Good morning and welcome to this Davos Insight session on society and security. I'm David Bloom, I'm an economist and a demographer at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health and I also chair the Forum's Global Agenda Council on the Future of the Health Sector. I'm delighted to have this privilege to moderate this panel on society and security which is one of the main pillars of this year's annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. I'm joined on stage by five distinguished panelists who are truly exceptional in terms of their achievements and their perspectives. Very briefly starting to my immediate right is Ahmad Eravani, President and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Islam in the Middle East and a member of the Forum's Global Agenda Council on the Role of Faith. Welcome Ahmad. Thank you. To his right is Willi Matunga, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Kenya. Very good to have you here. To Willi's right is Catherine Sullivan, U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. Welcome Kathy. Ernesto Zadiel to Kathy's right, former President of Mexico and currently Director of Yale University Center for the Study of Globalization and a member of the Forum's Global Agenda Council on Global Governance. Hello Ernesto. And to my left is Salil Shetty, Secretary-General of Amnesty International and a member of the Forum's Global Agenda Council on Fragility, Violence and Conflict. It's good to have you here Salil. All five are astute observers and very discerning listeners and they participated in all sorts of public and private conversations that comprise the formal and the informal backbone of Davos. Now as we all know Davos doesn't have just one pulse, it has many. Some might even go so far as to describe Davos as pulsating. Anyway, the pulse that we're going to take in the next hour is the one having to do with trust and security. And to set the stage I'd like to offer three quick comments about trust and about what we're trying to do. First of all, I think of trust as a very special class of intangible assets. It's special because of its ethical and moral linkages. It actually represents the last in the progression of words that go from true to truer to truest to trust. And it's an asset because it's something of value that can be a big contributor to human well-being and progress, I think as we all understand. Second comment, trust is something that can be both augmented or depleted. But there's an important asymmetry here because while it sometimes takes a very long time to build trust, it can vanish in an instant and then it actually becomes much more difficult to rebuild. Third comment, one thing that I actually hope that we don't do during this hour is to dwell too extensively on the facts and figures about trust. I actually propose that we run this conversation on the premise that popular confidence in our public and private institutions to fulfill their missions reliably and fairly is generally low by historical standards and not showing much signs of rebounding. Now does anyone on the panel disagree fundamentally with this view that we're operating on somewhat shaky ground with respect to trust? Okay, so we've reached our first agreement. Well done. My compliments. We trust you. Thank you, Ernesto. Okay, so let's use that premise as our jumping off point for our discussion. And what I'd like to do is focus on three questions during this hour. Okay, first of all, why is trust so depleted? Okay, second, what are the manifestations of that decline in trust? And what can we expect to see or experience if we stay in this trust rut, if you will? And third, and finally, who owns this problem? Okay, and what do they need to do individually and collectively to slow or reverse the decline in trust and to forestall the consequences of continued low trust? So Akhman, I'd like to start with you, if I may. And I'd like to ask you, how worried are you with respect to the crisis of trust?  Thank you very much. First of all, let me thank World Economic Forum for setting up this panel and you for moderating it and also offer my greetings to all of friends who are here and all of the viewers around the world. After, I mean, I got the invitation to be in this panel and did some research and reflection on the topic. I came to the conclusion that the major driving factor that has erodes and continue to erode trust in public and private sector institution is corruption. Corruption in government institution and in the private sector is the general umbrella that covers or array of issues that leads citizen distrusting the very institution that are meant to help and support them. Under corruption, the question of morality and integrity arise. Furthermore, corruption spreads deeper than just the government and usual institution that we are familiar with. Since I'm from the Middle East, and during last few days here in WEV, in many meetings, we have been involved in dealing with the issues of trust, in particular in the Middle East, and we have been together in one of our panelists in some of the agri-programs. Then I want just to take two minutes of the time of the people here to tell a little bit about the issue of mistrust. And the problems in the Middle East. So there are three major issues points to be discussed as far as the Middle East concerned. Middle East suffers from a complex set of trusts eroding phenomena. A, economic malaise and lack of hope for the future improvement in the daily loss of the citizen. B, political instability and lack of security, which feed into the declining hope and declining of the confidence in the resolution of their problem. And C, endemic corruption, which I referred as umbrella at all levels. Now, these three sets of problems seem to have brought down the legitimacy of the governing institutions to the lowest level ever. Legitimacy, performance, nexus is further deteriorating the complex social and political environment in which citizens find themselves. Civic engagement is barely a part of political life of most of these countries. Private sector and non-governmental institutions are very weak and no meaningful emergence of dynamic citizen participation in the political and economic life of the countries of the region are inside. All of these are happening at the time that there was a moment of hope and trust building after the Arab Spring that proved to be a mirage and soon the hope were dashed. So these are the kind of, I think, phenomena that I have concern about. And hopefully if we get a chance, then I have some suggestions about how to face this kind of eroding trust in global and in particular in the Middle East. Okay, thank you, Ahmad. I sort of hear in what you're saying that you almost think of trust as a kind of a fabric and once it begins to unravel, it unravels quickly. And corruption is basically leading to a race to the bottom. That's to the collective detriment of all of us. So thank you. Let's go from there to Willie, if I may. So Willie, maybe let's focus a little bit now as the kind of zero in on some one of the most fundamental institutions that we have, the rule of law. Are you more or less worried than Ahmad when it comes to the rule of law? Yeah, I'm worried. The factors, and I'm talking about Kenya, I'm not talking about other judiciaries because that's the one I'm familiar with. The factors that affect confidence in the judiciary are many, but I want to focus on three. Access, legitimacy and political disputes in a divisive or divided country. So access, only 5% of Kenyans access the formal court systems. The 95% go to other forums of justice because they don't see the formal one as legitimate. If I could just, what would be an example of an informal system of justice? Well, the traditional justice systems, a lot of Kenyans go to the mosque. They go to the elders. They go to their pastors, to their bishops. They go to the, there's so many elder, you know, kinds of elders where these, you know, disputes are bitrated. So formal courts are not the only forums for justice. They, you know, they are others and one of our challenges in the judicial at the moment is how you connect the formal to the informal because the informal is a forum for 95% of the people. Unlegitimacy is, of course, tied to that. If people feel that they will get justice if they take their dispute to the bishop, that's what's going to happen. The formal systems are places for lawyers, people with long passes and they are seen as places for, you know, for the rich that has been the history and that has to be changed. And the last factor was, which I think in the case of Kenya is very, very, very important is there is no court that is going to rule on a political dispute and convene the loser that there was justice because the country is deeply divided ethnically, you know, in terms of religion, race, occupation, generation. So it becomes very, very, very difficult for judicial officers to convince the losers that there was indeed justice in the particular dispute. So I understand that relying on a private adjudication involving the mafia is a bad thing. But what's wrong with it in general? Why can't we get justice through our faith institutions, for example? Why doesn't that give us the resolution that we need to issues? Are they more prone to corruption, just to follow up on Ahmed's point? Yeah, personally, I am supporting these alternative forms of dispute resolution. They are very, very, very, very important. And 95% of our people go there. So as I said, what we're trying to do, because we have a very progressive constitution, is to connect the former to the informal. Because there are certain councils of elders who marry off girls who are nine years old, who don't punish rape, defilement, murder. So they're all kind of things that we think subvert the values of our new constitution. And that's why the connection is going to be very important. Okay, so legal development and its connection to social goals is basically the point you're making. Yes. Okay, so that's well taken. Thank you for that. Maybe we just take a moment. I mean, is there anyone in the audience who has a comment or a question on anything they've heard thus far from Ahmed or Willie? I hope, I know people here are not shy, and I hope you won't be during this session. We'd like to get your involvement. So I'll give you, okay, so maybe we'll just, if I could just ask you to identify yourself. And you agree with which comments in particular? That there was this moment of hope and there was high expectations. And it's almost better to have no expectations and live in that world than to think that you're gonna have freedom and democracy and trust with your government and then see it completely taken away and the whole world confirming that it's okay to do that after supporting revolutions and whatnot. Thank you for that, terrific. Anyone else? Okay, so let's continue. Kathy, let's see if we can get you into the mix here. So one question I have for you is whether the shortfall of trust at the national level impinges upon our ability to cooperate internationally. And I ask that to you because I know that you're involved in work on climate change. So what's the connection here? I think all the scales impinge on each other when it comes to a global issue like climate, the metaphor that was used in one of our sessions is, we're past an era where you might think that all the different countries of the planet were each their own ship sailing on a common sea. It's now clear we're all in different cabins on the same boat. We don't know each other all that well, we have a collective problem we have to find a way to solve. So every dimension of trust vertically or horizontally through layers and sections of society I think plays in here. And another dimension on the climate issue which I think about a lot given both my background and where I currently work is science is fairly obscure and abstract and distant to many, many people if not most people. And yet it is our scientific ability to look at this earth and to measure it well, which is completely new to this era. Part of my history I had a lifetime as an astronaut. So one of the few people that got to see the earth from orbit myself. But all of us share a part of that in common because we are the first wave of humankind that has the ability to take a snapshot of the earth's physical and chemical and biological conditions in a quantitative way that we can turn into actionable information. It's absolutely novel in human history that we can do that. And we are in diapers when it comes to understanding how do we bring that information into even our family or our village decision making. Much less national or collective. And if it's such an alien thing to you, science is not. Some odd thing, only a small number of people do. Then how do you build trust in the insights that is providing you about the state of the planet, about the trajectory of the planet and the ways that that might affect your country, your village, your business? So I like the comment. I like the idea of anchoring a kind of anchoring trust in fact.  Reminds me of the lesson that they teach all first year law students. They tell them if you've got the facts, then argue the facts. If you don't have the facts, then argue the law. If you don't have the facts or the law, then just argue. And I think the point is you're always best off when you have the facts. And I think we are, as you say, in a position to get them. Yes, and I would just say the key to facts or data or it's a shared experience point. Something we can come together on and come to some common understanding of. And then try to grow pathways forward from there together. Catherine, are there any workarounds here for dealing with mistrust? I mean, is trust a necessary condition for making progress? I mean, aren't contracts a way around mistrust? I mean, I could just shake hands with Ahmed or Willie and we just agree and we don't need, right, if we trust each other, we don't need a contract. If you don't have trust, then you write a contract or a treaty in the case of climate change. Yeah, so we can spend a lot of time in semantics here. I think you start down that road with some judgment about how much you trust that person and what confidence you will put in that contract. And that can range from very low to very high. And yes, the higher it is, the less need you feel to maybe write it down and memorialize it with someone else. When you do the writing down, holding out, you're inviting a third party to help hold each other accountable to that. That's why you're bringing someone else in, anticipating arbitration. But it's still all, I think, comes back to trust. And I think what may be one of the trickle charges and game changers for the climate question, but we'll have a challenge of will it move fast enough, is people are beginning to experience at the scales of their own lives, impacts from changes in common patterns that they're used to. And they're hungry now for information that will help them make better plans for their future. So they're leaning in on that level. And it may be that we have to go back to more grass roots and grow up from the bottom before we can really tackle the other scales and dimensions of the problem. But if that's too slow, we will have a different challenge. So fact-based progress makes a lot of sense in the areas you're talking about. I think in the faith area, it's not necessarily such a natural way forward. So maybe you could say something, Akman, about faith-based institutions and the crisis of trust if you think there is one. Yes, that's a very good question. I wish we had more time to get into this. There are two sides of issue within the, at least let me talk about Islamic institutions. In one side, you see that some of the institutions that, some of them are very new based institution are getting lots of trust, especially of young people in the Middle East and the region. Because they try to represent themselves as someone who take care for the poor, who take care for the justice issue and all of this. And they are trying to gain the trust of the people who have had lots of mistrust on the official institution in the name of religion. So I can see that mistrust is happening and there is within some official institution of Islamic calerical system in a way to say today. And the reason for that, that people saying that the olama, the scholars, the representative of religion, some of them or most of them or institutionalized, they are not thinking of them in different ways. They are not bringing new solution to the new issues they are wanting to know. In different ways. For example, there are many challenges today coming towards them. And they are not ready to answer them.  So they are not ready for that. In terms of their practicality in their life, they are acting also. Usually, they should resemble Prophet Muhammad and the saint and the expectation of people is to see them in that way when they see injustice. Just to raise their hand and be against that, but they see less. Especially in some of these countries that the institution of the mosque or Islamic institution have been supported by the government. And financially, they are relied on the corrupted government. So they don't have that kind of freedom to talk. So when you don't talk, when you don't act, then you are losing your trust. Okay, thank you. Let's, Ernesto, switch now from faith institutions to economic institutions. And let's take a broad view of them as comprising public and private and national and international level institutions. I know that you have some concern about lack of trust in those institutions. What is the basis for that lack of trust, as far as you know? Well, I mean, what's the meaning of trust? When you have an understanding between two parties, and one party fails to deliver what it promised to the other party, then trust is lost. It's as simple as that, it's common sense. And the fact is that people have expectations, people have aspirations. And people have had promises from institutions that due to various circumstances, not least the economic crisis that we have gone through. And also all grievances of economic injustice and social injustice. People feel that those institutions, local or national or even international, have failed to deliver. And therefore trust is eroded. Of course, this is influenced very much, this moved very much by the results that they have in front of them. And also the way in which those economic circumstances affect their everyday life. But I think the fundamental problem is that relative to expectations, institutions are failing. But those expectations also have to do with the way in which institutions conduct before people. Sometimes inflating expectations, sometimes not telling people how complex problems are and that the solution of those problems demand great effort. The political battle sometimes is reduced to a manique ambition of the world. The world is divided between the good and the bad. And I happen to be in the good side. And whoever is my adversary is bad, no matter what. And then if I am aspiring to have his or her power, well, I disqualify totally what that person says of belief or that other political party. And then in that way, I win the favor or the vote or the support of the people. And of course, if I win, then I am in trouble. Because now I have to tell people the truth, that problems were much more complex than what I said before. So that failure of fulfilling expectation has to do also with the way in which the social and the political dialogue is carried out. And ironically, this problem has not lessened but rather made more acute in this modern world of very extensive communication because somehow these forces to simplify the message. Nowadays, we don't deliberate. We Twitter or whatever, I don't, by the way, I don't even know how to do it, right? But we don't deliberate, right? And we are always trying to give the quick effective message to win the sympathy rather than deliberate to understand the other and to make the other understand a little bit of what I am trying to do or to understand. So I think that is a big problem and has to do of course with policies which are sometimes wrong and other times I write but they convey a price in the short term to be effective. But fundamentally, I would say more than policies, the problem is in the design, in the rigidity of institutions. And part of that rigidity is because special interests everywhere tend to capture those institutions in the benefit of those particular interests, not in the benefit of the generality of the people. And I think this is a fundamental problem in democracies and also of course in regimes that are not democratic. So at the end, I think that poses a problem of justice, right? Because people feel that there is no justice. If the institution is favoring the powerful, the rich, or the influential, then there is no justice. Because the principle of equality before the law is being violated in terms of security or in terms of economic justice, in terms of social justice. So I think that is the problem. So I appreciate you're connecting the issues to the legal system. I also appreciate this other point that you're making which is that it's not the lack of trust in our economic institutions is not just about their failure to deliver. It's also about their failure to manage expectations. And it's not really their fault in a sense, because as you say, in the modern internet age, it's very difficult to control information. It wouldn't be very careful about using that term. Manage expectations starts to listen in manipulation. I think what we are talking about here is about telling people the truth. Yes, we want to be better. We want to have a higher per capita income. We have to have this or that. But you know what, let's make a deal. You will work hard, you will pay your taxes. You will abide by the law. And I as institution will be transparent, will be accountable. And I am willing to pay the price if I don't fulfill my commitment towards you. But if I only ask you to have obligations and the institution is not transparent and is not accountable, then I think there is no reason to trust. So are there no limits to transparency? Is it not the case that too much transparency can also not be disabling? Well, you know, at least in the cases I think about in many issues. I think I haven't yet found a reason not to be transparent. Of course, you have to be careful with, because again, if you're talking about a special interest, sometimes there is transparency before a special interest, but the rest of the people or the rest of the society don't have access to that information. So that's not transparency, right? Transparency is transparency. And I think you can talk to that much better than this. That's called insider trading. That's exactly, politically, economically, financially, absolutely. So transparency, data, accountability, rule of law, fairness. And truth, and truth, okay. Deliveration. Okay, so we're working towards the path forward. That's very helpful. Thank you. So I'll come to you in just one moment. But does anyone now want to jump in and ask a question or make a comment? Please, so can we just hand the microphone to this gentleman, please? Karim Nesina from AT&T. I would have a full-up question for President Zidio, but all of you. I agree totally on the transparency side. But how can we ensure transparency with a decision-making process that was based on compromise? So we have a challenge of people wanting to have an answer immediately, while at the same time, our decision-making process, wherever we are in the world, take time to find a compromise between different people, like you were raising. So how can we do the two? There is a tendency for people to be negative from the beginning, just because they don't have the information. The time that you try to find a compromise and then to explain them, it's almost impossible to change their mind, even if you know that you're right. So imagine if you're wrong. So how can you move to a system that allows fastness, transparency, to compromise seeking? Well, that's why I speak about telling people the truth. Do not oversimplify problems and always tell people what is your best judgment about what it will take to get to the point you want to be. I think that's very important, because of course, if you tell people, yes, this problem has a solution, and you create the expectation that tomorrow, just because you have the good will, the problem will be solved, then you are falling into your own trap. So I think it is a process, but it will not happen if you don't tell people the truth about the complexity of the problem. I'm going to weigh in with some sympathy to that question, though. Complex problems come my way, and I have to find a way to make the rapprochement maybe with Salil to find a way forward, and I don't know that way forward right now. And there are groups of people who have certain expectations or hopes of what course I might take, and how do you start down that road together? Well, one thing is I need some space, let me say some unobserved space where I can start to calibrate to determine what degree of trust I can have in Salil or whoever the other parties involved in this are. And find where we maybe have some ground of shared understanding and shared expectations that we can begin to build on. And then get enough trust that when you go to try to move your constituents, when you go to try to explain this reality to yours, and I go to explain to mine, I trust we're going to stay on the same course, we're trying for the same goal. It will be hard for each of us, but we won't cut and run as we would say in English. And I know, you're watching in my own world and in our political world in the United States, the insistence that I have always a camera on my shoulder, even those early conversations. And the speed with which someone might react if I actually said to Salil, well, I might be willing to consider that and go so far. And someone in my gallery disagrees with that. The speed with which the gate comes down, the penalty, the shouting begins to try to prevent me from doing that is so fast that I can never start to build a road forward with Salil. And I wrestle with that because I very much agree with transparency and with candor, but I also have a responsibility to lead. And lead oftentimes means go somewhere where there isn't a road yet, where people don't have full agreement yet. It is to some degree your responsibility to try to form a vision clearly enough that you then can share it with your folks and see if they will come with you. But when you're sitting in the presidency in Nesto, my seat's leading an agency, where do I get that little bit of safe space? Or do we now have an era where we don't agree that leaders should have any such safe space? Because as long as they get a bit of a shadow of a safe space, corruption will come in right away. But Cathy is talking about something very important, which is the ethics of responsibility, right? And for ex-circumstances, I have to live through that. When I started doing my most important responsibility in the Mexican government, the situation in my country was very difficult. We were in the middle of a terrible financial crisis and otherwise. And the government had to take very difficult actions. And of course, that was not going to be popular. I would assume that a lot of people, and it was objectively measured, was angry at the government and certainly angry at me. But having deliberated about the nature of the problems and the kind of actions that we needed to take, I took them. Saying to people, we have to do this because otherwise the situation will be worse, there will be pain and please be patient. Of course, they say, don't get me patients or I will not give you any patients. But if you do the right thing, eventually people say, well, maybe you had to do that, so we had a space. But again, it has to be based in transparency about the nature of the problem. And also tell people how much pain we are going to take to do that. And I think it's good, believe me, because if you do the right thing, eventually you will be rewarded. When I finish the government, I say, oh, Sergio has high approval rates. They show me the graphic. I say, when was my proudest moment as president? Not when I was very popular. But when I was taking actions that were very painful, and my popularity was lower than Mexico's rate of inflation. So let's hold that for a moment. But you raised the issue of patients. Okay, and I just want to point out that our most patient panelist is Salil. And I want to give Salil a chance to jump in here. So Salil, I actually have this view that innovation is the most powerful engine of human, or one of the most powerful engines of human progress. When I think about innovation, I like to distinguish between technological innovation, which is revolutionary, and institutional innovation, which tends to be much more evolutionary. So my question to you, jumping off from there, because I want to try to now move the discussion to be more forward looking and remedial in nature. And that's what I've been waiting for you for. Do you think we need to pick up the pace of institutional adaptation? Or is it time for a more fundamental rethink and reinvention of our institution, something more revolutionary? Is that what's needed here?  And it's never gonna happen again, so thank you for setting up such an amazing panel. I wish I were the astronaut. It was easier job. And I think, I'll come to that, David, but I do want to say that there's a couple of things, because if you're jumping to how do we fix it, without actually agreeing on what the framing of the problem is, we might be missing a trick there. So yes, I mean, unaccountable governance is at the root of, I think it's been said many times. But the second element, which I think several of you talked about, we have to frame it from a discrimination and exclusion perspective, because it doesn't just happen. It's quite targeted. The way in which inequality happens is, it's related to indigenous people, it's related to women, there is a pattern through which this happens. And we have to understand that if you're gonna fix it. So I don't want to say that. And the third thing is that now there are non-state actors who are at play, whether it's extremist groups or corporations, who states are unable to regulate and control. So we shouldn't forget that, because that's relatively, I mean, maybe it's not so new if you go back in history, but there is a new dimension to this. And finally, the last one which we shouldn't forget is the international dimension to this. And you were kind of taking me in that direction. And the global governance system is broken. Security council is, they're just competing, West versus the blocks fighting with each other. And one of the main reasons why people feel lack of dignity and distrust, injustice, et cetera, is also related to the double standards of the Western governments. And this is a deep issue, particularly in the Middle East. But it's not just the Middle East. If you go in the streets of India and talk about this, they'll say, oh, the Americans, what do you expect? This is what they do. And unfortunately, things like the Senate Committee report on the CIA, and even the reactions after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. They kind of, this leads to distrust. If we're discussing distrust, we shouldn't forget about that. Now, so if on the security, like you're asking if innovation can happen in any kind of fast track, can we leapfrog? I think you can only leapfrog if the urgency of the situation demands it, because even in a sort of organizational setting where organizations have leapfrogged, it hasn't happened because the CEO wanted it to happen.  And maybe we're getting to that point. And then we realize that actually, we don't have ethical leadership at the global level of any ale coming. We talked about Mandela, and that's over. We have a security council, which is, as I mentioned, we have, essentially, people are holding nuclear power. I mean, I would have thought that you say, if you have nuclear power, you shouldn't be allowed into the security council. This is the opposite. And so the veto is used selectively. If it's anything to do with Israel, the Americans block it. If anything to do with anybody else, Chinese and the Russians block it. So yes, it's possible, but it doesn't look likely. So with respect to fixing the global governance system, which, as you say, is broken, I think a lot of people would agree with that. Should we basically be not wasting the next good crisis? Is now the quiet time where we should be developing our plans for reinventing the global governance system, and then as soon as the next crisis comes along, take that opportunity? I think that the only way, I mean, obviously President knows a lot better about how the potential is going to be done. My hope was that you'll get a Monday or an Aung San Suu Kyi or somebody like that who'll actually start pulling people together and saying, let's stop having these side deals because the UN doesn't work. Let's create a G20. If the main climate process doesn't work, let's go for bilateral deals, because that's what's happening in practice. Regional answers, global doesn't work. Let's coalition of the willing model. But we have to have a global system because if you want, these are global problems, whether it's security or climate or poverty or all of these. If you are looking to me to find an answer, I don't have it. But I mean, you mentioned Mandela, okay, so you're invoking leadership and moral authority now. I mean, is the problem with the structure of our institutions or is it the people who populate them or both? Actually, and I'd like to actually, Akma, I hear you on this also. Is it the people, is it the people or the structure of the institutions or both that are the problem? And I'd actually like to hear everyone on this. For the issue of the crisis of mistrust. Trust, yes. I think we are all guilty. Can not just bring and put the accusation on one side. In fact, I was thinking where we were talking now that the issue of mistrust is deeper even than institutions or among the government sectors. It's even within us and even within the families. That's the big problem these days we are suffering. And the whole global world that you see that maybe within the family, children are sitting together with their families but they don't have trust to each other. Okay, Willie, are you agree, disagree? Where do you see? I think it's both, it's institutions and the leadership. I know, I agree with you that we have a crisis of political leadership all over the place. And that in some countries, political leadership is about everything. The institutions will not grow if the political leadership puts hurdles along its way and that has been my experience. So it's both because with good leadership, institutions will develop and once they develop and they are strong, they will check on the political leadership and we need to deal with both. The other dimension to this is that the fundamental accountability mechanisms which we have in place, say in a bigger picture, if you look at democratic countries, the idea is that the voting process leads to accountable people being elected and then, but first of all that's not working very smoothly. So there's a kind of disillusionment with that model. And secondly, people are not ready to wait for five years and there are so many governments who say that because we've been voted into power, that makes us legitimate. That's gone. I mean, people are not gonna accept that just because you've got elected once. After that, you don't need to be accountable. Okay, I think we have time for maybe one more question or comment from the floor. Anyone care to raise something? You'll have one. Yes, please. Sorry. You chose from Japan. I'm interested in the relation between religion and the issue of mistrust in general. In particular, Islam and the issue of mistrust. Do you think if Islam could play some kind of role in a positive sense to regain or to rebuild trust of people? Yes, I think of course in particular Islam as we know that religion and politics and law integrated. Muslim are taking their laws from Quran and Sunnah. So if we try to help and bring a kind of reform within Islam and give a voice to those people who are thinking in like today's world and they are familiar with the need of today's society, then of course then using the methodology which we call it ish jihad, a kind of looking at the text and try to find out the answer based on modern need, then definitely can help a lot as it has been helpful in many ways. Islam, a religion of peace and definitely can play its role and it's playing somehow although it's not an ideal and we have to try to give it a chance more. And that's a very good question. I think religion can play its role in general and Islam in particular about the medialist issues in creating and regaining trust. And if we have another circle, I wanted to even talk about that and how we have experienced how religion played its role even in calming the problem and animosity between Iran and the US. And this is what we have been, our center has been doing using that influence of religion and presence of religion within the American society and integration of religion and politics within the Iranian system and try to connect them and create trust based on that trust then the political leaders are going also to talk to each other. So definitely it can work. Thank you for that. So I'll do one more question and then we'll keep moving along. I have the impression certainly that as far as our social institutions go, civil society on the trust scale is definitely higher than most others. And I wanna know if that's your perception from where you sit, number one. And number two, what lessons can other institutions pick up from civil society that might help them rebuild and manage trust a little better? Think of trust as an asset, you have to manage it. So that's what I'm getting at. Of course, we could first of all spend an hour discussing what is civil society. So I won't go there, but assuming that we're talking about the more organized forms, I think all the trust barometers, et cetera, do say that it's higher. I think it's rather unfortunate that it's higher. It actually reflects more badly on the states and on the copper. I'd rather that our states are more trusted than civil society is more trusted. It's just the sad reality of where we are. And I think generally speaking, it comes to the same point. I mean, there's of course organizations and organizations, but broadly the decision making is more participatory. There's more accountability and transparency in the better organizations, particularly the membership. My problem is the opposite in amnesty. We have seven million members, we can't make any decision without almost everybody being involved in everything. So, but yeah, that comes with the cost of course, but I would say the features are clear. I think there's leadership as a key part of it as well. Okay, thank you. So we have about 10 minutes left. So I'd actually like to move forward and ask everyone a final question. Catherine, maybe if I may, I'll start with you. So what do you actually think, and then we have maybe take a minute tops here. What do you think needs to happen in 2015 for us to transition from the decumulation to the accumulation of trust? Well, I've been thinking about that throughout the entire forum because I keep hearing lots of conversations that suggest to me, maybe we're going into the start of a longer period where we need to de, not de-accumulate trust, but disaggregate to smaller scales and rebuild trust there and come back up. Civil society has a fabric of trust as that because people make a more active choice to become part of it than they often do to be a citizen or to be in a faith community. You sort of get that and it's more distant. You make a choice and you make a lean in commitment as a participant of a member of an organization. So whether it's Estonia being able to really move rapidly forward on e-government because their post-Soviet trials erased this late, the group that was not trusted was no longer gone and Estonians looked at each other in a very different way and said, it's now us. It's now us we need to do something. Like instantly they were at a Twitter's own community that was spontaneously self-organizing to build something new together. And I saw so many examples in that vein at this meeting. So do we irrevocably or inevitably have to work at that level for a while and sow the seeds of trust and let those networks of networks and networks of influence grow into whatever the next wave of global governance? Is it maybe not be any more a single global structure but networks of control and influence? So a more fine grained approach and realization that we're all in this together. And whatever the next global governance is, emerging from that, perhaps even more than being intentionally designed and imposed on it. Again, look at the Estonia example in several letters. If you had asked the people who were in their seats before the great turmoil, is it time to redesign our system? That would have been an interesting exercise. But once the transition, once the shock, once the catastrophe happened, those are not the people going to do the new design. And Catherine, what on a scale of one to 10, one being extreme pessimism, 10 being supercharged optimism, what's the likelihood that we see that kind of change in the next year on a large scale? You can't say it fine. Yeah, no, I know, that's just a shooting, isn't it? I would say six or seven. I think there's so many seeds out there. It is one of the places where I think the individual access to new conversational technologies, putting control back in the individual opportunity initiative back in the individual hand to begin remaking my connections. I think offer some promise. Okay, good, thank you. Ernesto, same question. What needs to happen in 2015 to move forward in this domain? And then how likely on this one to 10 scale do you think it is? Well, first of all, we need to contain and start to reverse some of the conflicts that are affecting various parts of the world. I think we are going through a very delicate situation. It is true that if we measure relative to the past, or only violence is less prevalent now and conflicts are less numerous, but I think the ones that we have are very, very, very dangerous. So I think it's time to cool down. We are seeing again this confrontation, for example, between Russia and the West. And I think it's very important rather soon to start cooling off that confrontation. I think everybody has to commit more seriously to do what it takes to solve issues in the Middle East. I mean, the human tragedy of what has happened in Syria and its neighborhood and before in Iraq, and I mean, it's just amazing. I cannot believe that we are talking about this in the 21st century, after what happened in the 20th century. And when we see how easy it would have been to prevent this escalation of conflict, by the way, if the international institutions have been supported and allowed to do their work, rather to undermine the international institutions, then I think it's very sad. Now the cost is much higher. So I would say that's point number one. Recognize that many of these issues, and let me just talk for a moment about...  The issue of violence in my country. You know, yes, we have problems that are created in the weaknesses of our legal and security system. But I would say a good part of that problem, which has costed literally thousands of lives, has to do with our wrong-headed drug policy. That my country, and more especially the most powerful countries, have followed for too long. A policy that is not based on science, a policy that today neglects all the evidence that we have that it is wrong. And yet governments continue to promote organized crime, continue to promote black markets to enrich criminals that kill people in my country and in many countries. And many people who probably have a medical situation of addiction are put in jail for consuming drugs or for trading being on the edges of that black market. So I mean, we need to address those issues more frankly and don't say, no, I don't want to talk about that because it's not a popular issue. It's radioactive, which is the attitude that I have found when I try to speak about this question. Okay, so cool down, get our heads right. Scale of one to 10 this coming year. Is this gonna happen? I hope it happens because I see very dangerous trends, particularly because the economy is going to be very difficult for some areas of the world, not least Latin America. And I think they are going to be difficult for Africa where there is ferment for conflict. I am very worried about Africa, for example. Because we have had a good run and now it could be over. Okay, you're being too transparent now. You're giving all the reasons. I just want a number. One to 10. You can tweet? I don't know. Okay, you can be a non-resource. At your university, you do that. At my university, we don't do that. This is getting complicated. Okay, okay, we're getting personal now. Okay, Salil, 15 seconds and a number. I think first of all, we have to stop taking shortcuts. Human rights is the long-term solution. So post-Paris, you start behaving like post-911. That's going to come right back to you. I think a very concrete thing which we can do is that the Security Council, the permanent five should stop. They should not be allowed to use the veto when it comes to mass atrocity situations like Syria. I think if we can do those two things, just you can't send the army in northern Nigeria and think you're going to find the solution. That's a shortcut. Okay, so no shortcuts and sort of veto lists. V-5, veto goes when it comes to mass atrocities. Okay, score? Is this going to happen in this year? 5.7. Okay, Willie, I'm going to come to you next, but first, Ahmad. Yes, I think the key answer to this, I was thinking again about what would be the best important element that I can use for that. I think reform is something needed in the long term, reform in all of these issues that we don't have time to explain it, and also the responsibility of intellectuals, intellectual people, scholars, thinkers, religious leaders to come ahead and be more active. Especially religious leaders, that's my message to them that religion is not just going to your mosque, to your chest and preach about good things, but you are forgetting your people. How was Jesus? How was Prophet Muhammad? How were the other good people? Come and try to be productive in the issue of environment. People have lost their trust even on God, because even the nature doesn't help them these days. So try to come and be more active and show your responsibility and your duties within the society. The return to core values. Yes, core values and be in the society, be with people. That's very important, show themself, you care for the others. Okay, okay, good. Chief Justice Willie. Give a number? You know, we're running out of time. I should write a stated scheme with the reference to the university. I no longer have a meaningful average because Ernesto withheld, so. I stay very pessimistic. When I look at the global political leadership, I don't see any commitment to dealing with these issues. I was very shocked in this, you know, in this annual meeting when I found out that the so-called illicit economy is worth 3.3 trillion and it's operating within legal, you know, legal systems. So I think until I see that political will to change and to care, I'll still remain under five. Okay. To the, Rebecca, do we have three minutes for wrapping up? Okay, so let me try to bring us to closure by first of all thanking the panelists, the participants in the room, the participants, an audience outside the room for engaging in what I think is a very insightful, broad-ranging and frank distillation of the Davos insights on trust and security. So thank you all. By way of summary, and we've covered a lot of ground, so you'll please indulge me for a few months. I sort of take away three messages, I guess, from the discussion. First of all, I actually share, I think Willie's pessimism by and large. I think the world is really in a rather perilous state with respect to trust and security. I think at risk are the capacities of our most fundamental institutions, our economic, our legal, our faith institutions, our international institutions and so on to deliver everything from continued material gain inclusively and sustainably to the adoption of superior values that uphold human rights and promote improvements in human security to the development of vaccines for Ebola. We haven't talked about that here, but that was a very actively discussed issue at the forum to the elimination of corruption, to the rule of law that fits our highest aspirations to the elimination of international double standards, as Helio mentioned. Second takeaway, I actually think Davos has accomplished a lot in terms of getting us to acknowledge these issues and to further our understanding of their nature. It kind of reminds me a little bit this last hour of being in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. And just for the record, I have not participated myself, but I know from the movies that the first thing that happens in those meetings is someone stands up and says, I am an alcoholic. And I think that's important because acknowledging the problem is the first necessary step towards designing and adopting a solution. And I like to think that Davos has helped the world take that important first step. Finally, I'm struck by the sense that there are no quick fixes that I've heard to the precipitous decline of trust, pretty much not across the board, but close to across the board, it sounds like to me. And I think that the road back is gonna be tough. In charting the path back or forward, what I heard is that we need to keep our eyes on fundamentals, like monitoring and accountability, like the vital role that civil society plays in that process. In fact, to my mind, if civil society institutions, and please forgive the use of that term because it is a little bit ill-defined, I agree with you, it's a little. If those institutions were linked in our stock exchange, and I were an analyst, I'd rate them a buy because I think that civil society is gonna be a growth sector for many years to come, and I think that's a good thing that it is. And also, as discussed and mentioned, by way of fundamentals, I think there's no substitute for moral authority and leadership. And by the way, to our aspiring leaders in the room or outside the room who are looking to define their political and public identities, I would pay attention to the kinds of things that have been discussed in Davos and here in this session, because I think there's some great opportunities here for defining yourself for a successful future. Before I close, I would like also to extend my compliments to the forum's team that designed this year's Davos program. They've given a very interesting and thoughtful group of people many opportunities to engage with a set of issues that are absolutely essential to the current and the future state of the world, which after all, improving that is the mission of the forum. I also know that these conversations are not the end, but actually quite a bit closer to the beginning of much deeper and more intense efforts that are gonna be carried on under the auspices of the forum's many global agenda councils. They're well represented on this dais, in fact. And I find that very heartening and I wish everyone well in those efforts. So I hope that everyone here and outside will join me in thanking the panelists on the audience and the forum organizers for a terrific session.


Hi everyone. Welcome again to another session of A Course in Miracles' Workbook Lessons Live. And I'm popping in here from time to time to do a lesson with you and share it. And then also to perhaps read a little bit of text or something from the manual for teachers that corresponds with the workbook lesson to give us a little more depth than insight. And then sometimes I do get questions written in, so I will address those questions in terms of practical application. Today's Course in Miracles' Workbook Lesson is Lesson 40. I am blessed as a son of God. Today we will begin to assert some of the happy things to which you are entitled, being what you are. No long practice periods are required today, but very frequent short ones are necessary. Once every 10 minutes would be highly desirable, and you are urged to attempt this schedule and to adhere to it whenever possible. If you forget, try again. If there are long interruptions, try again. Whenever you remember, try again. You need not close your eyes for the exercise periods, although you will probably find it more helpful if you do. However, you may be in a number of situations during the day when closing your eyes would not be feasible. Do not miss a practice period because of this. You can practice quite well under any circumstances if you really want to. Today's exercises take a little, very little time and no effort.  One practice period might, for example, consist of the following. I am blessed as a son of God. I am happy, peaceful, loving and contented. Another might take this form. I am blessed as a son of God. I am calm, quiet, assured and confident.  I am blessed as a son of God. So as we open to practice this quite frequently today as we go through our day, whether our eyes are open or closed, and truly whenever we think of it, whenever we have a moment in the day as the day passes by, our teeth is a beautiful, succinct message to ourselves. I am blessed as a son of God. It's a message of gratitude. It's a message of thankfulness, of happiness, of really feeling a sense of recognition. It's also helpful as we move into the day to remember that our lesson today, I am blessed as a son of God, is not talking about the personality self. It's not talking about a part of the whole. It's really giving glory to God and gratitude and thankfulness to God for creating the Christ as whole and complete. So when we do the lesson for today, I am blessed as a son of God. We are thanking God for creating us in spirit. We are thanking God for creating us as an eternal being that has our eternal life with our Creator in the Kingdom of Heaven. So that's always important to remember that this is a course in mind training and we're remembering our divine mind, our identity as an idea in the mind of God. And that is our devotion. It's everything. It's our commitment to go deep into that experience. It puts a smile on your face. I am blessed as a son of God. It's amazing. It's an amazing reminder. I thought I would read today also from the text in chapter 27. Section four. And the section is titled, The Quiet Answer. This will really help us, I think, as we begin to associate the quietness, the stillness, the silence, the tranquility of a quiet still mind with our being as the son of God. That's where our blessing is. In quietness are all things answered and is every problem quietly resolved. In conflict, there can be no answer and no resolution. For its purpose is to make no resolution possible and to ensure no answer will be plain. A problem set in conflict has no answer for it is seen in different ways. And what would be an answer from one point of view is not an answer in another light. You are in conflict. Thus it must be clear you cannot answer anything at all. Or conflict has no limited effects. Yet if God gave an answer, there must be a way in which your problems are resolved. Or what he wills already has been done. Thus it must be that time is not involved. And every problem can be answered now. Yet it must also be that in your state of mind solution is impossible. Therefore God must have given you a way of reaching to another state of mind in which the answer is already there. Such is the holy instant. It is here that all your problems should be brought and left. Here they belong. For here their answer is. And where its answer is a problem must be simple and be easily resolved. It must be pointless to attempt to solve a problem where the answer cannot be. Yet just as surely it must be resolved if it is brought to where the answer is. Attempt to solve no problems but within the holy instance surety. Or there the problem will be answered and resolved. Outside there will be no solution where there is no answer there that could be found. Nowhere outside. Is a single simple question ever asked. The world can only ask a double question. One with many answers can have no answers. None of them will do. It does not ask a question to be answered, but only to restate its point of view. I'll pause right there. That's amazing that Jesus is saying that the world can only ask a double question. The ego can only ask a double question. And Jesus is bringing this interesting concept up to us because it's not what we tend to think of a double question. We tend to think of a double question as two questions. But basically Jesus is saying that a double question is of the ego and it's basically a declaration or it's a statement. It's not really true curiosity because it doesn't want the answer that will end all questions. It doesn't want the piece that passes the understanding of the world. It doesn't want this divine solution, this divine correction to be experienced. And so the double question is really another way of saying not really a question at all. It's just a declaration or a statement. It's a question disguised as a question. It's really the ego asserting itself as being real and true and God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus as being untrue. So this is very important when we come across Jesus talking about double questions. Of course, the questions of the world, all the questions of the world seem to have many, many different answers. That's why they're called theories and ponderings and assumptions because there's no clarity. It's not really a true question or a true answer. True questions are of the mind, bringing you back to the light in your mind. That's true, sincere questions, more like the some of the ancient Greeks, Socrates and in these deep questions that question the nature of the mind and of the universe. All questions asked within this world are but a way of looking. Not a question asked. A question asked and hate cannot be answered. It is an answer in itself. A double question asked and answers, both the testing the same thing in different form. The world ask, but one question. It is this of these illusions, which of them is true. Which ones established peace and offer joy. Can bring escape from all the pain of which this world is made. Whatever form the question takes, its purpose is the same. It asked but to establish sin is real and answers in the form of preference. Which sin, do you prefer. That is the one that you should choose. The others are not true. What can the body get that you would want the most of all. It is your servant and also your friend. But tell it what you want and it will serve you lovingly and well. And this is not a question for it tells you what you want and where to go for it. It leaves no room to question its beliefs, except that what it states takes questions form. So we're seeing now the underlying characteristics it's always to try to get something. It's that's why it's a double question. If it's always made in hate. It always proceeds from hate. It always is a question that's trying to get something. And then Jesus is trying to boil it down. It seems to take many forms in this world. There are many different questions to try to get something. And of these illusions, which of them is true. It's always trying to pick from the preferences of the ego.  It made a hierarchy out of the false world. And now it's trying to say of all these illusions, which one of them is true. And Jesus, of course, is telling us none of them. And the question itself is trying to say, well, there must be one or some that are true. There must be something informed to seek for it to find happiness. Jesus is saying, no, there isn't all of your goals in this world, your goals from the past and your goals for the future. Are all preferences. There are illusions that you can take up, make a hierarchy of illusions and then pick and choose from the ones that you like the most, the better ones. And these are double questions. It asked, but to the purpose is really the same in all the double question it asked, but to establish sin is real and answers in the form of preference. Which sin do you prefer? Well, that's pretty radical way of looking at the questions of the world.  I want this thing. I like that thing, you know, just remember the question underneath, the double question underneath is of these illusions, which one is true? Of these illusions, which one do I prefer? And wow, Jesus, you're really giving it to a straight today and not deluded. Which sin do you prefer? Okay. Sin is will say multiplicity of options of nothingness. So which sin do you prefer? It's, he's basically saying which option of nothingness do you think is best? Correct answer, zero. But when your mind's asleep and you're listening to the ego and it's double questions and it's trying to perpetuate itself, it's going to try to be navigating time and space. And for it, for the ego, it's a legitimate question. Which sin do I prefer? But it just doesn't tell the mind that it's a double question and it doesn't tell the mind that you're choosing which sin do I prefer? This is not allowed up into awareness. This is all down in the basement in the unconscious mind. On the surface it's like, what, what does this mean? When you go a lot deeper into the metaphysics, you know, oh, okay, now, now I see.  What can the body get that you would want most of all? There it is. The get word comes up again. We're seeing that flash around. The ego is showing its colors. What can you get the body would want most of all? A pseudo question has no answer. It dictates the answer even as it asks. Thus is all questioning within the world a form of propaganda for itself. Just as the body's witnesses are but the senses from within itself. So are the answers to the questions of the world contained within the questions that are asked. Where answers represent the questions, they add nothing new and nothing has been learned. An honest question is a learning tool that asks for something that you do not know. It does not set conditions for response but merely ask what the response should be. But no one in a conflict state is free to ask this question. For he does not want an honest answer where the conflict ends. Okay. No one in the conflict state is free to ask this question. If you're conflicted, then the question is going to come from hate and a question from hate is a double question that's going to ask an answer. Very tricky. You see how sneaky the ego is it makes makes up a world out of hate. If space cosmos out of hate, then it makes up unreal questions which aren't really questions at all are just statements. And then when you ask those questions, labeling them as a question, you really aren't asking a question at all you're just declaring yourself as separate from the whole as separate from one another, as having a separate mind with private thoughts and private thoughts. That's that's the nature of deception. That's the nature of distortion. That's the nature of sleep. I'm talking about the mind sleeping and forgetting the kingdom of heaven forgetting God, forgetting the love of God, only within the holy instant can an honest question honestly be asked. And the meaning of the question does the meaningfulness of the answer come. Here is it possible to separate your wishes from the answer. So it can be given you and also be received. The answer is provided everywhere. It is only here it can be heard an honest answer, ask no sacrifice because it questions. It answers questions truly asked. The questions of the world, but ask of whom is sacrifice demanded asking not if sacrifice is meaningful at all. So, unless the answer tells of whom it will remain unrecognized unheard, and thus the question is preserved intact, because it gave the answer to itself. The holy instant is the interval in which the mind is still enough to hear an answer that has not entailed that is not entailed within the question asked. The answer is something new and different from the question. How could it be answered. If it but repeats itself. Wow, therefore attempt to solve no problems in a world from which the answer has been barred, but bring the problem to the only place that holds the answer lovingly for you. Are the answers that will solve your problems because they stand apart from them and see what can be answered. What the question is within the world the answers merely raise another question. Though they leave the first unanswered in the holy instant you can bring the question to the answer and receive the answer that was made for you. So, what a beautiful section to go along with I am blessed as a son of God because this section from chapter 27 is basically it's called the quiet answer and is basically saying, don't attempt to resolve anything apart from quietness of apart from the deep stillness within. Don't attempt to problem solve. Based on the past and the future come to the holy instant come to the present moment. Be humble. Be still. That you don't want conflict and you're coming into the stillness for the resolution. And as you quiet the mind. This is where you can hear the solution. This is most extreme form of guidance that there is when you come and and you hear the quiet answer. Everything is all right now. God's will is perfect right now. Everything I could ever want. I already am. Right now. I am blessed as a son of God. Right now. The instant come to the quiet answer. Very good. Well, I enjoy these, these lessons that we can share. I hope this is helpful. I hope it brings you nurturing and and helps you in your mind training practice. And again, if you have questions, please write them in right to me. Right, right in your questions or your dilemmas and issues that that seem to be confronting you and we'll look at it together. We'll look at it together and the left together at it because we were not going to be fooled by double questions anymore. We're asking a sincere question of the Holy Spirit and we shall be answered in the quietness. Okay, thank you. Thank you for tuning in.


Antonio, come on, come on. Please, please, please, I want to marry you because I can pay 90,000 per month. Okay. Plus a pet. Plus a pet how you Antonio? Doing well, how are you? I'm good, how have you been? Look at your dress. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. I want to be the one holding this two out the night. I am the one doing this interview now. Okay. Okay, sorry, sorry. Okay, thank you.  What did you think of it? I didn't think of anything. I looked for a short and a nice. I didn't have, I don't know how to say it. So I was like, I always look good without a shirt. So I don't come out. That is what they tell you. That's what you tell me. Who? Who? Why? So they, you know, I love Butita so much. It's been my brother since day one. So I said I have to support him. I don't come out to these things. So today I'm so glad I'm out. I'm happy. And I love it. Are you shocked to see you? Yes. And I am happy to see you as well. And SPM Buzz. What do you think about it? How is the relationship like with Butita? Butita, I am like his God brother. I will explain this carefully. I've known Butita for too long. Like ever since he started. Okay. This is not jokes. This is not jokes. This is not jokes. This is not jokes. This is not jokes. This is not jokes. This is not jokes. So I've known him for too long. And I appreciate him so much in my life because he's always answered when I needed him. And that's very good. And I will always reciprocate. All right. Which artist can you not wait to see on stage? Nasra. I think she's so funny. And I have a crush on her. And she's so beautiful. But she's taken, right? She's taken. She's taken. She's not taken. I don't know how old I am now. Okay. Okay. Last words for Butita. What will you want him to see after the whole thing, after the whole performance? First of all, before he goes on stage, I say go get it. You were born for this. That's why this is happening. It's not a coincidence. Nothing in life happens for coincidence. There is a chain of events. And this is a chain of events. Started young. Growing. Now becoming big. I wish him all the best in his company. That's amazing. And God bless him. Thank you so much for coming and enjoy your night. So after this, how are we going on a date? No thanks. No thanks.


Hi everyone, Joe for jazpiececasebreaks.com, coming at you with part two of that break right there. So remember, we had those two missing boxes, so we only did 18 on Monday, January 31st, and here on Tuesday, the first of the month, we've got part two for you. See, the first of the month already, it's the first of the month. So part two, big thanks to, same list as before. We already did the Super Bowl Square randomizer here as well. So here's part two on a Tuesday. Thanks everybody for getting in, appreciate it. So now I promise that we would have two replacement boxes and a third bonus box just for the trouble. So we did end up getting it from the same series. I know that we had that little note right here, you'll see it in the video, but we had that little note where it says we may not have, we may not have a, it might not be the same series, but it turned out we got the same series. All right, good luck. Next one out of the gate, John Smoltz, 14 out of 27, before and after. Triple relic and autograph for Jaden and the Braves. Then second replacement box, good luck. We have something for the Astros, 179 out of 299, you're on Alvarez, rookie car. Rookie Auto IV, Jeremy Port, and the Stroze. Those are your two replacement boxes, third bonus box. Third bonus box is going to be nice Paul Goldschmidt, Southpaw Mastery, 15 out of 18. Triple relic and autograph for the Cardinals. That'll be for Chris Parent and the Redbirds. There you go, gang. Nice quick little break. That was part two of that hip parade dual case break we did on Monday, the 31st, 2022. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com. I will see you next time for the next break. Bye-bye.


Imi naja mtara Yame yung milwita Imiia mtara Imiia yung milwita Yama na maikanya Imiia yung milwita Yama na maikanya Yama na maikanya Imiia mtara Imiia mtara Kik specification Imiia kwa yiminya Imiia kwa yiminya the problem is, actually, it's not even so easy may Allah go to you OK, so tell us a little bit of.. Welcome to the DOH People cotab but tell us who is T kost T is a chub music artist chub, dualة chub hiphop just basically in general, it's melody Melody So, what exactly is it? Did you school me on what melody music consist of? When you say melody music? Melody music is in Gama Kama. I think so. I think so. Road wave. Proceed. Next. I just want to say a few words. I think a lot of these guys are just saying a few words. I think a lot of these guys are just saying a few words. So it's just over here just telling people how old we are but it's okay. It's okay. So because we mentioned that there are more of new age artists, who are some of the artists in New Orleans that could draw inspiration from when you were starting out from the music scene? Locally, mama. Locally international. We can start from home. Locally, Saudi Soul. So it's all in Penda Kenywa Fana. Nyashenski. Nyashenski, Kaligroff. So it's definitely from a couple of what is here and there. Halafuna internationally. International Lil Baby. At least I know that one. Lil TJ. Apology. Mama, I don't have a flow chart. So a lot of these guys work on it. When you mentioned this whole list, because I just know Lil Baby out of all the lills that are in this music industry. Nyashenski, because Lil Baby doesn't basically do what Kaligroff does or what Saudi Soul does. Because a lot of people are looking into the industry and they like to go into a certain type of genre. What is it about your talent that you are not? Let me just speak a bit of everything and just mesh it together. I don't know how to describe Saudi Soul. Saudi Soul is a good music. So I basically run by a kitama so it's time to go say it. I don't know how to describe Kaligroff I don't know how to describe Nyashenski I don't know how to describe I don't know how to describe Kenyan music genre I don't know how to describe Nyashenski I don't know Nyashenski I can do when I say I'm from R&B Sharp Music Hip Hop I can do all around and I don't know how to describe Nyashenski I don't know because I don't know if you take it back to where it all started is it something that maybe a lot of talented so musically talented people in Afangaya either genetics or something of that sort is it something that was a family that was into music or would you discover how did you start discovering the love of music? Actually there isn't anyone from my family and from your music artist or genre I'm the only one I don't know if I can say I can say I'm curious I don't know if I can say I don't know if I can say I like these ones so I can say I can say I can say in general I can say in general 2018 I think Wait, first of all I want to split my lines funky you had your I was the guy you were that guy so music did you okazako discover that you wanted to you enjoyed it, did you tap into maybe the music first it wasn't really the same thing was it anything related was it preparing you to be the artist you are today in any way so we will discover we discover that you wanted to pursue music I'm in high school but then also in high school I said is of it to come to a drama festival music festival as well did you feel like will it draw anything from what the Kenyan system has set up for creatives though it can motivate na fenya say speaking of Kenyan creatives they're not doing enough so like in festivals for upcoming artists they're not doing enough they're not doing enough like I said I'm not doing enough but after interviewing so I said not 100% is of festival influence but maybe 50% so after high school then you step on a gear you want at any point to pursue music as a degree as a certificate there was a time before when I was on campus my parent asked me like my ID name is Desmond so he asked me Desmond what do you want to do so he came and be here music so na jua tuwa ma wazze zwa kia wazze zwa Fika so I said ma no music I don't know yet like when I was on music campus so I said ma I don't know yet let me do my thing but music is fun you said you want to go to 3rd grade let me see what I would like because what I like now fresh forwarding it back to something when you comment about the creative industry and I think aaliyia ont , we will hear about how artist create music it goes viral between the music industry and the music business out of it. So now that ume bala, ume fanya, ume na shu loka so much, just something a little bit different. Has it any way educated you on how to hand the music in a professional way or as a business? Ya, I actually do feel. So na zasema, ya nikona edikatione music business. But speaking of Kenyan artists, Kenyan artists are usually music business people. So like before one zok fanya music or releasing music, just make sure beat ume unge na producer. Amma, manya li tengeneza beat, that's it. Kus na patakama wene kaveve kazoze, no na. So na kudzwa na liya shida o, siji ko evi, ko evi atukumeku do, atukumeku ni. Apia wame kudzwa too late. Wengome nge troka ili tokia wange kudzwa seme. We're not getting any money from this. So apun na unge say, beka at least. So it's quite a privilege. Na zasema, utumegua jwee in music business. So atami mi si jwee vizuri. So una fuku ena mse mo yana jwa, the Kenyan industry music vizuri, doa kupelike vizuri. Right. Kus na inga mosa na. So na ales, before jwa to compress for time today, I'd like to know some of your, what has your experience been like producing music, creating music for you and what's a song that una feel? Ia ata, this one came straight from the heart. Okay. There's this song called Play Chori. Unlist. Unlist. So like, na zasema, maybe the first verse only. Something na ni relate na kabisa. So it was something I was feeling. Atako andika music ikuwa that, na jakuna time flowing na zafika, linea konzi na kam and then ko linea pili ko like na. I'm not feeling this. So una ata. But the writing the song was easy. Everything was easy. Recoding it was easy. Shout out to my producer, Glock. Enda lumekshiwa ngome me to kevenia ikuwa. Alright, so so far, where can people access your music? People can find me on Spotify at TRKY. At? TRKY, T-R-K-Y, Kapitol. On Spotify, you can find me at TRKY, YouTube, T, official, Instagram, TRKY, just any other platform, T. T. T, Kapitol T, Kapitol, Dabo, E. Alright. So you had in a social sphere as well, your Instagram. Instagram, T. T-D-E, that's it. Alright.


This is Orson Welles speaking from London, the Black Museum. Here in the grim stone structure on the Thames, which houses Scotland Yard, is a warehouse of homicide, where everyday objects, a paper waiter, woolen muffler, an old-fashioned hat pin, a drinking glass, all are touched by murder. Here's a bit of frosted glass. It's a familiar object you've seen. Such glass before in the upper panels of the doors of older houses and perhaps the one in which you live. Let's see in more light, the owner used to say. One man climbing to his old-fashioned apartment said to his son, Hello, what's this? Glass from the landing? From the door, Dad. It looks like the frosted panel fell out. Yes, and pretty jaggedy. Be careful, son, those shards are sharp. Well, today the glass shards can be seen in the Black Museum. From the annals of the Criminal Investigation Department of the London Police, we bring you the dramatic stories of the crimes recorded by the objects in Scotland Yard's Gallery of Death. The Black Museum. In just a moment you will hear the Black Museum starring Orson Welles. Panticide. Here's a pair of Andioms. Graceful in pattern, clean in execution. Execution. Observe the shining brass of this one, the ugly blotch. A woman's pushed violently. Her head strikes with malice, a forethought. They're sharp. There's to life in them, even in themselves, if they are glistening, gleaming in their whitely frosted danger. Once they were part of a hole, the glass panel, as I told you, of an apartment door, they will come to that. Let's begin this tale with the ringing of a doorbell. Maybe no one is home. Well, we'll try again. Sorry to have kept you waiting.  I've been sent looking for a chauffeur. The chat name is Simmons. There's no one here by that name. And I can tell you, sir, there's no one by that name being in this neighborhood. Well, not in my memory, and I've lived here about an hour and 20 years. Oh, well, thank you, ma'am. Yeah, well, it really works. The beacon, it's called. Well, they'll have to find another errand boy if they can't give me better steers than this. Well, good-bye, ma'am. Good-bye. Strange. There's no beacon garage in this neighborhood. Of course, this was not a neighborhood for garages and items of that sort. This was strictly residential. Mostly semi-detached houses with a bit of garden and an occasional block of apartments or flats, as they're still called in London. And one of those apartment houses came Charles Fly and his son, Charles Junior, home after their respective days work at business and college. When will they put lights in these stairs, Dad? After someone brings a leg in the dark. I just hope it isn't your mother. How so do I. I don't know what's the landing. Dad turns to the head. I know. Hello. What's this? Glass on the landing? From the door, Dad. Looks like the frosted panel fell out. Yes, and pretty jaggedly. Be careful, son. Those shards are sharp.  Well, I'll ask her when we get inside. Your key handy. Right here, Dad. Thanks.  Oh, with the glass broken like that? What good's the chain I can reach in and flip off the chain for me? It was a broken glass. Dad, there's someone in there. Your mother, probably. No, it's not. It's a man. A little fellow. Junior, go on down to Riverdale Road. There's a police box there. Call him. Quick. What about you, Dad? I'll stay. You don't watch him. Hurry. All right. If you say so. James off now. Why not? He's only a little fellow. Hey, now, what are you putting in my suitcase? You shouldn't have come in, Governor. He won't do your bitter good. I'm leaving with your suitcase and what I've packed in it. Get back. I can handle you. So foolhardy. Mr. Fly should have stayed outside. He might have stayed alive. As it was when the police did arrive with Charles Fly Junior, the senior was very dead. The Scotland Yard was automatic after that. Inspector Howard proceeded with the preliminary questioning as his technical experts combed the apartment. I know you had quite a shocker, boy, but we need your help and right now. I'll try my best, Inspector. We've checked the apartment. The intruder, whoever he was, had packed a suitcase and was about ready to leave. It's Dad's own. It was his suitcase. All right. Now, is there anything else you know of that's missing? Mother said something before she collapsed about her bracelet. I looked. It's missing. Can you describe it in detail? On items like that, we publish it in the Yards Daily Gazette. It's secularized to every station, jeweler and pawnshop in England. Well, it was gold about an inch wide, engraved with a kind of floral design and there were 25 diamonds, small ones in the pattern. Dad gave it to Mother on her 25th anniversary. I see. Very good.  You're certain he was a short man. Well, I saw him through the broken pane. He was just about five feet tall. Quite a little fellow. I guess that's why Dad went in after him. Dad didn't know he had a gun. Housebreakers tried to stay away from guns in England. The penalties are too severe. No, M.O., sir. Just the broken pane of glass. Thank you. Anything beyond that first shell? Not a thing. One shot was fired. That's all. No, M.O., sir. Means of operation. Anything that's recognizable. Most of these people have a kind of trademark. Completely self-conscious, but it helps us to find them. Too bad there's nothing, then. We'll do our best. All right, Sergeant. I want the neighborhood canvassed. Did anyone notice a small man sounding the drum? Did anyone see a small man leaving the premises and check every carnival fair and circus for a small fellow who's a sharpshooter? One cartridge, one shot, and bullseye. Got that, Sergeant? We can make a start anyway. Police routine. Sounding the drum. It's a new term. What does it mean? Listen to the sergeant as he canvasses the neighborhood. Tell me, Mom. In the past day or so, has anyone run your bail and asked for someone who doesn't live here and left in a hurry? Do you follow the term now? It's what Americans would call casing the joint. Find out if anyone's home by ringing the bell if there is, make an excuse and get away fast. If there isn't, find a way to break in and steal or whatever may be lying about within easy reach. It's simple, effective, very professional. But the police are professionals, too. Excuse me, sir. I'm from the CID. Sergeant Gordon and my credentials. Oh, what's up? I'm making inquiries to see if anyone's called at your house in the past few days. What? Oh, no, no. We've all been away the past two weeks. We only got back today. Oh, well, thank you, then. Sorry to trouble you. Yes? Forgive me for troubling you, Mom. I'm Sergeant Gordon, CID, my credentials. Oh, what's happened? We aren't in any trouble, are we? Now, now, calm yourself, Mom. No trouble for you at any rate. It's just that I wanted to ask you a question or two. Oh, yes? Could you tell me if anyone has called at your house during the past few days and asked for someone who doesn't live here and that if they were in?  No, Mom. It's a very serious question. So will you put your mind to it? Well, no. Absolutely sure. Nobody. Yes? Sergeant Gordon, CID, my credentials. Yes? Has anyone rang your bell in the past few days and asked for someone who doesn't live here? No. Thank you. Yes? Sorry to disturb you, Mom. I'm Sergeant Gordon, CID, my credentials. Oh, oh, please. Yes? Did you... that is, has anyone rang your bell in the past few days and asked for someone who doesn't live here?  Why, yes. It was just yesterday afternoon. He asked for a chauffeur or something, said the fellow worked at the Beacon Garage. And you remembered this? I certainly did. Why, Mom? Well, because there's no such place here about as the Beacon Garage. And I ought to know, I've lived here 20 years. I see. Rather a foolish error. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure that it was an error. He seemed rather a nasty little man. Oh, is that so? Well, too dapper, too quick. Much too little for a man, shorter than I am, and I'm only five feet too. Could you describe him in more detail, perhaps?  Blue, but shifty. A kind of thing you see in the cinema, you know, and those pictures about bookmaking and that. Anything else, Mom? Well, not that I remember, not offhand at any rate.  The description is in hand, two descriptions, which tally in every point. And then Sergeant Gordon came into Inspector Howard's office with another fact, a very solid fact. What's this, Sergeant? The weapons are... found it behind the age of number 21. Three houses up from the flats where the flyer was killed. How'd you get onto it? We found a young fella who'd been walking his girl past the flats on the way from the bus. This little man ran out of the flats, almost knocked the girl over, but he kept going. Our young fella turned around to protest, saw him through something over the hedge. We looked. There it is. Ah, nasty little gun. Well, shelled jammed in the chamber. Ah, no wonder he fired only one shot, but he pulled the trigger twice. Well, we can drop our search in the circuses, Sergeant. I doubt if this fellow is the sharpshooter we thought he was. I think now we'll concentrate on classification by size. Shall we get to it, Sergeant? Will you seem to have our work cut out for us again? Surely the picture takes shape, dim at first, as if seen through frosted glass, like the glass shards to be seen today. And the Black Museum. In just a moment, we will continue with the Black Museum starring Orson Welles. They start with nothing. This time with the wrong theory that their man is a sharpshooter. They have to abandon this. They start fresh, with the dullest and therefore the hardest kind of police routine. Checking the files. He's a little man. Everyone agreed on that. Ask criminal records to send us the dossiers on every man we have on file under five feet, two inches in height. Carefully, the inspector in charge and his sergeant comb through these dossiers and finally, by reason of cross-checking, this one in jail at the moment of the crime, that one in some other part of the country, others with perfect alibis, the list of little fellows is reduced to four. You take these two, Sergeant. I'll work over the others. Anything that rings a bell, the smallest detail. For over an hour, the two men are silent, reading, thinking, trying to relate something in the files to the facts that they already have. And then they exchange dossiers and start again. By this time, the lamps are lighted, the Thames flows like black glass outside the window of the inspector's office. All at once. I may have something, sir. Which file? Larry Mason. His nearest relatives, an uncle and an aunt, are accorded here as living in Beacon Road.  It doesn't, to me. I'll see it in my report in passing, Inspector. When I talked with a woman who'd seen the fellow sounding the drum, he told her the chauffeur he was looking for worked at the Beacon Garage. And she made quite a fuss over the fact that there was no such garage in the neighborhood. She was quite emphatic about it. Ah, interesting. Let me see the description. I see. Five feet, one and a half inch, the smallest of the lot. Beacon Garage, A and relatives on Beacon Road. Not important, perhaps. And yet, all important. As the inspector thought it through. We'll say a man needs a false name at a certain moment. He says the first thing that comes into his mind. It seems rather natural that the place, his nearest relatives live, should be lurking somewhere just below his consciousness. Well, it's mighty slim, but it's worth a try. And having decided it was worth a try, Inspector Howard and Sergeant Gordon set out to trace their prime, if tiny, suspect. Mason, yes. He lived here. Oh, lived. You mean he's left? He didn't leave. What then, Mum? Did he die? He could have, for all I care. I threw him out. Didn't pay his rent for three weeks. I can't afford dead-eds, I can't. Have you any idea where he's gone? No. What's more, I don't care. Next point of inquiry was the Beacon Road address and very Mason's uncle. What about your nephew, Mr. Mason? What about him? Have you any idea of his whereabouts? Who wants to know? My name is Howard, Inspector Scott O'Jard. In trouble is he again. We are not certain yet. He may be. We'd like to talk to him. Well, if you find him, I'd like to talk to him, too. Long enough to tell him not to come round for me for help. Sergeant Gordon visited the pubs and hangouts where Larry Mason had been known to spend his time in one of them he found a friend of Mason's. Larry? I ain't seen him in a long time. Not since he was sent away for breaking and entering. He hasn't been round at all. And I can't say I'm sorry. No, why not, friend? He worked for me when I had my license and was making a book legitimate. He was my clerk, see? Then one day he walks off just like that with ten quid. I don't expect to see him again.  How much to go on? How to find a man except the brushstrokes that fill the picture of the little fellow's character? Unreliable or thief or his friends are concerned? Now, think back a minute. When the daily gazette the art of issues with descriptions of stolen goods, missing persons and so on. Tell it out from the Lancashire Police Inspector, huh? They've got the bracelet in the fly case. A pawnbroker turned it up. Good. It was offered to him by a tall, heavy-set fellow with a peculiar, circular scar on his right cheek. That sounds like Dick Lowry. Let's have Mr. Lowry in here, shall we? Mr. Lowry was quite glad to oblige. He wasn't in hiding anything like that, not Dick Lowry. Where'd you get it, Lowry? The Inspector wants to know. Where'd I get what? The bracelet you pawned in Bolton. I found it. You found it? That's what I said. Anything wrong in that? If you found it? No. We think you bought it. Now, what would I buy a bracelet with sparklers in it for? My goss don't go for that sort of thing. You sold it, didn't you? Of course. Why not? Well, it can do with a spot of cash. Lowry. Yes, Inspector? You may want to know. That bracelet is involved in a killing. A killing, is it? Why is that dirty, little? Oh, go on, Lowry. Start talking, Lowry. Accessory after the fact that a mother can be very nasty, you know? All right. I've bought it. A pretty good price, too. From whom? Lowry, from whom? Lowry Mason. Well, at last. Where'd you see him, Lowry? Oh, the usual place. Dog track. With him, it's horses or dogs when the necks aren't running. Finally, the patience was bringing results, as it almost always does. Canvass a whole neighborhood, comb through hundreds of files slowly, slowly, narrow the possibilities, and finally, a direct relation is established between the crime, and some person may have committed it. After that, find the person. In this case, it was the dog tracks. South Inns. He's not here, Sergeant. The White City Raceway. Not a sign, Inspector. Wembley. They know him here, but he hasn't been around in weeks. And back to South Inns. No luck again, Sergeant. No luck is right. Tell me, Sergeant, do you suppose a pint of ale will help our patients any? All right. This one seems rather decent, Inspector. Yes, let's get over it. Oh, excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry, Sergeant. I didn't mean to come against you. That's all right. No harm done. Hold it, young fella. I think I know you. Do you? Where from? You're Larry Mason. Not me. Her name's Leonard Martin. Sorry, you'll have to prove your identity. We're from Scotland Yard. A twist of luck, a turn of chance. Two wary policemen in search of a relaxing moment run across the killer. They've been hunting for weeks. It's hard. Larry Mason was not having a particularly relaxing time of it. Do you insist on denying your Larry Mason? I do. Look, Mason, you've been away for a while. Now, you know about these things. Your fingerprints are the prints on Mason's record. Dick Laurice, where has he bought the bracelet from you? Your landlady and your former bookmaking associate have identified you. Now, let's have no more nonsense. I ain't giving you a thing. No, don't mean you can push me around. Ah, you'd better tell us the whole story, Mason, and stop this nonsensical denial. You'll go to trial anyway, you know. When the more you lie now, the harder it'll be on you later. Now, speak up, Mason.  Sometimes they read somewhere somehow that the best offence is to admit nothing, not even their own identity.  And Sergeant Mule, they had a case, a good case. Inspector Howard came in to help. I look at it this way, Mason. You can't do yourself any harm. We've got the evidence, we've got the gun. We're in the process of tracing it to you right now. The woman you spoke to will identify you in court. You had the bracelet, you've no alibi worth mentioning. You'll hang on what we've got, Mason, unless you have something which makes it manslaughter in place of murder. All right. It was an accident. I never used a gun before. Never even had one. The first time is always one too many when it comes to guns. Now, keep talking. How was it an accident? I broke the glass, see? After nobody answered the bell. I stuck my hand in. It was a cinch to open the door. I worked for us, but this fella come home early or something. I tried to make the back door. No luck, it was locked with a key. Sir, you had to come to the front. He was a lot bigger than he. I wanted to scare him, that's all. He jumped me, hit me with something. Oh, a black tear. That's it. A black tear. Didn't even need a gun go off. And when you came to, Mason? He was dead on the floor. I got out of there as fast as I could get. It was an accident. I swear it was an accident. What's your opinion, Sergeant? It's a good story. But it won't wash. Why not? Is that what happened? Why not? It's very simple, Mason.  Therefore you fired only once. Yes, sir. Only once. Sorry, Mason. You pull that trigger twice. There was a shell jammed in the firing chamber. You pull the trigger at least twice. That's no accident, Mason. That's murder. Yes, the case was complete. Each part in its correct place.  Those two were in their correct place. The Black Museum. Orson Wells will be back with you in just a moment. The jury quite agreed with Inspector Howard. On the new course, little Larry Mason, the bookies clerk who made the fatal error of carrying a pistol, went the way of most murderers at eight o'clock one summer morning. Larry Mason's luck had run out or had it. It was reported, you see, that as he walked to the scaffold with 13 steps and waiting rope, Mason murmured to his guards, they had to do this now on June 6. Derby day. And me with a few shillings riding on Armstrong in the big race. Curiously, although Mason wasn't available to collect on his bet, Armstrong was the winning horse. At 53 to 1. And now until we meet next time. If we meet in the same place, but the Black Museum, I remain as always obediently yours. The Museum starring Orson Wells is presented by arrangement with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer radio attractions. The program is written by Aura Marion with original music composed and conducted by Sidney Torch, produced by Harry Allen Towers.