to say that it's gonna improve gender, I'll mark it, I'll check, I'll mark the box. But did money actually go to help girls and women? How about fungibility? So I'm very, very concerned about the implications we're going to draw about from very, very imperfect data. Very important question. Shireen, you have the last comment and then I'm gonna ask each of you for one concluding comment. You're not allowed to answer all questions, but just one. Go ahead. Yeah, Shireen. Thank you, Karen. Since we are discussing the future of aid and gender equality, so I would just like to say that the stakeholders, whoever would be involved in the process of planning and shaping the future of aid have to carefully weigh the possibilities of the global discourse that is ongoing on framing the SDGs. And if we have gender equality there as one of the SDGs, we are dealing with developed countries as well as developing countries. So even if it is gender equality, the socioeconomic context will vary and it cannot be a homogenous policy. So in how do we actually address the different needs, the different concerns and the priorities of the different countries, even if we are talking about gender equality and how the aid will then be designed in accordance with that, that is something which needs to be taken into account. Thank you. So Carolina, you have your final word and then we'll just go this way. You have anything? So there were many interesting things, but actually what I want to say is that the reason that we want to focus on measuring results in the framework is a complement to the problems with the DAC markers. That's the reason we're moving into that, even though it's difficult.  Okay, here's your comment. Yes, just to respond to Atty's comment in terms of the four policy priorities that came out of the World Bank 2012 word to reduce the gender gaps in human endowments to close earnings and productivity gaps between men and women to limit the intergenerational transmission of gender equality and to shrink gaps in voice and agency. So there's a number of ways that they come into both PRSPs and country assistance strategies. The PRSPs are actually the government's document. They engage with the bank and other donors a lot about them. Where the bank has more, has complete direct or more direct control is over the country assistance strategies that we have for each country. And so with the country assistance strategies, these are strategies are reviewed, they're reviewed by the unit that I work in. We look at them, we make recommendations. But more broadly, I think the bank has a big role to play in terms of producing the knowledge and the analytics that anyone can draw on to use in any context at a global level and at a country specific level. And I think I really liked what you had to say about women's empowerment being the 21st century goal. That's what women of this century want. And I think the voice agency and participation is essential to that and should be our driving force forward into the next century. And as Patty has already said, I think that's the real importance of gender-based violence as being a central goal for the MDGs. And I really agree with you on that, Patty. And the World Bank does as well. This is supported by the bank. So I think one of the things that I'm working on at the moment is that our unit is producing a report on voice agency and participation to see what we know globally about how women wear and when women are empowered to make decisions. That's a global knowledge tool. So that is available everywhere. So that's our small contribution to pushing this debate forward. Do you want me to say something about the gender action lab because that's so important. Oh, yes. The other thing is that, which you were going to ask me, but you didn't. So I was to talk about the Gender Innovation Lab, which is a great initiative that we have a couple of initiatives going on going forward. There's a Gender Innovation Lab, which is specifically concerned with Africa and is working in the Africa region. So they have really been looking at the impact of policies and programs on the ground. So that we have much more kind of up our sleeves as a donor community or as a national community to know what works. So one of the examples when I talked to my colleague before I came here was in Rwanda. He said that one of the good things about it was that it's a very good dialogue tool, both for economists and for talking to ministers and ministries, and particularly our counterpart is quite often in the Ministry of Finance. So for example, they did a study of the pilot land registration program in Rwanda. And the first results in the first two pilot areas showed that actually women who were not in formal marriages were losing out on registration. Because whilst they designed the registration, so that a husband and wife had a place on the form to register the land, they missed out on women who were living as domestic partners with men. So that was a result of the impact evaluation study, which was done in partnership with the Ministry of Lands and the Ministry of Women and the Family, I think it is in Rwanda. Anyway, so after the pilot study as a result of that, the government of Rwanda have changed the way that the administration is done and that unmarried women can also be registered on forms. So you get very concrete results in these impact evaluations, but you also have to be there over the long haul as well. The results come out because the impact evaluations, this is not at the time of the design of the project or at the time of the funding. You have to be there to look at what actually happens during implementation. And I think that's where we have to be in the donor community to be able to be much more certain about what the implications are for women and men who are living in countries, whether we are actually the resources that are reaching them to start with and having a result and an outcome which improves gender equality, secondly. I think we know too little about that. I had planned my last word to be about the Busan Global Gender Equality Indicator and our success with that.  So I'm really forced to talk about the Gender Equality Indicator. It's not a marker, rather. It's not designed to measure the impact or the quality of aid. It's not an accurate reporting tool. And it's a measure of its success, actually, that it's causing Swedish seeder to have a discussion tomorrow about results. Because the marker, rather, can't do all of the things that so many people want it to do. It's the best tool we have to compare the sectoral and the country focus of aid within agencies and to compare gender equality focused aid and sectoral and geographic focus across donors. It's fully integrated into the reporting requirements for DAC members. And it has been for 20 plus years. They have to go right down to activity level. It's owned by the statistical reporters, which I think is actually a strength. And most importantly, the published data has allowed for comparison between donor countries. But I actually think the most important thing is now that we have published. What we've seen going on, I know it's reporting, is aid going up. I think we've opened up a fiscal space that's going to be incredibly important come post 2015. Because aid to gender equality, as it's reported, has gone up by 12% when sector-allocable aid has actually risen in the same period, which is from 2002 to 2011 by only 5%. Thank you, Patty. So on this theme of the future of aid and gender equality, I just want to mention that Avid has done some complimentary research to what I talked about earlier with Mama Cash and with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs looking at some of these new initiatives. So corporate sector actors coming into partnership with traditional development actors and NGOs. There's not time to speak to the findings of that now, but it's intriguing. The results will be out in January. And it's clearly, let's say, not the solution. And I think the concerns that it poses are how the impact of some of these actors will eventually narrow the agenda of traditional development actors. So I think there's a huge opportunity there, especially when, as we saw in one of the presentations earlier, who's positioned as experts on the issues of gender equality are the consulting firms like Pricewaterhouse, Coopers. And not necessarily those that have been in the field for many years. So that's going to be a key area for future collaboration and dialogue going forward. Thank you so much. I'm so sorry that time constraints prevented us to have a longer conversation. And thank you for your patience in sitting through this, but we'll now move into the concluding session. Finn? Thank you.


It's finally here. We finally made it. AFC Central Football, baby. Ravens Titans in this playoff matchup. Ooh, this is going to be a good one. Because this game is a lot deeper than football. This one's personal. This entire offseason, the way that the Ravens were shaping this team, the theme that was in their head. Remember the Titans. Boy, oh boy, we sure ain't forget. Baltimore, let's show Tennessee what's up. Shout out to the Ravens. So YouTube team keep it clean. What's going on is engraving here with another video. And in this video, we here to talk about a very important game we got coming up against the Tennessee Titans. And this one is personal. It's personal. And I know Hardball had a press the other day and they asked him to do the previous games that you guys played against the Titans. Have any bearing on this one? He's like, no, they don't. They don't. But you know they do. You know they do. This is personal for the players. And this is personal for the coach, too. And let me tell you why. For the players, it's personal because last year in the playoffs, they came to your crib and they just beat the mess out of you. They beat you down.  Run the football, play some good defense, force some turnovers. They did that to you.   And then doing that was so nice that they did it twice. But the second time, they had a party on your logo. They were doing the river dance on your logo and all that. And you were in the locker room. But coach, he came out. He said, what's up? That's when Hood Hardball came out. He was like, what's up? And some of them players thought they were tough stepping up to a coach. Malcolm Butler specifically. And then on top of all of that, Vrable came over and told John Hardball, go coach the game. Go coach the game. Go coach the game. And then the Titans proceeded to win that game in overtime. So Titans have gotten the best of the Ravens recently. But the way they've gotten the best of the Ravens, what has transpired in each of those games, it makes it more than just a football game. This thing is on a whole other level. And of course, we know this is a rivalry that goes back, way back. These two used to be in the same division. We know the epic battles that happened between Ray Lewis and Eddie George. But now Ravens are going against a running back that's built like Ray Lewis plus Eddie George and Derek Henry. And of course, first and foremost, that's the biggest thing that the Ravens need to do. Stop Derek Henry. And we know that's the obvious, but it needs to be done because this Titan team, they run through Derek Henry. Just like the Ravens run through Lamar Jackson, the Titans, everything goes through Derek Henry. If Derek Henry is having a good game, oh, game over, game over for whoever they're going against. But if you can stop Derek Henry, you really got to try to make these guys one dimensional. And the thing about the Titans that I really respect is that no matter if they down by one score, if they down by two scores, even if they down by three scores, these dudes will still be running that football. They don't stop running the football for anything, for anybody. So that's going to be Ravens' goal all game long. Now, last time we played the Titans in Emmity Bank Stadium, they were stopping Derek Henry. They stopped Derek Henry for not one, not two, but three quarters they stopped. They did a phenomenal job against Derek Henry and they did it without Brandon Williams and Calais Campbell. They did it without their interior defensive lineman. But this time those boys are back. And the theme of this entire offseason was remember the Titans. Remember the Titans because we certainly didn't forget what they did to the Ravens. And the Ravens didn't forget what they did to the Ravens. And the way that they have been shaping their team this entire offseason was for the Titans. They didn't want that to happen again. They didn't want to be bullied again. So they tried to build a bully. And that's what you're going to have to do in this game. Now, another huge factor in this game is going to be the tackling. That was one of the worst tackling displays we've ever seen the last time the Ravens played the Titans, especially in the fourth quarter alone. The touchdown by AJ Brown, he didn't even have to work for it. He didn't even have to work for it because Ravens decided they didn't want to tackle him. You got to tackle in this game. You have to because it's going to be colder. It's going to be a much more physical game. And every play matters that much more because this is the playoffs.  And again, they were wrapping up and they were tackling well on Derek Henry for them first three quarters. But fourth quarter, all that went out the window. And they literally ran their way to victory in overtime. In the defense in this game, you have to keep somebody on Ryan Tannehill. Because you can't let Ryan Tannehill catch you too. He was catching them Ravens all game last time when he kept the ball. And you can understand why because everybody want to sell out to stop Derek Henry. And that allows Ryan Tannehill when he keeps the ball to get a nice chunky yards. So Ravens are going to really have to watch out for that big time. AJ Brown and Corey Davis last time, boy, those dudes had a field day in the second half. First half, Ravens were doing their thing. But second half, both of those receivers started to wake up. They stopped dropping the ball and they started catching everything in sight. That was a rough game for Marlon Humphrey and Marcus Peters. So in this game, what I would love to see the Ravens and Wink do is play up on those receivers. Man up on those receivers, press on those receivers. We should be getting Jimmy Smith back. So that'll be good. Anthony Avid has been playing well, so he should be nice. But we need that secondary to come with it this game. And on those passing downs, Wink needs to do a good job of disguising defenses and really trying to confuse Ryan Tannehill. Yannick Ngakwe, he should be back for this game. So the pass rush should be amped up that much more. And it's going to be a beautiful thing because like my boy Ham pointed out yesterday, this will be the first time that Yannick and Judon and Bowser and Brandon Williams and Calais Campbell all are playing together at the same time. So I can't wait to see the finished product. Flipping it over to the offense. They're like, we got to state the obvious, but the obvious needs to be stated. Run the ball. Run the ball, run the ball, run the ball. Do not forget who you are. Don't forget what got you here. Run the ball. I hate to keep having to go back to last year, but we have to because it happened the way it happened. Ravens broke so many records running the ball. Then they got to the playoffs and they didn't run the ball. Now my god, Josh Hoffman recently put it best. They just ran for 404 Russian yards last week. Let's hope that they don't go into the playoffs and forget that. Use your guys. JK Dobbins, Gus Edwards, let them eat. And you know Lamar Jackson, he got to get his too. And in this game when Lamar Jackson is passing the ball, he needs to continue to be decisive. Get your feet set on your throws and let it rip. And that's been a big part of his game recently. It's just letting it rip. Letting it fly, letting it go. He has not been second guessing himself and that's taken him such a long way in these past four or five games. So he's got to continue that. He's got to continue that mindset to where he knows he can complete every pass. He knows he can make whatever defender miss when he's taking off with the football. And he continues to put it out there every single game. Our receivers in this game do not make it a repeater last year where y'all dropped everything. Catch that football. And with Lamar, he needs to continue spreading that ball around and make the Titans really respect everybody. And that doesn't just go for the receivers, but that goes for Gus Edwards and JK Dobbins as well.  I ain't got to say too much about Justin Tuck and Sam Cook. Y'all already know what time it is with them. And Devin Duvenay, who seems to be our punt returner now, keep doing your thing. But we do have to speak about coaching. Don't forget your identity.  This is the biggest worry that a lot of us have as Ravens fans is how is coaching going to come through in this playoff game? Because we've seen the last two. Alright, you got the bad coaching out of your system in the last two playoff games. Leave it there. And if all goes well with that, the Ravens should come out on top. This should be a really good game. And even though it is playoff, so I expect the Ravens to win by 10 or more. Because this is personal. I've seen a lot of fans say, oh, we need to go to Tennessee and dance on that logo too. No, Ravens don't need to do that. Don't stoop to that level. Just let your play do the talking. Let your game do the talking. You ain't got to say nothing. Because if you take care of business, none of them are going to be dancing anyway because their season is going to be over. So there's nothing that you need to say. There's nothing that you will need to do. And there's nothing that you will need to prove in order to show that you got the best stuff. Team Keep It Clean, I appreciate y'all. I love y'all. And like the Tennessee Titans, when it comes to the playoffs after this week, we out.


Now I'm very happy to have you all here for the next talk on Yeah, a really important topic and we all called last year for more creative campaigns on all our issues that we talk about here at Congress and so the pink collective thought about a really creative campaign that also got a lot of attention in the last year and Because they call for all the intelligence officers to really exit their careers and to find some other Yeah, more valuable Service to our society. I'm very honored to introduce Gloria Spindle to you who Is a former Google Nest employee You might remember that Great campaign and will now present the intel exit to you. Thank you.  We can see you. I Hear there a lot maybe more than what's in this room. Oh the lights are dimming. Okay, so I Don't know if anyone else is as interested in the in the parts of the Snowden documents as I am Which are the kind of little cultural titbits that you find that give you a sense of what it's like to be within the Secret Service. I'm really kind of fascinated by this particular gentleman the sigint philosopher who was a columnist for the NSA on their internal newsletter and he's really quite creative and he writes a lot of Kind of pieces about ethical quandaries of working in the Secret Services And most of them end with just like you should just keep your head down And you should just keep doing what you're supposed to be doing because that's the best way to go ahead and protect your country So this this quote is really the the kind of crux of what Intel X the Intel exit initiative is founded on We recognize that people who are working in the Secret Services And I'm sure some of you in the audience tonight are working in the Secret Services pretty certain there's some disgruntled Maybe unhappy, maybe ethically confused people working in spy agencies Maybe you're just a contractor and you feel like oh, I'm not so involved, but I Still feel like I have blood on my hands and those are the people that Intel exit is talking to That was like half a clap. I mean come on people So those are the people that Intel exit is really talking to and We wanted to reach out to those people because there hasn't been a campaign yet That is actually recognized that they are humans working thousands and thousands of people going every day to their surveillance jobs operating drones and Even the people who are just answering emails or you know pushing paper running the photocopy machine If they even have those who knows what they have in there Those people there are people who obviously have ethical issues about working in in these in these systems and Feel responsible for mass surveillance drone warfare and the slow maybe fast degradation of democracy as we know it so Introducing Intel exit tell exit does it's an it's an initiative a civil initiative Grounded in the idea that we need to find a way to support people who want to leave their jobs at the Secret Services And we need to normalize the idea of quitting It's a it's a it's a very just and and sometimes honorable thing to do just to follow your ethics and Give up your job if you don't feel like you're contributing to society in a good way So So that's my Intel exit pitch Some of you might know I'm from Peng as it was introduced earlier and we Are known for our hoaxes and our media hacks and our culture jamming So Intel exit has been a really really interesting campaign for us and I'll explain it as I go Because of course you see it's a bit of performance and it's a bit of humor, but it's also very serious at the same time So just to introduce Peng to you for those who don't know Here we were this was at Republica impersonating Google managers and And presenting some really creepy data collecting products a personal drone for daily life An app that monitors your well-being your emotional well-being and matches you with other people who also need a hug and Creepy thing about that is most of those dystopian visions have now actually come to light and are existing in the real world today Actually people do use drones to follow their children to school. That's a real thing So and here we are impersonating the the leading party of Germany and here we are on live television cracking an egg over the head of a presenter of a very dodgy television program and This was our program to Self provide self-help for trolls sexist trolls on Twitter all of you and that was our self-help coach We had a bot army which was analog which what we had in language analysis happening on Twitter And then we had an army of 160 bots which were going out and enrolling trolls on Twitter into our self-help program and sending them nice inspirational videos every day to help cure them So as you can see we have a we Utilize a range of tactics and techniques in what we call campaigning some people call it art some people call it Theater some people call it a joke some call it entertainment But we see it as campaigning on what we're constantly trying to do is to shift the narrative We look at shift the narrative around various social justice issues We look at issues which we think that really need a kind of different spin happening in the media And then we take them and we find a way to reframe them and then we push them out and hope that we get a lot of attention so we started looking at the issue of surveillance and the secret services and Well quickly one runs into the obstacle of how do you talk about this? like we have these we have these cliches of you know the eye and you know Edward Snowden's face and We have these visuals that kind of don't really mean anything anymore And and everyone really struggles to actually understand what the issue means and and how do we talk about the secret services when? They're completely inaccessible to us so this is a photo for example of The regulations for taking photographs at Fort Mead You see you're not really allowed to take photographs of the buildings so if you start with that as a kind of metaphor for the inaccessibility of The secret services to our general culture We can't even we don't even have visuals for them We've got like one photo of the NSA that floats around the internet and just gets repurposed and repurposed We we can't access these people. We can't access their structures. We can't access the information. Yes, we have leaks now But like how do we actually how do we open it up more and that's that was the question we kept asking ourselves These are the yeah, you've got this issue of intangibility and then you've also got the issue that everything is so secret I mean even if like a Christmas card is sent internally and in the NSA it's classified as top secret Then you've got technology which is so complicated and the general public can't understand it and it's like all these Acronyms and these like weird flow charts and bad design and it's just really complicated and then of course there's fear and And fear is really crippling. I mean for activists ourselves for civil society Well, it's like really difficult. We don't want it. We don't want to broach this issue We don't want to step into it because it's scary because once you step into it That means that you're a target, of course And also funnily enough then fear is also the the way the narrative is often shaped This is what we use to try and raise awareness about surveillance. We make people afraid. We you know We talk about this invincible dark danger of surveillance Creeping in on us. No one knows if they're being watched or not and And this is this we think is is a narrative that really needs to be shifted So we wanted to find a way to talk to bring hope to bring a positive image To this to this narrative and and also to bring bring it down to humans like not to talk about technology Not to talk about these dark and complex systems But to talk about the people and talk to the people who are upholding these structures So this is what we came up with Right now Thousands of people work in the shadows of the intelligence community They don't ask questions. They follow orders keep their heads down. Do their work But what happens when you see something you can't forget? System you are part of is chipping away at democracy every hour every day You feel stuck Some people have already made the decision to leave Others are thinking about it every day Intellects it helps people break free from the intelligence community and build a new life You expose yourself within the system. You're ultimately could end up being forced out of the system. I Remember confronting in my immediate supervisor the number three person about what are we doing? We're in violation of the Constitution Many Secret Service employees are Disillusioned why are we taking equipment? That is traditionally for foreign facing outward facing and we're now Instrumenting our networks within the United States of America if you are surveilling the population. You're all on the same side Right, you want all the data and you want to talk to people have the most data so the NSA is a Nexus of surveillance for the world. It's whatever you could get away with that was part of the game And it was ever whatever would serve in the interest of national security When one is forced to act against one's moral values, you can experience extreme levels of what we call cognitive dissonance I was radioactive because I'm questioning What are we doing? Where do you then go? Where does your life then? Where do you recreate your life? What intellects it does is help individuals transition from the world on the inside to the world on the outside The more you can move from the inside to the outside the better you'll integrate into the real world What is really great about intellects it is that it helps people to confront their fears So take it for me if you're looking to get out try intellects it Be smart exit intelligence now Bruce Schneier there. I just say Bruce Schneier is like amazing pitch at the end like who knew he had those talents like Someone take him to acting school like it's amazing Okay, so then we made the video, but of course we knew we know that the people that we're talking to The spies are some of the most introverted people in the world and probably some of them the people most stuck in a filter bubble in The world so we knew we had to had to kind of take our outreach further and we had to go to where they are so, you know, we thought big and we pretended we just forgot about the fact that we didn't really have a budget and We just hired a van because that's what you do so we just hired this van and we drove around Fort Mead and the NSA buildings tried as much as we could to get as close as possible to them as we could So this is this is outside Lockheed Martin on National Business Parkway, which is the the main area of all the NSA contractors tractors And they're really best friends with the NSA and now they've started making drones as well They've been supplying technology to the military and the CIA and NSA are forever so that's us parked outside there giving them a like strong moral punch with the with the slogan and then we went to One of the most popular cafes where NSA officers and contractors like to go for lunch this cafe Joe And we parked out there during lunchtime as well Because you can't talk about the secret services in one country without talking about the other ones because they're all in bed with each other We of course had to go to the UK as well. So here we are outside the doughnut and This is a straw. Well, okay to be honest That's trying to hand out flyer brochures to the people like that was our plan You know, we're gonna hand them out to the employees on their way to work And they were just like they had like been briefed. Oh, I don't know. They were just like Ignoring us and also maybe didn't brief that guy very well on what to dress as an Intel exit ambassador And then we hit all the This is outside the dagger complex in Germany one of the lesser-known spots for the NSA would kind of central hub for the signals intelligence Gathering in Europe. It's been written about in the spiegel very secret very difficult to get there as well and Yeah, there we are again on from the other side and that is the antenna from the dagger complex and Then we also went to these Barden, which is the traditional home of the US military in Germany and the clay kazena building this is where Supposedly forthcoming is going to be one of the NSA's biggest buildings and operations in Europe also all very secret No one knows what's going on And then we went to the US Embassy In Berlin and this for non-german speakers. It just says enough with paranoia That's why we had the like data a stick pineapple on there We're helping you to get out of the secret services and Then we went to the German secret services as well. This is their new office block the bundes nachrichtendienst We also went to the old offices just in case And we went to we did a lot in a week we went to the Verfassung Schutz, which is the domestic intelligence in Germany and this is located in Cologne and To remind them about so the Verfassung Schutz actually stands for Translated in English is protectors of the Constitution and in order to remind them about the Constitution We stuck the Constitution on there on their wall there and then They are ripping it up. This was like a dream that we had for a very long time and finally we realized it Yeah To sources Intel exit website was blocked on the On the internal network after that drop Um, yeah, so that was that was our week and that was Intel exit And yeah, I I just want to share a few learnings with you because it was a very interesting campaign for us And one of a kind really So I think the first thing on a very kind of just basic level is that it is possible to talk about this issue Without creating fear and without making everyone You know really worried about Their information and their data and they're just general feeling of well-being there is a way to kind of shift the narrative and look Look more at the outside and stop holding the defensive Got it. Okay, then second thing is that They're just as good at faking as we are this was the response from the GCH Q to a journalist Question for an article about Intel exit Which is amazing because they basically just said that the you know They don't do anything unlawful and they actively encourage staff to discuss any concerns that they have Inside which we all know is not true and they also they really pride themselves on the structures They have in place to support this So I think this was the biggest surprise for us like we're always dealing in this kind of projecting of either utopias or dystopias out into the world and Sometimes when you have a vision and you project something out actually it kind of turns into reality and that's what happened You know we played this line of yes It's sort of a fake but at the same time we really mean what we what we're putting out here Yes, we actually think there should be an Intel exit foundation Created and there should be loads of money flowing in for people who want to get out and there should be a civil way to exit But you know What can we do we're just like a small art collective in Berlin, you know, we can make a big wave But we're quite limited on our resources But actually we we got responses we got we got people coming to us And and that was like that was a real surprise and we realized we have a lot of responsibility too and So this is the other learning is that there's no clear line between insanity and reality So you kind of constantly when you get people contacting you There's this like of course you get people who think that they are pursued by the CIA or think that they used to work at the secret service and then there's you know people who talk to aliens and these kinds of things and and then and then you get people with really legitimate stories and There's a kind of constant balance and we've really had to learn how to assess these and luckily we've had amazing support from investigative journalists particularly from whistleblower platforms who have experience with this and can help us But that's just part of the game Okay, so I think that's our other learning is that what we realized at the end of this week is that there really is a need for this that there's a need to respond and to respond to Well to respond to the kind of the discourse that's out there and create a new one And then there's also really a need to provide This this kind of support and actually to reach out to people who are trapped in these structures and who want to get out So we've been working really hard and trying to build up Network a network of support with people who are have legal skills who have psych who have psychological training and Who can also help if people want to get out and leak or blow the whistle can help with that So we're kind of at the moment where when people come we're we're trying to direct them to the to the right resources because of course, we're not a whistleblowing platform and we're not you know, we're not a Legal organization so we can't provide a lot of the things but we have good networks and we can try and connect people to them So what's coming next We're trying to build up our infrastructure so that people can actually have a very secure way to contact us We're building up this network of support and we want to create a list of Future employers for people who actually do leave the secret services so that they can find places to get jobs Afterwards and we want to continue doing more outreach and more campaigning on this issue And I think that that that is our main goal So that's That's a safe within a safe which is now part of our kind of secure comms infrastructure that is happening in our office thanks to the support of very experience and knowledgeable and expert people who can help us set up the Kind of the best way for people to come to come Yeah to in terms of risk assessment set up the best the best appropriate means of communication to us And then on our outreach plans. We really want to Create a way to talk to people working in the secret services For an everyday person in this audience or on the stage just to call up The NSA or the BND or the GCHQ and get through to someone who's sitting at their office on their phone And have a conversation with them like call center style, you know like How are you doing today? Can we talk about your job? How what? How do you feel about working at the secret services? You know so We we want to create an anonymous routing system for someone to call completely anonymously To a set of numbers which we can't reveal the source of And to reach out to these people So of course we need support and help and these are all the things that you can help us with So If you've got skills we need all kinds of skills we need skills to build up this call center operation of ours So that people can actually anonymously call and we can have something Something that is very exciting and we can premiere at events so that you can actually have kind of call center Call center operations on stage calling up doing it live And then we also need people who will translate our materials We would like to get them into a number of languages We only have in English and German at the moment and we would like to be able to kind of reach out more internationally And if you've if you've got connections Well, that's also always good if you've got people who if you know people who are lawyers who have had experience working with people who are either in trauma or People who have been in the secret service for example Legal skills psychological skills Journalists we need all those kinds of connections in different jurisdictions. We're pretty well set up in Berlin and in Germany But we really need help in the UK and the US as well for now And then if you've got ideas for outreach for new actions, we're also really open to hearing about those We've got the call center idea at the moment calling up the spies, but we want new ideas and If you know people who are working there just have that conversation with them I just start a conversation about you know ethics at the workplace and Now it's the big The big question and I even did that to To say how important it is if you like Peng's work, we're not ashamed anymore We were ashamed for a long time to ask for money, but we're not ashamed anymore We live off idealism alone people and we need help to keep our actions going This year. I think we did six actions or something really large campaigns And we need help to kind of to support our infrastructure to Support our staff to support our projects more than anything so that we can keep on doing what we're doing. So we've We've developed a way for you to become a monthly donator, which I highly recommend great feelings of Positivity and love will travel with you for many years after you have done this and Mother Teresa said You know if you can't feed a hundred penguins, then just feed one so feed one of us Even if it's just like the pinky finger of one of us and sign up for a year to keep seeing great actions coming out from Peng and That's me and then we've got one more thing surprise. So where are you? Hello? Yeah So we have one other awesome way to donate which is that you can buy one of the awesome Intel exit t-shirts Which Paul is going to come here and model for us quickly And there's a run for your life That's the kind of lame one, but these ones are cool Thank you So are we meeting afterwards? Yeah, okay, so I think we're gonna have a we don't have time for questions and answers now But we really want to get feedback from people. I think there's been IRC chat already happening But if people want to come we're going to meet where we meeting In front Of this huge hole Can someone give me a location I only got here today Can you give us a location? Okay, so it's sensible to meet at the tea tent, I suppose tea tent in front of the hall too, there's a big tea tent where you get tea and where you also Meet many other people who are working in this direction of work, right? And I have one question still because I'm like you told we can support on the internet is there also a way to donate anonymously Well, you can donate with Bitcoin or you could just give us cash Everybody's big piles of cash Bring them here Thank you, Gloria, thank you Paul and there's a bag for cash Anonymously here Okay, bring your your blocking for your face if you won't really be anonymous Thank you, Gloria. Everybody who wants to come please go to the tea tent