This research paper discusses the development of a new type of chemo-resistive sensor which is capable of detecting hydrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ethylene at room temperature. The sensor is made up of a combination of inorganic semiconductor particles and carbon nanofibers which are combined using an electrospinning annealing process. The resulting structure has a large surface area and synergistic and heterojunction effects between the two materials, allowing it to be highly responsive to methane at room temperature. Additionally, the sensor is able to differentiate between different types of gases, making it suitable for use in applications such as leak detection or gas concentration measurement. This article was authored by Qingqing Su, Jingjing Yang, Yang Wang, and others.


Wiki. Collaboration. If you've ever gone to Wikipedia to look something up, you might have noticed that you can actually edit the page. You can add information to it, because it is a wiki which is collaboratively created and edited. Moodle has a wiki too, which you could set up for your learners, for instance, to do a group project, doing some research, or to write a combined essay. To add a wiki, we go to our course page and enable edit mode, top right, and then in the section where we want our wiki, we click add an activity or resource. This brings up the activity chooser. Wiki is an activity because learners interact with it. Click once to go straight to the setup screen, or click the information icon for more details, and then the add button, bottom right. The name is important because it's what the students will see on the page to access it, and then you can give a description of what you want them to do in the wiki, and you can tick the box display description on course page. Normally, a wiki would be group work, collaborative, but you can by changing the drop-down menu here, have an individual wiki, and then each student could have their own copy, for instance, as a personal notebook. We are going to keep it as collaborative, however, and the next thing to do is choose the first page name, and this must be carefully thought out because it cannot then be altered. There are other settings worth exploring, for example, activity completion. If we want to track that students have accessed the wiki, do we want them to manually click to confirm they've seen it, or do we want it automatically marked complete when they've simply viewed it? To alert course participants that a wiki has been added or updated, click send content change notification. After clicking save and display, we start the wiki by pressing a button to create the page. If you don't understand any of the other formats, just leave it as default, it's fine. And now we have our first page of the wiki. To set up links to make the other pages, you put double square brackets around the name you want to give the page. So here are a couple of examples, and this is how your learners would also make new pages on the wiki. When we scroll down and save, we see that we have links, but these aren't yet pages until we actually click onto them and create those pages in the same way that we made the first page. So if we click on the reading link, we're then prompted to create the page and we can start adding information to it. This is how your students would then add text and information to a new page. Let's scroll down, save that page and take a look at some of the other links in a wiki. From the drop down, if enabled, comments allows you to see and add comments to the wiki. History is a useful way of the other learners and the teacher seeing who has changed what on the wiki, and in case of any problems, that's a handy page to go and revert changes. Map takes us to pages which have been created and we can access them from there.


Okay, so first I want to thank the organizers for the opportunity to speak at this conference. And I'd like to talk a little bit about the status of naturalness and the hierarchy problem is in particular an approach to it, which goes by the name of neutral naturalness or colorless top partners. So the question is, is the discovery of the Higgs and the fact that we haven't seen anything else at the LHC the end of the idea of natural theories of the electro-wig scale? Are we just giving up on naturalness? And then the question is, so we have already even experimentally seen that we have the wig scale, but then there is a scale determined experimentally by direct and indirect bounds, which is already at the few TV scale here, which is telling us that what we have here in this gap between the wig scale and the few TV is the standard model, but it's tuned to some extent. And so this is what we call the little hierarchy. And then the question is, this is already established experimentally as a problem. We haven't seen anything beyond the standard model. And so there is an extent to which the standard model is already experimentally determined to be a tuned theory to some degree. And then the question is, the quadratic UV sensitivity on the Higgs mass is dominated in particular by the top contribution to the Higgs mass square. And typically what we do in order to cure this in natural theories of the electro-wig scale is to impose a symmetry. And this symmetry will, among other things, relate the top quark to its partner under the symmetry. And this partner will have a one-loop contribution to the Higgs mass square, which will cancel this quadratic sensitivity to the UV scale. Now typically in the theories we consider for the past 20 years, the top partners carry color. And they're easily produced at the LHC, and this results in these stringent bounds for the most part. So the point is, can we build theories where the top partners do not have SU3 color, and therefore they're harder to have been seen at the LHC? So if the symmetry protecting the Higgs mass does not commute with the SU3 color, and it exchanges into another SU3, let's call it SU3 prime, then these top partners will be charged in this new color. The bounds will be less stringent, and the hope is that these theories with colorless top partners will be more natural than the extensions of the standard model we have today. So essentially the idea of these theories of colorless top partners, or neutral natural theories, is to fill this little hierarchy gap with the standard model plus at the minimum colorless top partners, so as to solve at least the hierarchy problem, or the little hierarchy problem here. Eventually most of the theories, all of the theories we have thought of act this way will have a cutoff not far above this scale of the future TV. So how do we do this? So what are the ingredients for a neutral natural theory, or for a theory with colorless top partners? Well first of all, you need a symmetry protecting the Higgs, just like any other theory protecting the UV sensitivity of the Higgs mass. It could be that the Higgs is a pseudonambulgolstone boson, it could be a version of supersymmetry. But you also need to extend the color gauge symmetry to have at least two copies of SU3. So it could be SU6 broken down to SU3 square, or it could be two copies of SU3. We'll see some examples. And then you either impose a discrete symmetry, or somehow you are going to extract the degrees of freedom by some procedure that can be generalized as orbit folding, such that the top partners will actually have the other color once we extract the light degrees of freedom of these theories. So the theories that have been worked on are old to begin with. I'm going to talk about the twin Higgs and folded supersymmetry, but there are also, as you see, any solution to the hierarchy problem can be turned into a colorless top partner type theory by these kinds of procedures. So if you pick your favorite theory, for example, there is a little Higgs version called the Quirky Little Higgs. So as you see, these theories are rather old, 10 years or nine years. But our interest is renewed in them because of the situation of not having seen anything at the LTC. So let's just quickly review the twin Higgs. It's the 10th anniversary of the twin Higgs, I guess. So the Higgs in these theories, it's the Nambu Boston Boston of a spontaneously broken global symmetry. So we start, for example, there are many ways to actually do this, but let's just start with the original way in which the global symmetry is SU4 broken down to SU3. And so there are seven NGBs out of which there will be four that we'll use for the Higgs. And then, so here is the potential for these four of SU4 that I call H, big H. Now, the next step is to gauge a subgroup of this SU4, which is SU2A times SU2B. So now the four can be split in these two doublets. And we'll use this top doublet, HA, as our standard model Higgs doublet. Now, when we gauge this subgroup of SU4, the gauge interactions will break the global symmetry explicitly. And this will lead, generally, you know that this leads to quadratically diverging contributions to the potential of big H. So you compute those contributions from the gauge loops, and they are quadratically divergence. And so here it is, this is GA and GB are the gauge captains of the SU2A, SU2B. And here are the cutoffs, lambda A and lambda B, which in principle, the behavior of the theories in the UV does not have to be the same, so in principle. However, if I impose a Z2 symmetry, such that the behavior in the UV is the same, and then the gauge captains GA and GB are the same, and also the cutoffs of the theory are the same, since the Z2 is good in the UV, then it turns out that the gauge contributions to the, the quadratically diverging gauge contributions are of this form. So if you just get the cutoffs and the gauge captains out, and then it turns out that this is SU4 symmetric. And so if you think of the Higgs as coming from the NGBs in this global breaking, then the Higgs do not enter H dagger A, H dagger H is SU4 symmetric, and so this will not contribute to the Higgs mass square. So this is essentially the philosophy of the Twin Higgs idea, the imposition of this Z2 symmetry in the UV is what protects the Higgs, the Higgs from UV sensitivity. So if you extend this to all standard model interactions, not just the SU2 interactions, then essentially you have a standard model mirror sector, so we have the standard model A, which is us, the standard model B, which is the Twin standard model, and for example, if you look at the top Yukawas, now you can write them in this way in general, there is the A sector Yukawas, and there is the B sector Yukawas, that will generate these quadratically divergent contributions for the A and the B Higgs doublets. But if you impose the Z2, once again the contributions from the Yukawas, the quadratically divergent contributions from the Yukawas are indeed SU4 symmetric and will not affect the Higgs mass square. There will be, yes, logarithmic divergent or logarithmic sensitivity to the cutoff, because, well, I'm not going to the little, but there will be contributions that go like HA to the fourth and HB to the fourth, and those contributions do have logarithmic sensitivity to the cutoff, but the quadratic sensitivity is all we care about here, because we're trying to solve the little hierarchy problem. So if you go to the nonlinear representation, this becomes clear, here are our two doublets, but I can write them as the Nambu-Gauston bosons here, exponentiating, and some VEV-F, and here in the Nambu-Gauston matrix, I'll just will write the four degrees of freedom that I will use for the Higgs doublet, which is right here, and all the other three NGBs are eaten by the SU2B gauge bosons, this formulation, and so when you do that, you can expand the H matrix and rewrite the Yuccaoas and take the first two terms of the expansion, and you will see that the cancellation of our top quadratic sensitivity to the Higgs mass comes from this term, which is normalizable in this nonlinear formulation, and this cancellation, the symmetry is just coming from this fact here, the fact that the Z2 symmetry imposes that the lambda A and lambda B are in the same, and so this cancels the quadratic divergence to the Higgs mass, but the top partner, the B tops are not carrying SU3B color, they are SU3A color, they are carrying SU3B color, so this is a colorless top partner solving the hierarchy problem for you. So up to this point, you have an exact Z2 symmetry, but if you do have an exact Z2 symmetry, what happens is that this VEV, or the VEV that parameterizes the breaking of SU4 will be the same as the weak scale, because essentially all the A sector has to be identical to the B sector, so our VEV and the VEV of the B Higgs, the twin Higgs, will be the same, so you need to break this Z2, but you break it softly by, for example, adding a term like this, a soft term like this, and this allows a hierarchy, a mild hierarchy between the electric scale and this F scale of the twin Higgs VEV, and typically what will happen, for example, for the phenomenology of the twin Higgs to start being explored, is that the couplings of the Higgs to standard model fields will be suppressed by the cosine of V over F, essentially, right? So V over F will be this small hierarchy in order to avoid bounds, essentially that I'm going to show you now. If this was identical to our weak scale, in fact it was the same as the weak scale, then for example the invisible width of the Higgs will be, I don't know, 50 percent, so that's clearly excluded, right? So we need to break the Z2 at least a mildly in a soft way. So there are several incarnations that are used now for the phenomenology at the LHC. The one that is the original is now called the identical twin. It's a complete copy of the standard model. F over V goes somewhere between 3 to 10 where the 3 comes from, essentially the invisible width of the Higgs, and the 10 is just a matter of taste and naturalness. This will force, for example, the twin QCD to have a strong scale which is somewhat above the QCD scale. You will have light twin porcs and leptons, and then the question is whether you will, for the model building, you will keep the twin photon massless or you will have to break it, and this is a question of, for example, cosmology, things like that. So this is the identical twin model. In the identical twin model then, as I said, all Higgs couplings to the standard model states are suppressed by this cosine of V over F. In this way, for example, if rho is the Higgs, the radial state, our Higgs in the twin Higgs model, then this is the production with respect to the standard model and the decay to our sector states, W, Z, B, etc. And then the invisible width will go like the sine square of this angle times the standard model width in equivalent states times some kinematic factor delta which is less than 1 when essentially the masses of the B sector are heavier than our masses. Essentially, so you need this kinematic factor to account for the invisible width.  That's the idea. So if you look at the Higgs couplings, so here in the green line you see the invisible width as a function here of the top partner mass, but essentially you can see this as a function of also the scale F. The top partner mass is proportional to some extent to F over V times the top Yukawa couplings times the cosine or the cotangent actually of V over F. So essentially if you just look at the current bound from the invisible width, you probably are around this area over here which still leaves you with a tuning which is not too bad. It's 30% tuning for this theory. On the blue line we see the signal strength for whatever channel of the Higgs that you can imagine so the signal strength and you see that you get to signal strength that are around 5% of the standard model and you still are around 10% tuning. So you could imagine that you will reach high luminosity LHC stages just by measuring the Higgs coupling and then you wonder if you're going to be able to see to tell to exclude these theories just by looking at the Higgs couplings and excluding deviations and if you are with a 5% signal strength you still will have theories that are, you know this theory will still be around 10% natural or just below 10% natural. So it is possible to imagine that the identical twin Higgs may still be around as a not that fine tune even at the end of the high luminosity LHC which is of course terrible but this is the nature of this model. Now there is also another version which is more tailored to having signals which is called the fraternal twin. In the fraternal twin only the minimal fremian content to some hierarchy problem is considered. This is kind of like the twin Higgs version of natural Susie. In here you only have the third generation quarks and leptons and then it turns out that the glubals of this twin sector are the lighter hydronic states and they cannot decay to light mesons because there are no light quarks in this theory and so it turns out that these glubals the Higgs can decay to these glubals with branching ratios that are okay very small 10 to the minus 3, 10 to the minus 4 however these glubals are typically long lived in this model and they can generate highly displaced vertices. So the hope in the twin Higgs models that have this fraternal twin type spectrum is that you will be able to see from this the case of the Higgs to these twin glubals these highly displaced vertices.  Recently there have been a lot of activity in the twin Higgs dark matter idea. Why is this interesting? Well it turns out that the twin strong sector generates a higher strong scale by a little bit as I mentioned earlier which means that in the identical twin case the twin baryons are a factor of a few heavier than our proton and so this is very interesting for asymmetric dark matter model building and in fact there's a recent some recent work by Marco Farina and here you can see assuming just essentially that this factor of a few is between four and six so you get five. This five factor is the mass of the twin baryons is five times our proton mass then you will get the the the the relic density you need for dark matter and so in this case you compute the cross section indirect detection by using either higher dimensional operators or Higgs portal interactions and this is what you get from one TV higher dimensional operators down and so you see that it's possible that this simple and natural idea of having a twin Higgs dark matter may be accessible somehow in the future experiments although if you just look at the at the Higgs interaction is somewhere down here below the neutrino flow but then there is some activity also for the fraternal twin Higgs there are some papers here there is also either a symmetric dark matter which is typically what you want to do for twin bottom baryons in this case only the bottom will be your your baryon because there are no other light works this is a three spin three half dark matter candidate but you can also do a thermal relic in this case mostly the twin tau would be the dark matter so this is this is what the twin Higgs that's for you and so it's a difficult it's a difficult phenomenology if you really stick to the twin to the identical twin Higgs and in principle there could be some deviations in the Higgs coupling but it's hard to see what the path to a smoking gun would be that will definitely get this model now what about supersymmetric can we build a supersymmetric theory that does this thing that has cordless squirks so that you know you wouldn't have produced the squirks at the LHC and the answer is it's not really but yes and no so let's see what does that mean you know so so this this theory goes by then it's not twin supersymmetry it's folded supersymmetry but that's I don't know there's a motivation that hopefully will be clear so the idea is that again exactly the same these squirks in the cancellation we we don't want them to have a suit recolor so how do we do this idea how do we implement this idea that this course canceling the quadratic sensitivity to the of the Higgs mass do not have color how do we do this so in order to to motivate this idea I think this toy example is all we need for technically and this goes goes by the name of bifold protection and essentially this this simple model is like this suppose you have a global un a flavor symmetry which is this un so I have a singlet and I have this these fermions which have this this there are fundamental of the un and then we have this simple coupling between the singlet and the and the and these fermions and of course in this in this setup the singlet is quadratically diverging has a quadratic sensitivity to to uv scales this is this is the obvious thing so the first step to have bifold protection is to supersymmetrize the theory and to think of this as a super potential okay so fine now now you have some protection for supersymmetry in principle if supersymmetry is exact then the second step which is the the by in bifold protection is to duplicate the the flavor index between n to 2n so now I have 2n in the loop that gives me the quadratic divergence so you so far it looks like a useful thing useless thing to do but let's see what we do with that the next step is to define a parity which which is actually an element of this of the global group this global group this u2n now is instead of un I have a u2n flavor symmetry this is one element of this group and I picked this this element with pluses in the diagonal up to from 1 to n and with minuses from n plus 1 to 2n right so this element will be defined as transformation and then it turns out that if you look at that super potential the theory is invariant under the following transformations the singlet going to itself the the q's going to minus gamma q and then the q bars going to minus gamma well this the star but this one is real minus gamma star q bar and also there is the theory is also invariant under this z2r let's call it z2r symmetry where boson under which bosons transform to themselves and fermions to minus themselves okay so now so the theory is invariant under this but now I'm going to ask that the states that are odd and they're the product of these two symmetries are projected out so this is sort of like on or before project projection you can think of this as being an extra dimensional theory and this would be like a boundary condition so I'm going to say this will be like a boundary condition projecting out states that do not that are not even under this this this problem so here is the z2 gamma so here I have the fermions from one to n and from n plus one to two n so gamma it hits them with a minus one here and with a plus one here and the scalars as I said before because of this z2r are are are even here and odd in the fermions okay so here is is so now the product of these two has to be positive and so what happens is now that this mechanism essentially selects the fermions with indices between one and n so these guys will stay in the spectrum at low energies and the scalars with n plus one to two n indices so now I have this theory that is in principle not super symmetric anymore because this q1 to qn are not super partners of the qn plus one to q2n scalars however what I have now is that so this is this is my low energy spectrum I are already folded out or motted out all the rest of the of the of the states and I ended up with this in the low energy theory but still I have in the loop the fermions from one to n and the scalars from n plus one to two n cancelled each other the quadratic divergences and the theory is uh uh UV insensitive at least quadratically to one loop okay so this this is the mechanism by for protection and it's inspired in the large n orbital correspondence that uh uh was it was it was proposed by these people uh years many many years almost 20 years ago so this this allows us to construct then a theory that has at one loop no quadratic sensitivity in in the in this in this singlet in the scalar particle but uh uh it's not supersymmetric there is some sort of accidental supersymmetry in the low energy spectrum but not real Susie okay so in that sense it was the it's no Susie but some leftover supersymmetry is there okay if you think about it this the uh to loop this doesn't work anymore right for example this the scalars are not protected by this by this symmetry the scalars themselves will be quadratically sensitive uh if I close if I open this loop of the scalars and I close the singlet the scalars will the mass of the scalar will diverge no will have a quadratic divergence that means that if I have a two loop contribution to the singlet it's also will have another a quadratic divergence uh to the singlet at two loop but I don't care about two loops I only care about one loop because I want to solve the little hierarchy problem two loops will be important above that scale of few TV so to implement this then uh all I do is now I have to of course do this in the real world so now I'm going to have to have my three copies of SU3 my Z2 that relates the the the SU3 couplings in the UV and then the weak sector I'm going to leave untouched and I'm going to assume that the Orvifold in some extra dimensional theory gives me the fermions of our sector with our color but the scalars with the wrong color and essentially this leads to these interactions in the in the in the UK in the top yukawa which still protects uh Higgs mass square to one loop okay so so this is the setup in extra dimensional theories I have no time to talk about it obviously and so uh uh SU3 is broken in extra dimensional uh setup uh by boundary conditions and then uh essentially I end up uh uh I end up with uh with this spectrum this hyper multiplicates leads to our our fermions and this uh hyper multiplicates will have scalar zero modes with the wrong color okay so this is this is what we do uh uh the interesting thing that I do want to point out is that the scalar masses are actually calculable uh in this theory and this is very old calculation from these people uh because essentially what happens here is that sucy breaking is non-local essentially this setup we have an n equals two supersymmetry in the bulk and then you have n equals one supersymmetry in in this fixed point and in this fixed point but these two n equals ones supersymmetries are different and so the low energy spectrum sees a broken sucy uh but in order for uh the zero modes to to acquire masses I will have to go from this point to this point so I see the different two n equals one supersymmetries and then then I realize sucy is broken and so this gives me this uh sort of uh calculation of the of the masses so the the masses are several hundred gv if I assume that one over r for example is a few tv is my e bounds right that's all this transparency says so this is the setup I have accidental sucy between say a few tv and the weak scale but then there will be a 5d sucy and eventually it's a cutoff because this is a non-normalizable theory and they will have to be a uv completion right all of these theories the twin hicks quick little hicks for the sucy they have a cutoff which is not very far from these these few tv scale so they are really they require uv completions to become actual real theories and that's an important thing I don't have time to talk about signals but there are signals and I'm just going to say that the fact that I have an su3 that confines the su3 prime uh and that the squirks are hundreds of gv it means that they don't hydronize okay so these guys will have quirky type behavior they will generate sort of a global radiation as well as a photon radiation they will have to come back to each other and annihilate and from there you can get bounds which are at right now at the 450 gv level so I'm going to skip this and I'm just going to summarize so we still have natural tiers of electro-exymmetry breaking that are not ruled out by data it's true the signals are collider are different I didn't have time to talk about this but for example in folded sucy globals can be produced both in this in this squirt production they will emit it and also hicks can decay to them and these globals will actually have displaced vertices or interest in the case and so in principle there are interesting signals for these globals I didn't talk about it but I just want to flash the reference for this person that this did this great work and you'll see in this paper that global decays in folded sucy could be an important signal at the LHC in the future so however it's not impossible to imagine that it will end up high luminosity LHC with some natural parameter space in some theory like identical twin hicks and still we haven't seen anything it's not an impossible scenario okay but all of these tiers have low cutoffs below 20 TV so experimentally this would point to higher energies obviously in theory it would point to the fact that we need more reasonable new completions okay and of course I pointed out to the fact that there is interesting dark matter model building okay thank you we have time for one or two questions maybe three if they are quick could you comment give me a comment on the degradation were effective effective number of neutrons I think in this model in this model you you'd have twin neutrons or a twin photons and it may may may conflict with the plant result right right okay so okay I didn't want to comment on this because we are working on it but certainly you you have to get rid of it in the identical twin case you have to get rid of the twin neutrinos somehow this is non-trivial because you have to get rid of them in a way you know you break the z2 somehow and so ideally what you do is you break the z2 because you have to break the z2 anyway at the same time given by a mechanism that also gives masses to the twin neutrinos and to the twin photon that's that would that's very ambitious and that's what we're trying to do and so you really have to do that because you can you can imagine that you can get rid you can get rid of the neutrinos and keep the twin photon but that's still borderline with with structure formation amazingly enough so you can get rid of you know NF is still borderline for one degree of freedom like the twin photon but there's still problems that my collaborators know much more about they have to do with silk dumping and things like that so so I think you have to get rid in these tears you have to get rid of the twin photon also yeah you're right so in the discussion of natural Susie we usually talk about the need at low energies for three states uh Higgs you know stop and then at two loops gluinos but in this context you're really just talking about the color as top partners is the reason why I don't have problems in these scenarios with stuff at at three level you know the analogy of the Higgs you know or why I don't really have to care about two loop effects you know the analogy of the gluino uh so you're talking about uh the twin the fraternal twin case where I only have or or any any of these cases you know is there a mapping between the natural Susie language of what we expect for the low-energy states and again it's Higgs you know stop and gluino is what we say kind of tree level one loop two loop well so for example in the fall that Susie you have the Higgs you know in fact they are they are candidate to dark matter so you have them there uh and then uh and then the gluinos are not that heavy they are they are so they will they are at the at the say one over R right so so in principle uh and now in the twin case um in the twin case in the fraternal twin case um you you have the gluino is still there you know that it's it's even confined it's not broken at all so so it's not yeah it's not quite quite a mapping but it's the gluino is still around it's confined it forms all kinds of uh uh of bound states at low energy you know 5 10 20 g depends on lambda qcd prime so yeah so your point is really to solve the little hierarchy problem i'm not carrying too much about the the big one i do care about the big one but uh if if if the if the idea it turns out that all the natural natural theories are such that they have it cut off and then they they are usually such that you solve only the little hierarchy problem at one you can do that and then this may be uh the first step you need to do but we need to work on uv completions to convince ourselves that this is a sensible low energy theory of course okay so uh you are giving us very good arguments for 100 tv colliders yeah okay so thank you very much and uh thank you again


Hey!  You know what man? Shit! Shit I might start using my phone camera more often. It's a lot easier, it's a lot smaller and a lot lighter. Guys, I'm happy to report, I'm gonna try and look into the lens as much as possible.   Today I told him before I went in that I was going to focus on posing. I wanted a half an hour session, I didn't want to get trained, I wanted to train beforehand and then go over to the posing area and see what he thought of me. See what IFBB Pro bodybuilder Steve Orton thought of your old mate Jake McDonald from Christchurch. So he put me through about 20 minutes of posing. Then we took my body fat and then we chatted about the plans and about how the week was and about what's to be expected in the next week. Now I will say guys, I will say that he's definitely put my mind at ease because I am in shape and he's confirmed that to me now.  So I was meant to go away and increase my eating to put on a little bit of weight so that about 10 weeks out we'd drop the calories, we'll start dropping the calories and we'd have a much higher and much higher in the way of calories position to start from going into a competition diet when you're going to get as lean as you've ever been. So last week I got presented with that plan, I went away and I didn't do it, my eating was shocking.  You know how those things happen sometimes?  So after seeing them on Wednesday last week, I went away. I had two workouts, two good workouts, I had a rugby training and I had a rugby game. And then I took four days off. So we come back, it's Tuesday, I hit chest, shoulders and triceps yesterday, it was a great workout. I mean, I mean, I wasn't feeling 100% at the start, but I'm glad I got it done. And then this morning, I've come here at 8.30 to body core gym, knowing that I've got a half an hour meeting with Steve at 10. So I trained back and biceps for an hour and a quarter. It's a fantastic workout. And then we've gone and done some posing. So I had worked out, which is good because, you know, my back at least and my biceps were pumped. So what that means is that when we're doing posing, I can sort of, you know, get a better picture as to how I might look on stage after a pump up session.  Well, you don't dehydrate yourself too much.  You try and do whatever you can to make the water go from underneath the skin and go into the muscle. But at the end of the day, if you're lean, it doesn't matter what you do. You're still going to look good.  You know what I mean? You don't need anything. If you're lean enough, you're lean enough and that shows on stage. You can be flat as a pancake. If you're lean enough, you still look impressive. And especially in a natural show, conditioning is going to be key.   And that's scary. It's scary. But what I will say is that I actually presented those thoughts to Steve today. So he knows exactly how I'm feeling.   I could fast for 48 hours just like that if I had to. I'm that kind of guy. But let's hope it doesn't get to that. And I know it won't because right now I'm pumped because I've just finished my session with Steve.  And I'm hoping that, well, I say I hope, but I know that if I'm going to stick to the plan, I'm going to be eating around about 30, 36, 38, even 4,000 calories, probably a little bit more on, you know, a really strenuous training day. And we've got to bump up these calories, man. We've got to get my calorie expenditure up at a lean body composition. And so with Steve in my corner, I feel like we're definitely going to do that. He looked at me today. We posed.  I was shaking, to be fair. You know, I stripped down to my jocks. I'm posing in front of an IFBB pro bodybuilder that's been on the Arnold Classic stage. And he said, I'm in shape. You know what I mean? Do you know how exciting that is? Do you know how good that makes me feel?  Apart from the men's physique show that I did and the fitness model show that I did.  You know, by myself doing progress pictures in the gym, you know?  I've never been involved in a gym, a proper bodybuilding gym that that's accepted. There's people prepping for bodybuilding shows all throughout the gym. You know what I mean? It's like posing is just a part of bodybuilding and it's accepted. So when you see people stripped down their jocks and they're looking at themselves in the mirror, it's not frowned upon because this is bodybuilding and that's what I love.  It's a passion. I don't know where it was lit, but it was lit somewhere. It was probably lit from Dragon Ball Z. You know what I mean? I'd say a lot of bodybuilders around my age, they're fire for, if it's not from the Hulk, it'd be from Goku and Dragon Ball Z. I'm not going to lie, that's probably where it came from for me. We're here and look, I'm going to shut it off now. I'm glad I made this video, otherwise it might never have been made. Today was a fantastic day. I learned a shitload. I got put through my paces and apparently I'm in shape. So feels good. Hopefully next week I might put on a KG or so, get my metabolism, you know, firing. I'll feel stronger in the gym, which will feel great because I have been cutting for so long now. And it's just a mindset. It's a shift. You know, it's a few days. You change something for a few days and you form a habit and it doesn't seem so hard. It's exactly the same when I had to transition from bulking into cutting this time. Took three days, took a week. Once I had my first week of cutting, I had, you know, my first week of good results and it was easy from there. So this, you know, I'm at that point now. Last week I really struggled to flip the switch and go back into a bulking phase. But this week I'm going to do everything I can. Steve's there if I need him. You know, it's great to have him in my corner. I feel fucking, I feel blessed, bro. I'm playing rugby. I'm bodybuilding again. And I'm rubbing shoulders with people that, you know, are inspiring to me. And to do that is really cool. So with all that being said, guys, I hope you have a fantastic day. For anyone that has followed my bodybuilding journey, my natural bodybuilding journey for years, you know, ever since I started making vlogs in 2013 or 14. Natural bodybuilding vlogs, I thought. I love natural bodybuilding. I loved everything about it. I loved the fact that you only got out what you put in, literally. And it was the harder road. You know, it was the road less travelled. And I wanted to travel that road and I'm still travelling that road. So guys, thank you so much for watching. It's time for me to go. You've listened to me for 10 long minutes and I appreciate it. Peace out, guys. Have a great day. Later.


What are we gonna do? Hey guys, welcome back to my channel sometimes I just torture my dogs and other times I make shitty beauty videos. I'll get back I wonder what this week's gonna be seriously like you guys keep watching my makeup videos So I guess in that case I'm not gonna stop making them because it's fun for me So this does exist on the internet and it looks amazing It's called opposite or reverse contouring where you just put the opposite contour in the opposite place So if you would like to learn how to opposite contour dislikes video Just keep watching because I'm a professional. I can see up your shorts Yes, I can wear jeans. I know you're not. I can see your deck. I'm a girl I'm this like video so I can just like video Yeah logs off YouTube logs back on YouTube dislikes video again. Don't stop disliking my video I'm just gonna get started here guys.  So the places that you usually would highlight are like all of these. This is reverse contour That's ruined normally be darker.  Are you getting mine for oh 50 shades docker.  Okay, my nose looks broken.  I look like Voldemort.  You can't get Muggle I look like I'm waiting in line behind Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton Just trying to get in that bathroom because I got stuff to do. You know Do you think Paris Hilton still does hard drugs She still does fondant Julien's watching the simple life for the first time ever so please ignore all of his Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie jokes from a decade ago thoughts Like look at how big and beautiful my forehead looks I'm serving some Owen Wilson in the nose. I need this up in here now I've officially given myself almost no eyelid I look like an amphibian that belongs in a river. Give me a smasher pass right now Look at my nose. It looks like you're three noses Slowly turn your head to look over your shoulder Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, smash Love it.   Don't look at me directly, no don't Smash your pass Smash, pass, pass, pass, pass I'm gonna start blending now. Is it getting better? It's looking like day three or four after a bad sunburn Let's get some good highlight in here.   It looks like you're trying to do a sparring race and like fell at the start line Smash? Give me a little goatee bit You literally look like I look like my father Smash? No! Smash?   Sammy sweetheart Run! Stop!  That's what everyone always thinks when they see this color They're like, that's not gonna look right No, it looks tan That's me, I'm tan on the outside A pale goth wood elf on the inside Wood elf Yeah, that's me I'm a Breaton Dragon mate Smash or pass?  Wipes Wipes?  I hope that you've thoroughly enjoyed this beautiful reverse contour tutorial You basically didn't need one You just put everything in the opposite place where they're supposed to go But you're welcome But yeah, make sure you subscribe to my channel I put it into videos every Wednesday slash Thursday Smash, smash, smash, smash, smash, smash What, incarnation? I'm not following the camera Dude, knock everything over Oh my god


Welcome to nursing school explained and this video in the care plan help series Today, we're going to focus on the protein abumin now because abumin is a protein but kind of a special protein everything that applies in the total protein section Also applies to the abumin here But here we're going to go ahead and look at a little bit more specifically What else we can check when the patient's abumin has either been ordered or is higher or low on their lab results and One quick tidbit here. So as I said same as total protein, but abumin if that is low It is usually more indicative of chronic malnutrition So think about your patients who have had a prolonged hospital stay They have some sort of chronic maybe malabsorption issues those kind of things So that would be very important to check their abumin levels pretty regularly for this chronic malnutrition Because it helps with wound healing and overall well-being and just helps all the processes of the body work more smoothly but if the abumin Is it shows up on a lab result and it is high or low mostly if it's low We want to check a urine dip and your analysis to see if we have urine spilling from the urine which meaning that that protein is seeping through the Filtration membrane of the kidneys and now we need to look into the kidneys And if there's any kind of history of liver disease Then we should check all these things that apply to chronic liver disease meaning edema aside is patient's bilirubin level their skin color and eyes for Dondis and We should also check the patient for pregnancy and preeclampsia and kind of just note that if this applies to the patient care scenario Because abumin can be low if the patient is spilling it in these conditions and then that Requires of definitely close monitoring So in the patient that we've been using for these examples here in the care plan help was this 45 year old female after colosistectomy with the past medical history of diabetes hyperlipidemia and she's a smoker so in her case if we are analyzing the the abumin level and We don't really have any history here but if she did have a history of liver disease or Even thinking about the connection of the liver and the gallbladder meaning that these two organs are very closely related and that common Bial duct empties the bile and now there could be some obstruction after the colosistectomy Maybe a stone got lodged there. Maybe something wasn't corrected Connected correctly after the surgery So we definitely have to keep that in mind all these signs and symptoms of kind of liver dysfunction That we would assess the patient for and in terms of intervention is not a whole lot We could do about it, but we definitely want to report the findings to the surgeon or the to the MD or the provider that's in charge of the patient's hospitalization and Report to them what we are finding and then they they will take it from there If this patient now this is a 45 year old female, you know, she could be pregnant Also, we don't have any indication here But if she was pregnant certainly we would want to get the OB-GYN consult to make sure that there is no Complications from the potential preeclampsia that this patient might be having So thanks so much for watching this video in the care plan help series about our abumin also check out all the other labs That are analyzed here and also give you a concrete example so that you can show off your Knowledge on your own care plan ending clinical. Thanks for watching


Imagine the Supreme Court is like the Kardashians. The judges are the Kardashian-Jenner sisters, and Disney, which owns Hulu, is the American people. Well, Kendall, a.k.a. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is being all mysterious about her business deals. You see, she's been accidentally forgetting to disclose from her posts on IG or sponsored, which is kind of sus. Well, it turns out that many of her posts aren't just sponsored, they're being sponsored by Netflix. Crazy, right? You'd think that's something she'd want to mention since her show was on Hulu. But wait, Netflix also bought Kendall a new mansion, and Kendall hasn't mentioned anything about it. And now it turns out it's not just Netflix. Apparently Max, Paramount Plus, and Amazon Prime have all been sponsoring posts and giving Kendall all sorts of swag. So now everyone thinks Kendall's up to some shady shit, which makes the Kardashians, a.k.a. the Supreme Court, look bad. Now, Hulu, a.k.a. Congress, could step in and kick her off the TV show, but plot twist, half of Hulu is being run by Bad Bunny, so that's never going to happen. So here we are stuck with the seemingly corrupt Kendall Jenner on our own TV show with no consequences in sight.


Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start here in about one minute. Before we do, just a quick announcement, we're running two defense-related programs this morning. So if you're here for the China defense budget discussion, that's next door. But if you're here for the IMET discussion, you're exactly in the right place. Okay, good morning, everyone. My name is Ernie Bauer. I'm the chair of the Southeast Asia program here at CSIS, and this morning we have a real treat. One of the things we have been thinking about at CSIS is how do we do the pivot and at the same time work through the sequester and the budget cuts that are coming, particularly on the military side of the fence. One of the programs that could be most vulnerable in that situation is called the IMET program, or the International Military Education and Training Program, IMET. IMET was actually created in 1961 with Foreign Assistance Act, and we have provided IMET funds. We're going to be looking at Asia and specifically Southeast Asia here, although the speakers are welcome to refer to a broader region than that if they like. But if we look at Southeast Asia, IMET funds have been primarily targeted at our two treaty allies, the Philippines and Thailand. Between 2000 and 2009, those countries used between a million and a half and two and a half million dollars each. IMET funds have also gone to other ASEAN countries, namely Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, and Vietnam. We don't have IMET programs with Singapore, Brunei, or Myanmar, or Burma. Today, the way we organized our discussion was to have input from two fantastic experts and people with perspective on this question. And I think it will probably result in a good discussion, I don't know about a debate, but I think a discussion with points of view is always a good way to suss out some of the policy prescriptions for an issue. First, I'll introduce, I'll introduce both speakers and then we'll start with Lieutenant General Chip Gregson. Chip, as many of you know, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs. And before that, he served as a Chief Operating Officer for the United States Olympic Committee. Chip knows a little something about IMET in terms of hands-on experience. He was commanding general of the Marine Corps Forces in the Asia Pacific at the Marine Corps Central Command, where he led and managed over 70,000 Marines and sailors in the Middle East, Afghanistan, East Asia, Africa, and Asia. And from 2001 to 2003, he was commanding general of all the Marine Corps Forces in Japan. Prior to that, he was Director of Asia Pacific Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1998 to 2000, graduated of the U.S. Naval Academy and holds a couple of master's degrees. John Sifton is the Asia Advocacy Director of Human Rights Wash. His portfolio there includes South and Southeast Asia, a region he knows quite a bit about. Before joining Human Rights Wash for the second time, he was the Director of One World Research, which is a public interest and investigation firm. He started his at Human Rights Wash as a director, I'm sorry, as a researcher in the Asia Division focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan. John has a lot of experience in South Asia, lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan and worked on those areas. He holds a law degree from New York University and a bachelor's degree from St. John's College in Annapolis. So I guess you guys share some experience in Annapolis and in Afghanistan. And let's see if you share anything else.  Chip, I will give you first a shot at it and then we'll turn to John and then I will moderate in discussion, please. Thank you, Ernie, and I'm not happy to be here. The Southeast Asia program has really taken off under your guidance and I think it's very valuable and even about time that we started paying some attention to it. Let me try and set a perspective or a framework on this by talking a little bit about the overall purpose of our forces overseas and our defense engagement or our national engagement programs with the defense establishments of various other countries. It's really far broader and more constructive than just simply waiting for military action. Along our active presence as well as our engagement, including IMET and the many other programs of foreign military assistance with other countries, helps promote security, dampen sources of instability, deter conflict and give substance to U.S. security guarantees and commitments and ensure U.S. access. It multiplies our diplomatic impact and demonstrates professional military ethics in a democratic society. IMET, like all the other forms of military engagement, can be used to reward countries that do U.S. bidding. It's also can be used as a stick. It's refusal or it's withdrawal can be used as punishment against countries that have irritated the United States at one point or another. It can also become a very large issue when political or tactical exigencies override our objections to abuses in one country or another. We lavish military aid on Pakistan, yet we restrict it to Vietnam. One could also add Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as other countries where we provide aid that we would otherwise refuse where we're not involved in Afghanistan and Central Asia. IMET is designed to strengthen foreign militaries through skill training and exposure to values supporting a civilian controlled, apolitical and professional military. It's also an instrument of influence. Relationship building with exposure at an early career stage is one of the benefits cross-culturally of the IMET and other programs. And in this regard, I think a strong argument can be made that Americans benefit as much or more from this as our foreign guests do. Everybody in this room is no doubt noticed. We sometimes tend to have an attitude that it's all about us. And when you have to learn to get along with people who speak a different language, do things differently than you do and have a different tradition and a different view of history and a different view of America when you're a captain, say, as a junior officer, it's often a very instructive experience and one you wouldn't have otherwise. Stronger relations and enhanced mutual understanding of the perspectives of others than is one of the benefits of IMET as we go through this. In part to address some of the perceived difficulties with the IMET program as it was begun in the beginning, we created EIMET or expanded IMET in 1990. This opened up the IMET program to civilian officials of other governments and it was specifically an attempt to decrease the abuses. The types of training that were designed under the EIMET were English language training, flying training, observation on-the-job training, professional military education, meaning exchanges between students at command and staff colleges and the like, technical training, military justice training, civil military relations, defense resource management and so on, not exactly what one would refer to as training with close combat and hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting. The process begins at our embassies, includes careful vetting and screening, the ambassador in each of our countries therefore has oversight of this. Some programs are funded by the Defense Departments, many by the Department of State, so they have oversight and Congress has the ability and exercises it fairly frequently to provide oversight. See, for example, Senator Leahy and his efforts with Indonesian. As a Shepo perhaps or as a concluding remark regarding the overall context for EIMET, a recent study out of this very institution here stated in part, forward presence and engagement are not simply helpful to shaping the environment and setting the stage for effective responses to contingencies, they are indispensable for minimizing the likelihood of larger conflicts. And with that, I'll conclude. Thank you Chip, that was great. John, what's your perspective? I'll try to keep this somewhat brief. I'd like to go to questions because I think that's a good context in which to talk, but I'm gonna start my comments by discussing Indonesia. I'd like to start with Indonesia because I think it's important to begin a discussion about EIMET in Asia by acknowledging that there is indeed a debate about its utilities and consequences and countries like Indonesia bring that debate into pretty sharp focus. Indonesia's military has in the past committed some pretty major human rights abuses and it continues to have a problematic record with a lack of justice for those past abuses and even some impunity for current abuses. But in July 2010, the last remaining restrictions that were really being put on that military via the efforts of Senator Leahy was removed. And Secretary Gates stood in Jakarta and with the Defense Minister of Indonesia and the last restrictions on Kapasas, the unit that was engaged in some of the worst abuses were removed. Now that moment when that happened, obviously human rights watch disagreed with that. That goes without saying, but that moment represents I think for the United States and the EIMET program, essentially the crystallization of what is perceived as the purpose of EIMET, which is to improve these militaries and also meet certain exigencies and desires of the US government. It was decided at the Pentagon and the White House level that this was the right thing to do. And the reason was the arguments to usually go back and forth that by standing on the outside and yelling at the Indonesian military, we will accomplish nothing. It's better to talk to them, engage with them and this will ultimately improve the right situation and make them more rights respecting military. I guess to be perfectly blunt, the human rights watch position, the position of a lot of human rights groups are, there are some units and persons and even governments which, governments, not countries, which are not redeemable. And this is a real challenge for the EIMET program. I don't think that's the norm. It's definitely not the norm worldwide, but it's unfortunately all too common in Asia for there to be institutions and governments which are not redeemable. I wanna be clear, I'm not talking about people and people may or may not be redeemable. That's a theological matter, I suppose. But whether an institution is redeemable and in what circumstances, I mean this is essentially the big policy question looming in the background.  But in reality, human rights groups are much more conservative. They often consider people to be unredeemable and it is the Pentagon that is saying things like, well, you have to understand the context. We need to engage with them and understand where they're coming from. So we're often juxtaposed in a kind of funny way. But anyway, the real question is whether institutions are redeemable and I guess the US government is of the opinion that they are and human rights groups are often of the opinion that they're not. Indonesia provides a snapshot of how the US views that question of redemption. The US government ostensibly believes the Indonesian military has reformed adequately. We disagree. There's still some abuses in Papua and other places which are going on. But again, how do we get to this moment? Asia is a fertile ground for redemption, I suppose. You see throughout the region several other governments with rights-abusing militaries, ones which have been engaged in various abuses. In Thailand, for instance, the military in the South is engaged in a lot of abuses in the context of the insurgency in the South. The Philippines has a very long record of implications for the military and the paramilitary groups in extrajudicial executions. But I think the country that probably crystallizes the biggest problem for IMAT, human rights, in Asia, Southeast Asia is Cambodia. First of all, the program is very large per capita. It's a million dollars of military assistance for a country of about 14 million people. And you have a military which is dominated, or rather you have a military which dominates the political scene. The RCAF, the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, Commander-in-Chief, the Deputy Commander-in-Chief, the Army Commander, they're all in the permanent committee of the Cambodian People Party, the ruling party, the Minister of Defense, the Chief of the Navy, the Commanders of the Army, Army Region Number One, Number Two, Number Three, Number Four, and you go on and on and on, they're all on the Central Committee of the Cambodian People's Party. It's not a political military by any stretch of the imagination. So you ask yourself, right off the bat, why are we working with this military? And then you consider the fact that the RCAF Commander-in-Chief and the Deputy Commander-in-Chief are Khmer Rouge veterans. Another issue from the 70s that hangs over them. And then finally, the vetting issue. Is it really possible to screen the Cambodian military when there is such a large record of abuse spanning all the way back to the 1970s? And even for the young officers, are we really up to the task? Our experience at Human Rights Watch is that problems with transliteration, poor data collection, some other problems, you see again and again and again, officers being considered, nominated who are implicated in some very serious abuses now. Land grabbing, the military is very implicated in basically being sponsored by corporate entities to grab land. But even beyond lehi, meta-lehi, you see a large number of young officers who would pass lehi vetting, they're clean in terms of gross human rights abuses, but they are the sons of senior CPP cronies of Hun Sen, the prime minister. And so you say to yourself, well, they're not involved in gross human rights abuses, but this guy's a 24-year-old colonel, or this guy's a 27-year-old brigadier general, 29-year-old three-star generals. They're the sons of various high-level CPP officials. You ask yourself, what's really going on here and is it in the best interests of the human rights of the Cambodian people that we are training them? Now I could go on and on about this, but I won't. What I'd like to conclude with is that this panel is quite well-timed because on Friday, the White House released a new policy. It's called the U.S. Security Sector Assistance Policy, and it attempts to deal with some of the underlying problems that I'm getting to, which is how do you reconcile these different aims, the U.S. aim to engage and to improve these governments, the exigencies that are being considered. Number three in that policy, policy goals are to help partner nations build sustainable capacity, promote partner support for U.S. interests, that's the exigencies. Number three is promote universal values, such as good governance, transparent and accountable oversight for security forces, rule of law, transparency, accountability, delivery of fair and effective justice, and respect for human rights. I guess what Human Rights Watch would submit is that that isn't possible with some militaries. Literally, it's not possible. You cannot give security sector assistance to certain militaries. They may pass vetting, but you shouldn't do it if you are attempting to do those things. And I could explain more about why, but I won't go on and on. I think it would be better to do a Q&A. Okay, thank you very much. I really appreciate the opening positions, just to clarify, Chip, you're saying there's value and good return on investment for IMIT, is that correct? Yes, along with our other security assistance, activities. Okay, and John, your position is IMIT is, what is your position? Would you use IMIT in some countries? Yeah, I mean. And not in others. The issue decidedly is not, is IMIT a good thing or not? Obviously, it plays its role in certain countries and there's some militaries which don't appear to have very serious rights abuse records. I guess the problem is you have certain countries where you cannot simultaneously promote rule of law, good governance and democracy, and find officers who are suitable for training because either the military is so politicized like Cambodia's or it's so hard to vet also like Cambodia's or third, the whole unit distinction, the notion that there are individuals whose hands have blood on them and that there are others who are not is so difficult to untangle because the entire military has such a poor record of accountability that you're better off just not doing it. Now, you could limit it, you talked about rule of law training, JAGs and trying to train a military to have a better accountability mechanism, train them to have a better military justice system, train them to have accountability mechanisms, train them to have inspector generals, you could do that and that could be the limit to your IMAT program and maybe we would have fewer objections in a situation like that, but when you look through the reports to Congress about all the IMAT, yeah, there's stuff like that in there but oftentimes it's counter-terrorism training, jungle warfare, maritime security, some of it's innocuous, humanitarian aid but you don't see a huge amount of that type of training so we would submit, don't do it, pull the plug. Okay, let's open it up for questions. I add a note for Mr. Sifton, thank you. First, I just wanted to comment that actually there is no IMAT going to co-pass us right now. The Robert Gates announcement was for a sort of limited DOD engagement but not through the IMAT program such as it is. And then the second question, when we consider our IMAT programs at the State Department the main thrust of the program is to allow rising leaders to come to the United States and participate in usually residential programs, professional military education like the war college or something, it's classroom-based sort of graduate degree type things versus operational or technical training. So I was wondering whether from your point of view you can make a differentiation between the value of that type of thing and then very operational training, marksmanship and stuff like that. What I'm really trying to get at is that there are certain contexts and I don't think this is the norm or this is true all through Asia but there are certain contexts where you can't find people who that type of training would benefit. You have militaries which are so politicized, so corrupt, so involved in criminal activity that no matter who you find is going to have an overlord who is more important to them and their career than pleasing the U.S. or being friends with it or becoming professional. Again, it's not the norm but I think there are certain militaries like that. I don't mean to stick on Cambodia. So I just want to do a follow-up question, John. So in a case where you have an unredeemable, a set of unredeemable institutions what would your view be on making progress? Do you just walk away from them and let it fester and get worse? Or how do you, what's the prescription when you get to that situation? Yeah, in a nutshell, what I would submit to both OSD and state is that the focus, if there must be engagement with a country that bad, solely on accountability mechanisms. Say we're going to help you create Inspector General slash civilian complaints review board slash the military component of your Human Rights Commission, whatever it is in a country which has the oversight of the security forces. Help you train that entity and try to make your military more accountable and transparent. You could just do that. Or you could just threaten them as certain countries have, just threaten them with a full withdrawal of military assistance and then lay down the exact roadmap for how to get it back. Those are essentially the two options. Quick follow up here, because this is a point that I wanted to raise in our discussion. We've been tracking this very closely. China has been starting to mimic US military, Milton Mill engagement strategies in Southeast Asia and actually doing their own version of IMET which doesn't really look a lot like American IMET but they're pulling larger numbers than we are from regional militaries. And I wondered if maybe Chip and John you would comment on that are we leaving states open to assistance that might not have the values based approach that the US has? Well, that question gets to one of the core dilemmas on IMET decisions and not just IMET but the other 14 different programs we have to aid other people's militaries. Is it better to engage or not engage? And anecdotal evidence and pardon the anecdotes but Ronald Reagan once said that two anecdotes constitute the data. But in Indonesia in the early 2000s in the days of the full lehi restrictions on training we were allowed to travel to Indonesia to do training on non-lethal weapons and we used that to go there frequently. One of the mandatory things we had to do on the training was to start with a class on militaries in a democratic society in the military justice system. And of course the Pentagon God bless the Pentagon created the class for us. And it was 28 mind numbing slides all to be given with a lot of detail on them and everything. But nevertheless the sessions especially with the Indonesian junior officers always turned out to be very exciting. These were captains that were fluent in English or at least competent, most fluent and they'd done their homework. We could not get through the class in the allotted time without all these captains bringing up incidents from the American past that we would prefer not to talk about or not even think about. It shows that they were thinking and people that are past a certain age Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel probably not gonna reach them. They're vested in the current system, they have that senior officer tendency to say we've always done it this way, that's the way I'd like to continue doing it, that type of thing. But being able to get into these countries and work at the captain level with the junior officers and start shaping attitudes or at least raising questions I submit is far better than just cutting everything off and saying that you guys only have one choice and it's us, square yourselves away or we're never gonna talk to you again. I don't think that that's quite the best way. The other anecdote, the Trisakti University riots in 1998, Indonesian military with one exception got a really black eye out of it because of the way they treated the students. The one exception was the Indonesian Marines and quite by accident I happened to be in Indonesia not more than a few weeks after the Trisakti riots and I was out in Surabaya with the Marines and was talking about the Trisakti riots and things and I asked this group of senior officers, how is it you came off out of the riots with reputation enhanced and the army did so badly? And this one colonel smiled at me and said it's very simple, we didn't consider the students the enemy. We went in there and civilian closed ahead of time, we negotiated the rules of engagement so that when it came time for us to do what we needed to do, the students understood what was going on, they understood that we had their best interest at heart and we didn't disagree with them doing this and so I said okay, Leavenworth or Quantico and he said Leavenworth and that's where he went to school. So small incidents but yes, there are problems with IMET, there are problems with various governments, there are problems with certain sections of the militaries but the point comes down to is it better to try or is it better to withdraw, kind of like you do with your kids, go sit in a corner until I feel better. Yeah, I guess we're certainly not saying, every time a military is implicated in abuse just withdraw, don't do any business with them whatsoever but this issue of finding the redeemable folks and again, people are redeemable and even institutions are, is very difficult and I guess what I'm saying is I'm not confident the US government can figure it out. The lehi problem, the vetting problem is just one component but making wise decisions about who deserves to be brought for course training and what kind of training and when some good decisions get made and some very bad ones do as well and interestingly the age thing doesn't always work out the way you'd expect intuitively, the young officers are kind of promising and the old guard is old guard and after all, the person who's driving the reform in Burma is not a young officer, it's a very old one. With the TNI, it's very interesting what's going on. I mean maybe the Pentagon is right, maybe things have gotten better. Recently eight Indonesian soldiers in Papa were killed by the local insurgency there which is very small and very innocuous in many respects but still has some lethal capacities and we expected the TNI to go nuts because that's what they've done in the past but they didn't and it's not clear why and the jury's still out but as I said to some folks at OSD a few weeks ago I don't think that one can say that it's a sure thing that they ever formed. There's evidence, we have evidence that there's a lot of impunity still there and that if things get bloody enough in Papua there could be more abuses but neither of us really has the evidence to say we are right and the other's wrong and so we're both sort of arguing with each other with anecdotes and we don't have a lot to go with but then there are other places like Sri Lanka and Afghanistan and Cambodia where I know we're right and the Pentagon has a big problem. There's nobody to be, you can find a couple of Navy units, couple of young officers who aren't involved in any political activities and you can train them in maritime security or something, maybe although there's no maritime security in Afghanistan but for the most part you have the whole entities just messed up to the core and there's really little, there's very little to do and so that's the question, what do you do then with those countries and I guess what I'd suggest to them is either cut them off or be very tough with them and that's what we're suggesting with Cambodia and Sri Lanka, be very, very tough. Give them a roadmap like we're doing with Burma already which has shown itself willing to reform. As Congress is done with the Philippines, give them a roadmap, this is what you gotta do, exactly what you need to do and things will get better for you. Jonathan Bother from Congressional Quarterly. I don't know whether we're including Central Asia in this discussion but if we are, can both of you talk about the strategic imperatives of IMET in some of the Stan country, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, those places and human rights concerns, the conflict between the two. Central Asia touches on what I was trying to indicate with the tactical and political exigencies. We have something called the Northern Distribution Network that goes through Central Asia that is vital and might become even more vital if that's possible, if we lose the lines of communication through Pakistan for the retrograde out of Afghanistan. We've been on and off of a basing relationship with Uzbekistan because of our concerns with Uzbekistan's human rights record. We have a base in Kyrgyzstan that is problematic from a human rights record but we can't operate in Afghanistan without support from, pardon me, it's not a base. It's a transit center specifically designed with those words, sorry, take base out of the record. Okay, strike that. Yeah, I'm not allowed in the Pentagon now. I'd probably be shot if I watched the parking lot on that. But to be serious and not flip, Manas has been a problem because of the very, of the compelling contingencies of being, exigencies of being able to operate in Afghanistan versus what we would like to see happen in Central Asia with the human rights. It's not a clean thing. And I would add it's not just IMET, it's a number of all the other programs that we have going on too. And for example, Global Peace Operations Initiative or Mine Action or Disaster Response or Drug Interdiction or the 1206 program which recently out of Central Asia but in back in an Asian context was key to cleaning up the terrorist transit routes among Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines in that triangle where they bound one C. The bad guys were doing something in one country and fleeing to the other country and we didn't have the proper surveillance means to do it. Now we've got the surface search radars established with US money that serves all three countries so that they can cooperate to clean this up. Does that, that could constitute showing favoritism to a country that where we still have human rights concerns but it seems to serve a purpose. I used the example of the military aid that we lavish on Pakistan yet we deny the same aid to Vietnam. Well Vietnam doesn't have the same impact on us with our operations in Afghanistan that Pakistan does at the moment and Pakistan's got other things that concern us as well. And for example, their weapons program. So it's not at all a clean decision. I met and all the other aid programs on the DOD and state side are mixed in with this reality and one makes decisions in what one hopes is for the greater good overall. And as John said, sometimes they work out, sometimes you end up with low back. John, Central Asian? Yeah I mean it sort of goes without saying that most of the Central Asian republics have human rights problems. I mean that's a well known fact. I think the Pentagon knows that the White House certainly does and they've made a decision to go forward because of the necessity. What's baffling about some of the countries in Southeast Asia is that the necessity is not there. I mean can you think of a country in Southeast Asia that is less strategically important than Cambodia? I mean it's just sitting there, it's got this little coastline, I mean no offense to Cambodia but seriously, geostrategically, why is it an important country? Doesn't border China, it's got this short coastline and yet we lavish a lot of assistance. When you look at it per capita it's probably the leader in the region because it's only 14 million people. The Navy's only got 4,000 people in it. So it's got these huge programs and yet we don't seem to have any need to pull back on it and I would submit that it's because the Pentagon and the State Department and the White House just don't realize how bad the human rights situation is and I guess that's our fault. Okay, this is Ravi Balaram from Georgetown University. For every good anecdote there's a bad anecdote and that's part of the problem, maybe two is data, maybe three is data and I think that's the biggest issue with IMET. For example in Indonesia, President Yudhoyono is a four time IMET graduate, spent two years in the United States, has led a lot of the democratization, increased transparency, civilian control of the TNI. But that's just an anecdote, right? So I've just recently completed a study at Georgetown looking at the long term benefits of IMET and Burma in Myanmar. We had the program from 80 to 88. We trained 175 people and there are currently 13 of those individuals in the government of Myanmar at this time to include the vice president, several members of parliament. But I think the issue that we need to do or what we need to focus on is gathering the data in every country, good stories and bad stories. My list of IMET graduates, I double checked or cross-referenced that with the OFAC special designated nations list. I cross-referenced it with NGO sources out there to see if there was any evidence that these IMET graduates convicted, I mean were associated with human rights abuses or had any activities, any behaviors that would be deemed illegal or immoral according to US policy. And I didn't find any. But this is something that I think we need to do. But let me just ask a question though. And that's, I guess in my research I found that the positions of prominence which is our main metric is not sufficient. It's necessary but not sufficient. We look at these people at the top levels and as the general suggested that maybe that's not enough. We need the junior officers, we need the mid-grade officers in order to have true organizational reform shouldn't we be looking across the board and tracking officers across the board and to see if they take positions as instructors or training and doctrine commanders and look for knowledge transfer. Do they publish? Do they write white papers and try to become better? Thanks, I'd like to see that report by the way. Don't leave without talking to me. But any comments on that? Reactions on Myanmar and the study in general? I mean let me just say it at the outset that the fact that you didn't find anything doesn't mean anything. I don't mean to be insulting but Burma is a black box and the office of the secretary of defense is the first office that would agree with it. The intelligence file in the country and it's leadership and it's military leadership is thin, it's sparse. And it's sparse not because there isn't information out there in a vitcustinian sense it's because it's not written down and it's not in the invest lehi vetting database, it's not in the intelligence community's database. It's literally just not there. It doesn't mean that Commander So-and-So who happened to be here in 1986 didn't lead a unit in Kachin and slaughter a bunch of people. It just means nobody wrote it down and that's the problem you see again and again and again. Less so in Indonesia and Thailand and Pakistan but definitely more so in Burma and Cambodia and a lot of other places where there just isn't a lot of hard written down evidence of what the history is. Then you add on top of that transliteration problems with the data that does exist and you have a recipe for a lot of misplaced assumptions. You just, you don't know what you're dealing with. Do you have what Donald Grumsfeld would call a lot of unknown unknowns? George Nicholson, a policy consultant for special operations. One of my favorite quotes was in the search for the absolute the best it's possible is destroyed and the longing for perfection is akin to madness. I think using a litmus test of who we're gonna give aid to or not and I think that General Greggs and you can talk to this. Many of the events I've been to representatives have said we created tremendous problems for ourselves in Pakistan into the church amendment. Where not only did we shut down everything prior sales that we had authorized to them kicking their students out of our military schools and there is a huge void there that the relationships that were developed before that with Pakistani officers who are now senior Pakistani officers we can carry on that dialogue with the junior officers who grew up during that void they are extremely distrust of us. And again, I think General Greggs and if you can talk to that. Pakistan's unique in a number of ways. While I was in office, we knocked ourselves out to be of aid to Pakistan in the floods. We sent forces there right away to help the Pakistanis to recover from the floods. The we pushed helicopters to them all these types of things are senior military representative in Pakistan at the time said don't think this is going to change public opinion polls a bit. We've been into that relief effort with about a 15% public opinion poll rating and we came out with an 11% public opinion poll rating. We've had in my opinion, our relationship with Pakistan over the decades has been a bit schizophrenic. They go from Gallant ally to pariah and then we bring them back instantly to be Gallant ally again. And then so there's suspicion that we're changeable that we use them. I don't believe it, but from their perspective it's well ingrained and thoroughly believed. That's one case, drawing a straight line or linear projection from the Pakistan case to other countries may provide some illumination but I'd be very careful of applying everything that we think we observed or the lessons that we think we learned out of Pakistan directly to other countries. Very quickly, I mean the question is causality and I think it's always very difficult to figure out. What's going on causally?  You do train them, that doesn't happen maybe? It's very difficult to tell. I mean we've lavished a lot of assistance on Malaysia but a lot of Malaysian politicians say horrible things about the United States. Lavish military assistance on Cambodia and it still writes abusing. So the causality, I don't say human rights watch isn't gonna say we have the answers to all the causal information but we certainly have enough data to poke a lot of holes in the causal arguments, the causality arguments the Pentagon makes and that's why I say it's not really that we're right and they're wrong. It's more like neither of us really know a lot about this causality issue. What affects, what gets, what outcome. And I think it would be good if there was an acknowledgement and I think there is. I have to say by the way that Assistant Secretary Mark Lippert and Deputy Assistant Secretary Vikram Shah as Vikram Singh are aware of this. They understand that the causality continuum is not well known but we don't really know what's going on and that's good because profession of ignorance is a step in the right direction. So I think one of the issues we have to address at some point is if we don't know, do we engage or do we not engage? That's a question. Right here in the center. Hi, my name is Rebecca. I'm from Chevron and just wondering if we could weave in the private sector component to this. We have quite a significant footprint in the money of these countries in Southeast Asia and for us sort of the intersection of security and human rights issues is extremely important and something that we are obviously concerned with. We are members of the voluntary principles on security and human rights which is an effort to work with governments and NGOs to sort of find local, we address some of these issues working alongside some of these public security forces but one of the biggest challenges is not always having the buy-in from the top of these in these countries with the military institutions and then necessarily being able to work with whether it's the US military or in the case of Southeast Asia, the Australian military for instance. So I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether if it's not IMET but some of these other mechanisms to address some issues related to security and human rights. I think private, thank you for the question. Private sectors also stuck on that interface of varying interpretations of contract law too and all the things that are covered by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and things which makes you an arm of the or a powerful component of the whole American values message and corporate involvement, the private sector involvement is exceedingly important in all this. If it's just the government working with something then it's not all that compelling. Chevron's efforts, other major companies and even minor companies, the private sector involvement means things that directly affect the lifestyles and the earning power of everybody there. So yeah, it's exceedingly important and exceedingly important that the private sector continue to I think forward or promote the U.S. human rights brand which I think is one of the strongest components we have. I think the differences between John and I are about the implementation of that message, not the value of it. Speaking of that, we've been banging on Cambodia a bit but America's got a moral obligation in this area too. We have a moral obligation to Vietnam, we were there for quite a long time. The spillover of that war into Cambodia and to include the U.S. incursions into Cambodia had a lot to do with setting the conditions for the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the rest of the denomination of this whole thing. I was struck on a visit to Cambodia about the extensive efforts that the U.N. was putting in there to teach young women the facts of life about motherhood. The Khmer Rouge depredations had broken the chain from grandmother to mother, et cetera, that did all this in a traditional society but it was, at the time I visited, it was really broken and the efforts of the international community, the efforts of the private sector as well as government efforts to start from basics and work Cambodia back up to a functioning society, a functioning country within the Cambodian cultural norms, not going in there like Americans do and saying we wanna create an American-style stock exchange and things which we've done before but doing it in a manner supported by the international institutions and one that was appropriate in the context where we were trying to do it works. Now, I understand the human rights objections to the Cambodian military but again, we're back to differences of view on implementation. How do we fix this? How do we get to the right ending that we want? Last point on that, I would think that we should have learned on 9-11 that chaos in any part of the world can create a threat in many other parts of the world and we can't fix governance in every place at the same time but we can do what we're able to do on the political side, the diplomatic side, the private sector side, the business side to rebuild places that are tending toward chaos so we don't end up realizing a bigger problem somewhere down the line. Yeah, on private sector stuff, first, I think the two biggest problems are implicated is one, you have certain militaries like Burma's and Cambodia's and Thailand's which you have subunits or even the whole enchilada are involved in their own revenue creation. They're in business. A lot of local commanders in Cambodia are essentially, I mean, the prime minister has announced there's corporate sponsorship for military units and so when there's a land concession and the people have to be moved off the land and security needs to be called in to do that, the local military commanders are called in but they're not called in as government officers, they're called in for pay, almost guards for hire so that's one thing. The revenue transparency is a big problem with Burma and we've always, we've said to Derrick Mitchell and Rangoon, we've said to Kurt Campbell a million times, you gotta push the military not just on the abuses but on the revenue transparency and then the issue of them just being involved in private business needs to be pushed. The idea that it is not appropriate for a military to be in business needs to be pushed again, we're all for dialogue, it's not about cutting them off, it's about telling them what's up and what they need to do to change things. About this moral, I just have to respond to this moral very quickly about this moral issue in Cambodia. Human Rights Watch obviously agrees there's a moral obligation in Cambodia. The Paris peace agreements of 1991 were a party, US is a party to those agreements and those agreements obligate all the signatories to promote human rights and democracy in Cambodia. It's just our position is when you have somebody who's been in power for 27 years for 10,000 days plus who himself was involved with the Khmer Rouge in 1975 and some of the genocidal acts that were carried out in the Eastern zone and the RCAF commander-in-chief was a Khmer Rouge commander and so on and so forth and you have all these millions of Cambodians who are living in this one party state without democracy, you have an obligation to try to fix that and it's precisely by using things like the pressure of conditionality in the Appropriations Act or the Pentagon talking tough about what needs to happen or the ambassador saying, hey guys, if you don't, it's been 27 years, it's been 21 years since the Paris peace agreements, if you guys don't shape up one day, we're not gonna be there for you. Talking tough is a necessity here and that is consistent with having the moral obligations that you referred to. John, I think just one question on that. Some people see there's a new sort of geostrategic balance and if you allow a country to, you give the country those choices, you basically push them completely into the hands of a very welcoming China. How do you guys think about that issue? Well, in the new context, what I'd say is, Burma was pushed into the arms of the China and it didn't really like it and that's probably one of the causal factors that led them to realize that they should open up to the United States and everybody else. So our position, if we're being so friendly with Hun Sen and he's still carrying China's water like he did during the ASEAN summit last year, then why don't you just push them all the way into China's orbit and see how they like it because I don't think they will and maybe that'll make him a little bit more amenable to doing business with the U.S. But he's kind of a special case because I think the solution to Hun Sen is only tough talk. There's no diplomacy to be had there. Okay, I'm gonna give each contestant each. There will be a prize at the end of this. I'm reverting to my natural state as game show host. Yeah, what's the price that's right? Only Murray knows. But a chance for each of you to make a short final statement that's been a great discussion. Chip, you wanna start? The questions were all very good. The, I'm glad that Ernie limited us to 10 minutes apiece because it's always much more interesting to hear comments and respond than it is for us to graze around the landscape trying to find an idea while we're talking. The, in the days now when we're talking about when we're becoming more inward looking, when we're questioning what we're doing overseas, these are the right things to talk about. We need to make sure that we preserve our ability to shape the environment, to reassure allies and friends, to promote those values that the United States likes to aspire to, and to influence friends and allies in those directions. There's no shortage of evil out there, both wholesale and retail. And to the extent that we can try and affect some of this is the right thing to do. The question was posed about measures of effectiveness on this and that's a easy concept to grasp, but a very, very difficult one to get under control and but that's the way we need to go to make sure that in our differing views of what we need to do with assistance to other countries that we're promoting in the end what we wanna promote and making sure that as John just said that we're delivering the right message with people who espouse views that we do not support. Sorry, I would just close by saying the debate isn't about whether IMET should exist. It does exist. It has consequences. The debate is really about what those consequences are, good or bad, and whether their decisions the government can make to promote the good consequences, mitigate the bad ones. And what that would mean in practice is basically three things. You could either do more of the same, just keep running IMET and the IMET and everything else the way it is, just keep doing it the way it's going. Nobody actually thinks that should be done. Number two, which is what I think the White House announced last Friday is try to improve. Keep doing IMET and the other programs and INCL and everything else, but try to improve the substance in the process. Better courses, better substance to the courses, picking better people to attend as opposed to cronies and unmitigatable people. Better lehi vetting, understanding that the databases that exist are insufficient. And then last, if you really wanna improve everything, it's just rethink everything and recognize that although in many cases nothing is wrong, seriously wrong with the program, there are some countries where everything is wrong. And the administration of IMET and analogous programs are a total disaster and should be scrapped. And I'm not suggesting everything's wrong with IMET worldwide, but it should, there are certain places in context in which everything is wrong and we need to rethink everything and we need to be willing to cut or threatened to cut the assistance as appropriate. John Sifton, Chip Gregson, thank you very much. I think this discussion really goes a long way towards helping us think about important institution and engagement and how we use these things. So I thank you very much and hopefully we can carry this discussion on further. Thank you all for joining us today at CSI.