Great thank you so much everybody thank you to new America for hosting this wonderful conference and thank you to all of you for being Here today the topic for discussion today is what does the rise of ISIS tell us about the future of war? If anything and why do we even care and what do we even mean by the future of war? I think can be addendums to the conversation. We're gonna have here today as we heard earlier, you know violence might be down Politicians and leaders might draw the wrong lessons the wrong historical analogies But I don't think everyone in this room would be here or be in the professions They're in whether that be in the intelligence community whether that be in a think tank Community whether that be an academia if we didn't actually think we could draw some relevant lessons see some relevant patterns That could instruct us going forward both against ISIS and in future conflicts So without any further ado, I'd like to introduce the panel to my far left We have Douglas Olavant a senior research fellow with the new America foundation He also served as a director on Iraq on the National Security Council under both president Bush and President Obama. He has also spent time at the senior advisor in Afghanistan Next to him. We have Emma sky. She's a senior fellow at the Jackson Institute for global affairs at Yale University She served as a former high-level advisor in Iraq for both the United States and the UK government We then have Barak Barfi also a senior fellow at the new America foundation Has lived in over seven countries in the Middle East and writes on a number of issues related to ISIS and the Middle East And we also have with us today. Son of us Who is the professor and chair of the Department of Regional and Analytical Studies at the National Defense University? College of International Security Affairs in DC and a senior advisor at the Asia Society So I'd like to just open with remarks from each of the panelists But just as some by way of background and thinking about the issue We sent around some themes to think about in terms of what we mean by looking at the future of conflict Whether that be how wars are won what victory looks like against ISIS and what this tells us about conflict How the role of technology and the media? Have been used in this conflict and how that can shape what we learn for the future And also the role of intelligence in terms of conflict and what victory and defeat even look like So Doug is actually recently back from Iraq So I'm I just if I could ask you to start with some of your reflections on the topic today at hand Sure. Thank you very much. Tara Very quickly. I'm gonna respond to the prompt as it's written, you know What is the rise of ISIS tell us about the future of war? There's probably not what I would say if I was asked why is the rise of ISIS important or what does ISIS mean for Iraq? Or what does ISIS mean for the region? But we'll talk about what it means for the future of war and have a few brief thoughts It's certainly no accident that ISIS has risen in two weak states one a failing Authoritarian state the other an extremely weak and fragile parliamentary democracy Which are under constant which are contested by three regional powers Iran Turkey Saudi Arabia And one global power the United States and then of course Russia also playing a significant role in Syria All of this has made this region extremely unstable Many of the areas very ungovernable as I told the good news about ISIS as it seems to only do well in very Loosely to non-govern Sunni Arab areas the bad news of course is that describes a third of Iraq and about half of Syria Second what we've seen with ISIS is an interesting development that I'm not sure International humanitarian law has wrapped its fingers around Substate groups can evidently commit something that at least very strongly resembles genocide and I tread very carefully here I'm not a lawyer let alone a human rights lawyer international humanitarian law lawyer But certainly what has been done to the Yazidi bears a very strong family resemblance to genocide if it is not such Likewise the Assyrians and likewise at least aspirationally if not in fact for the Iraqi Arab Shia we certainly saw this at the with the capture of the air cadets at the spiker base the Sunni cadets were given an Opportunity to renounce their errors in serving the government and let go the Shia cadets were mowed down into shallow graves And or thrown into the Euphrates So I'm not sure the I think this is important as my understanding again very limited is that you the international humanitarian law at least implicitly if not explicitly assumes that only a state has the resources to conduct genocide and Therefore all the monitoring agencies and the monitoring mechanisms are focused on states And this may highlight why we haven't heard so much about you know We do not talk about ISIS ISIL as Geno say dares, but it certainly appears that we have something that at least strongly resembles that Third soft power evidently works it is a clear in my mind at least that The rise and the success and the rise of ISIL and its ability to find followers and its ability to craft its narrative is Strongly related to the network of Gulf oil-funded Wahhabi moss that are distributed throughout the region absent this Ideological base which is not to discount the role of other factors Multiple other factors. There's no single cause and why people are joining ISIL But absent this it is hard to picture having the large-scale recruitment from across the region And as we know into the West That ISIL has enjoyed Fourth as our historians noted this morning in these conflicts And I think in the future of war the past will remain very present When focusing on ISIL past caliphates are extremely important It is no accident that the leader of ISIL has chosen the name Abu Bakr Abu-Baghdadi the name of Muhammad's father-in-law of the first caliph They are clearly looking back at at history and reflecting it at least through an ideal an idealized lens Likewise the actions of ISIL are reflected in the south through the lens in many cases through the sack in 1802 of Karbala by the Wahhabi Islamist of the first Saudi state That's very very present and when ISIL was threatening to destroy Karbala It's through that lens of the previous sack of Karbala over to two centuries ago through which it's it's understood and Likewise, this would be impossible to understand Without the understanding of what the Baath regime means to the five-sixth of Four four-fifths to five-sixth of Iraq's population that is not Sunni Arab Again coming back to to genocide the Baath party under Saddam Hussein Committed acts in the north against the Kurds and in the south against the Shia Arabs that again if they are not Genocide and I'm not an international human rights lawyer and don't want to make that claim But it certainly again bears a family resemblance To the attempt to exterminate a people or a large subset of a people And then I want to end on the note that I noted in the piece that I wrote for Peter Singer that he's been mentioning Several times earlier today that he published in defense one And that's something on the limitations of military power and the role that we've set for it and the distinction That I think we need to make between battle and war it appears to me that in the west we are setting war aims for the military that force is simply impotent to Accomplish let me give a very simple example first that I Test on my kids to make sure they understand it if I'm a platoon commander in southern Helmut I Can go to a farmer there, and I can tell him Don't grow opium poppy because if you do I'm going to destroy it And I can then come back and if I find that he's grown the opium poppy I can come back and actually destroy it And further once I destroy it I can look at him, and I can tell him if you grow this poppy again I am going to come destroy it What I cannot do is make that farmer think huh for a host of legal and moral reasons I ought not grow poppy That is something that force simply cannot accomplish And we when we take this to the very fragile weak state that we still find in Iraq We find a similar limitation We were able to remove the prior regime at an extremely low cost far far easier Than we thought we were going to do that is very much within the realm of the force And it may not be too bold a claim to state that the United States military today today could remove any Non-nuclear armed regime on the planet. We have an our ability to remove regimes what we cannot do is Set up a Parliamentary democracy and make it seem legitimate to minority portions of the population that do not enjoy the same amount of power and privilege and resources under the new democratic order that they enjoyed in the prior authoritarian regime This is a this is a realm in which force is simply impotent and it's not that it's not well Executed and it's not that people aren't trying the best they can it is simply totally beyond their kin to create legitimacy or a moral understanding or a acceptance of a legal moral norm or framework and Picking up on that if we could turn to Emma and specifically I'd also be interested in my hearing Some of your thoughts on Doug's comment that there's no single cause as to what gives Sort of the drive to the rise of an organization like ISIS and you know What are some of your thoughts on that on the origins of their rise and there are ability to learn from that in the future? So ISIS is a symptom of a problem and We need to better understand the conditions that gave rise to ISIS in The US it's very common to hear officials very senior officials say That Sonia and sheer have been fighting each other for centuries that it's all about ancient hatreds and this is just not accurate The regional sectarian war that the region is witnessing today has been triggered By the Iraq war it's an unintended consequence of the Iraq war So the Iraq war and the manner in which We left Iraq Changed the balance of power in the region and enabled the resurgence of Iran And so this geopolitical Competition the Doug mentioned between Iran and sunny states Led to them supporting extreme sectarian actors Another point that Doug made it was about the regimes in Syria and Iraq and so the discriminatory corrupt behavior of Iranian backed regimes in Baghdad and Damascus led to many Sunnis Calculating that ISIS is the lesser of two evils And we see the symbiotic relationship between corrupt elites and terrorists They need each other they feed off of each other they justify each other's existence So ISIS can only truly be defeated by Sunnis in Iraq and Syria But they're only going to turn against ISIS When they see it cannot win that there are better alternatives and That they're supported The US states that its policy is to defeat ISIS But currently US doesn't have a strategy to defeat ISIS We've gone from policy to implementation without strategy again And so US is aligned with the very regimes who helped create to ISIS US is acting as the Air Force for Iranian forces for sheer militia and So if the conditions and grievances that led to the rise of ISIS are not addressed Then this cycle is going to continue and son of ISIS will emerge in the future Great and if you want to pick up with some opening remarks as well and thoughts on the rise of ISIS So I want to discuss ISIS's success and I want to look at both military A conventional military factors and as well as social factors. I want to talk a little about theoretical and empirical When you look at Arab weakness and war people say it's two of the biggest factors are unit cohesion and tactical leadership The soldiers don't stick together when they come under battle pressure. The unit disintegrates doesn't act as a team They retreat and they're pursued by the enemy We saw this when the ISIS moves into Mosul many of the conscripts basically took off their uniforms and they just dissolved into the population One of the reasons for that is poor morale as the the Conventional forces have poor morale whereas ISIS fights for radiology This comes into the concept of what is jihad and jihad much maligned concept What my best definition of jihad is the statement of the prophet Muhammad you fight in the order that the word of Allah becomes supreme In Syrian contrast the FSA fights for more worldly pursuits Such as wealth and prestige. They're easily discouraged through defeats They're not ready for the long battle that has become the syrians of war Whereas ISIS sees it as an apocalyptic battle Would it be waited for for millennium and their weight they're patiently they can patiently wait it out Tactical leadership at the junior level is also a big problem in the Arab armies and accounts for their defeats No, they failed to demonstrate initiative flexibility adapting. There's no imagination of creativity One example of this that we see in many of the Arab-Israeli wars is once the enemy penetrates the lines The Arabs continue to fight head-on as opposed to worrying about their exposed flanks These deficiencies stem from Arab cultural Problems such as always deferring to senior officials for decisions ISIS doesn't have these problems its unique cohesion is very good because it fights for radiology It has excellent tactical leadership at the junior levels that they make decisions on the fly to more of a guerrilla organization And these Some of and some of these things have benefited them both in Iraq and in In Syria But there are more local and social factors that explain ISIS's success and control of certain reasons Here I want to focus on the city of manbij in the Aleppo province of Aleppo Unique factors were responsible for the weakening of the fsa and ISIS's ability to take it over So what happened in in manbij is the there there was no fsa Granite home drone fsa that rose up and over through the regime The regime fighters fled from manbij once the regime Once the the city of Drabus, which was farther north was attacked by the fsa So they was a precautionary measure to withdraw from from those areas So the popular local population did not feel that they had to Any gratitude or support for the fsa for liberating with them the regime also was not demonized In manbij because there was no brutal crackdown that was associated with Babilama in homes in um kaffir hazam in uh in hazam in in idlib in other areas where you see intense bombing But the fsa did a lousy job at governance. It couldn't provide services The fsa wasn't organized. They were internal in fighting about distribution of aid And then what happened is a town began being palmed just like other areas where the fsa was and the people blamed the fsa for this So the people were mad at the fsa for the bombing. They're mad at the corruption ISIS in the meantime sat on the sideline and watched as the fsa crumbled And didn't intervene in civilian affairs It gave the fsa enough rope to hang itself ISIS said it was fight stated to the civilians there were fighting the corrupt fsa So what happened is when isis attacked the fsa the fsa in manbij the jamal maruf which is uh Of the syrian revolutionary front one of the brigades that we funded in idlib gave them town missiles and whatnot until they fled He promised them aid and he never came through so people were even more mad at the fsa The more civilian aspects of Of the opposition of the assistance coordination unit under the controls to hail atas. He promised them civilian aid That didn't materialize. They were more even more alienated for them But when isis needed support it was able to draw on reinforcements abu omar al-chachani The chechen leader brought reinforcements in from der azure and with the help of some other Brigades such as a hara al-sham. He was able to cross areas such as al-maskina. They gave him free passage So we have a see an array of factors here That explained how it took our month Manbij in the city of rukka We see more of a divide and conquer strategy because in rukka you had several components You had the fsa the moderates you had a hara al-sham Which is a selafi organization and then you had isis and isis slowly moved against each one of these groups In june 2013 it kicked out al-farooq from tal abya in rukka In agris afar al-rasul what fsa unit was ejected when they bomb used a suicide bomber to blow up their headquarters And then the the rest of the fsa had to seek shelter with jabot hanusra for protection So they moved gravitated to the more radical organizations So basically what i wanted to show is in these two examples is that isis uses different strategies in different locations All depends on local factors and we we tend to demonize in The organization, but i spoke to when i wanted to find out what's going on in rukka yesterday I spoke to one of my contacts who's still in the city and he said as long as people have bread and water And services they're happy the people here are tribal They don't need all kinds of freedoms and whatnot and they're they're happy with the conservatism So isis doesn't do that in some other parts of al-apuleta control So when we look at the nuances, we see a lot of differences in how isis Attacks each area and tries to govern it and picking up on that you also recently has not have been to the region You've met with top shia clerks in iraq recently You've also met with sistani So you have a local perspective on what people in the region actually think about the conditions that gave rise to isis I was wondering You know, do you agree with the sentiments that have been expressed here? Could you give some of your thoughts bringing back what you heard from them over there as well? Thank you very much. I agree with many things That that was said Upfront I'll give you my my my thesis on this what's happening with isis and then go into this Why she has appeared to be some supportive of the counter isis efforts, especially the military means Why Many Sunnis not only in iraq but elsewhere appear to be kind of on the quieter side I would like to try to answer these two questions Building upon what was said and thank you to a new maca foundation for for organizing this outstanding conference I was the upfront point is I think without trying to exaggerate of what's happening the the age of small muslim wars if I make all that is upon us And this age of these limited small Transitional temporary Dislocated wars are linked to the idea of political economy of war The new buzzword In many arab and muslim states is you want to be a hero. It's time to become a cleric It's time to wear a turban it irrespective whether it's black white red or green That's the way to prominence. That's the way to heroism Um Why how how it is trans Transitioning in in in among this year. That's my first question Uh, I was in uh, Baghdad the day muslim was taken over When I moved from Baghdad some of my friends the former student at columbia university They actually took me towards najaf. I was I met um sisi stani and staying about I think a couple of minutes walk from his home. I saw in the evening these big processions Every 30 minutes. There was a big procession. This is june 2014. Um, and when I asked, um My host sports, this is about they said these are tribes These are tribes coming from all across the south of iraq Asking and demanding mr. Sistani that he should declare Jihad or he should declare war upon isis and should allow them to go and fight it out on tribal lines or And declare an out outright war And that's what happened And I want to jump to my next point before ending the first one what she has think because my second point will help me Explain the sheer narrative and the sheer response better. So when the isis Rose and with all the brutalities all the atrocities All the challenge to the state, um, what was the reaction of the top sunni clerics from al azar To barilvi and the oband in in south asia to other islamic centers. They condemned it They challenged it But they were quite that's where they stopped Coming back to the shears in case of sheer see mr. Sistani came a fatwa He declared jihad on isis, but declared it that The these militias or tribes or shears who were not very well organized. I mean, this was quite abrupt This was quite instantaneous. I saw it firsthand He said to them, but you will have to go and report to military headquarters different military, um forces in baghdad And work operate under their command and control I personally feel what would transpire later on that this was, um, apparently not a very well thought out decision although very proactive From our perspective in the west, um, something very categorical something very forceful But not well thought out because we know who benefited from it. Maybe unintentionally It was the iranians, um, who came in in big numbers And fought I actually I I had a chance to go to iraq four times in last one year And I saw this change in baghdad. I saw this time in december big posters in baghdad of iranian martyrs who are operating under iranian forces But now the iranians have those big posters in baghdad. So yes, the fatwa against isis work It was maybe well intentioned not well thought out because it led to the rise of iranian influence And and that has not been seen in a very positive light When I met iranian politicians two things they said to me, uh, which I just want to quote I'll I'll be um to be fair to them and to my hosts One thing they said, um, they knew i'm american but out of the pakistani roots They said well the americans couldn't find any arab They finally found a pakistani to send any message and it took me some time to explain. There's no message I have I'm a mayor academic Trying to learn something but the second point was more Forceful but they said, um, they were categorical even in About uh in july august time frame in 2014 They said we can clearly see that americans are now hand in gloves with the iranians iran they said quoting them They said americans have sublet the ira conflict theater to iranians And that's the coordination is happening and irrespective of how I challenged it and I said it's impossible I'm telling you I live in dc. It's not possible. They said no, this is what is happening Coming to my final point In case of the sunnis why they were quite and I have one more minute, uh in the sunnis Never went beyond condemning it because there was a vacuum isis never rose out of the blue It was a narrative created by al qaeda by taliban by many such groups We were maybe living in a foolish paradise thinking that what's happening in syria will not have an impact It definitely had an impact the narrative was ready. The vacuum was there. Someone just had to walk into that narrative Through of course media through talking about the umma And the last point is from both this year and sunni perspective. Uh, what is happening is a war an internal war Inspired by uh, ttp against the last book I I would like to write a book and call islam's longest war The war is an internal war and if I may inform you this is not a shea sunni war This is much beyond that. Uh, what strategy we have To challenge that it's my last sentence. Um, I must congratulate whosoever is building that strategy Um in us because they're keeping it so confidential and so That's the only thing they're keeping So I just to pick up on that I mean I sit here and I listen to all your remarks and I sit here and I listen to panels around dc and you know There's a lot of deja vu to all this working on a rock back in 040506, which is when I worked on it I mean If we weren't talking about going to mozal now There was a battle for mozal if we could be you know, november 2004 talking about going into mozal What our strategy would be in terms of informational social media Not as big of an issue then as it is now but same thing in terms of informational messaging So given that we're supposed to be drawing lessons about how to do this better Why are we still having the same conversations? And why aren't there more innovative ideas in the mix and how do we foster that type of innovative thinking? I mean there was an interesting question about the silicon valley entrepreneurship and why that can't be integrated In other areas of government, but why aren't we hearing new types of strategies new approaches in these debates and do you have any ideas on those fronts? I think it's it's it's the same people lots of people are frozen in the same time Yes, this this sounds a lot like 2006 and 2007, but it is absolutely not 2006 and 2007 We heard echoes of this earlier when we first had the sweep through you know through mozal down into tukrit There was lots of talk about well This is just an internal suni shia war and this is the sunis rising up once again against this oppressive government in bagdad And that was the narrative for about two months And then they made this inexplicable left turn towards urbil And all of a sudden that narrative didn't explain things anymore This is just an uprising against the maliki government. Why on earth are they attacking the Kurds who had made it very clear They had no intentions of moving into the air of territories. They were just guarding their own lands So why this I think this is this is showing us that we are dealing with something different You know are there aspects of this which are a suni revolt against the central government? Yes, absolutely But is that sufficient to explain this phenomenon? Absolutely not and we see that again in this letter of the you know Why slatter is it if you're mad at maliki? Why attack the Kurds if you're mad at maliki? This is something different But I think many minds are locked in 2006 and 2007 the last time many of the people talking about this were there And that I think freezes the conversation in many ways And what do you think inhibits our ability it would mean the White House just held its summit last week It actually hasn't come up in this conversation But there's been a lot of debate, you know in the press and lots of articles about You know what the strategy should be for countering this type of extremism And I was wondering if you could speak if you could give some, you know recommendations on the informational media side of the equation on the Psychological and informational side of this software power war What should we be doing both globally and in terms of the United States? And are there lessons to do it better to prevent groups like other groups from developing ISIS like strategies in the future Well the minute you embrace the cleric that A cleric has discredited in the eyes of most Muslims, I mean nobody wants to be on stage with the president of the United States It's support someone who's on the president of the United States while he's Giving presidents made in America bombs The people publish that Yeah, yeah But uh More broadly what we can do is So what happened in Islam popular religion traditionally has been associated with Sufism and mysticism. It's um Very uneducated a lot of the rural areas where they didn't have education was this was their type of Islam Salafism makes that public enemy number one. Wahhabism. That's what they talked about building big graves They destroyed the graves in the Bakiya cemetery and Medina the she cemetery other saints So that they they go they attack them from one side on the other side when you have the movement Um of rural flight into urban areas There's a crisis of identity in Arab society and what they do is they give up their Their popular religion that they were brought up on as they go through this crisis If I mean they rediscovered themselves in more urban Salafism So you have these push and pull factors that move them away from Sufism now Sufism historically is non-militant More moderate You read the ignoze goes here's book introduction Islam Law and theology was the best introduction on Islam He'll talk about that Sufism is the ultimate form of Islam and how it's compatible with everyone else Well for the policy recommendation is here is we need to support Sufi institutions We have Habib Omar in a city Tareem in Hadramout in Yemen. I visited with him many years ago He has a massive center. He brings in a lot of foreign students We need to find a way to fund Sufi institutes such as his to resurrect Sufism because Sufism has the message And the historical precedent in power to combat Salafi radicalism Great. I want to also just make sure we have time for questions, but chime in and then we'll turn to the audience Hi, Barak. I love your idea. We're having some interest in Sufism and having some claim to some association But the and in principle, I mean I absolutely appreciate your idea But what would I think in the last 10 years from the United States point of view have invested so much in this this broader idea of winning hearts and minds And so much has been invested in seeing who the partners are, but at the end of the day the partners that we picked Were not evident of any consistent policy at our hand If if meeting Sufis and supporting them is a great idea But if in the morning we are meeting a Sufi and in the evening we are meeting a thug and in We are having a dinner with an authoritarian leader Then it all of them will lose their credibility. So the policy has to be consistent even if I have to say I would argue Given the internal nature and and vibrancy of this unfortunate conflict within the Muslim world Maybe it's a little time to step away Or at least a few steps backward for some time Rather than and I have been Projecting this idea and brail be Sunnis, but it seems nothing is working in this regard. So maybe Time to recollect our thoughts rethink the strategy and step away from supporting anyone Support should be based on principles. Absolutely Groups if our value is about human rights, let's pick partners who who value human rights Anyone violating certain level of human rights Sufis, Shia, Sunnis, Ahmadis step away from If we could just leave some time for Yes, we'd like to sort of agree with Dr. Hassan on this point when you look at what's happening in the Middle East A lot of this is a power struggle. It's about power by being in bed with specific regimes That doesn't help So how can the u.s play more of a role as a balancer the balance of power in the region has been upset The u.s can't be involved in internal struggle within Sunni Islam That's something for Sunni Muslims to sort out among themselves But the u.s can play a role in trying to create a better balance of power in the region And within countries rather than supporting specific regimes Who are discriminatory towards their minorities and we see this across the gulf we see this in many different places Great and we have time for a few quick questions from the audience if you could identify yourself before your question Yes gentleman in the back Hi, i'm al gambas from the state department On that last point that panel was talking about i'm wondering While we can't have the united states get directly involved in these these internal skirmishes within the the religion Is it possible to try to inoculate the next generation with concepts that we would find More amenable to us Such as promoting the some of the principles in the universal declaration of human rights Inocating that into the the curriculum of the schools The popular the popular media the popular entertainment within these cultures So that they're more sensitized to these western values that we would And that not necessarily western because universal declaration obviously was was Adopted by every country When it was drafted except for Saudi Arabia Um But the idea that that we can use these to inoculate them to the narrative of some of these more radical elements Granted that it would be a generational thing, but is that the the best way to go? Is it the only way to go? I would support that absolutely and I would being a teacher and an academic I would argue in teaching students who come from To us at national defense university from all across the world partner nations 60 nations What I've seen is that mere interaction mere dialogue mere exposure even makes a difference. So if if if that leads to more Linkages which are educational which are more professional At at a broader level linked to institution buildings in these countries Especially if those are linked to rule of law There's no need to always have the banner of democracy Rule of law is at the core of these things if there's no rule of law There's no criminal justice system. There's no effective policing Democracy cannot be built And if we frame we need to frame the issues slightly differently pro education Pro institution building and and those interactions will will help build new generations in many of these conflict regions Which which which will be better partners? Time for one or two more quick questions because we're running low on time here Although I think we started slightly late Let's can we do two lightning questions? Then we can respond to those So are there any hands over here that I'm missing? No I let's go over there and then Right over there as well Hi, I'm louis bloom a former fellow at new america. I'm a journalist. I wonder if you all could Give your thoughts on how isis has used social media and video to project our power worldwide And how journalists might work to not republish or publish some of these materials How it's used to recruit and how governments can create a strategy to counter this Great, and then if we could just get that one more question and then The panel can Take in shoes Good afternoon. Jalal Mugani from humanized global. Thank you for organizing such a great event And thank you to the panel. I just had a question regarding how do we what are the practical? Maybe a practical recommendation and moving away from the sectarian narrative And addressing the true regional political and economic problems that are at stake with the rise of isis and extremism in the area If the panel could speak more to that. Thank you Great. So if somebody wants to take the social media question or the political economic I'll grab on to the political because I think Emma and I are going to be in violent agreement here I think we you know, this is an extremely complicated problem that has multiple layers on going on Simultaneously of micro micro level things and then you know some large some large causes But I think we do need to at least In our rhetoric acknowledge the problem the you know root problems You know, this is not oh terrorists need jobs But this is you know systematic, you know large scale unemployment of young men in the region In these authoritarian regimes almost all of which are oppressive to their minorities and in some cases majorities Is a real problem and then those are fundamental root causes Now I think I think we're out of the regime change business You know, we don't we don't want to overthrow these states the very limited stability that they provide Is still better than nothing but at least in our rhetoric I think we need to be saying look, you know, you you can cooperate with us on some issues But so long as you're an authoritarian state that represses its minorities You know provides no economic opportunity for your people. You're not an ally of ours We make you're not a friend of ours We may cooperate on some limited issues But you need to be taking steps in all these regions before you're you know on the team Anybody on the social media question that was asked So if you watch these videos and you read their Tweets, I mean, it's so sophisticated and we know what they were doing inside the prison How many videos they were making and recordings that never got published by the western hostages Their their ability and their their the isis's level of Of the use of social media against its islamic adversaries is phenomenal I mean, they're they're a small percentage of of the of the umma the islamic community But when you look at the the the their tweets I mean, they're just they just take them apart and they The thing is they don't really have good legal basis. I mean they keep quoting the same three or four scholars But they they How they attack their adversaries and how they It's like a clinton team, you know, you always attack That's what that's what they're doing and and sometimes their adversaries can't come back And how they recruit The they they bring people in from europe With the with the social media I mean, we know based on some people that have come in come in and defected The the poll that social media has and it's a it's a new thing that we never saw in afghanistan or even in iraq How how it works? I did want to make one point about the Education about what hassan said and how do you address it and not kill it? I think was the word it all about education So i've been reading this uh, this tome of fatwas saudi fatwas And knighted bed before I go to bed and there's just one section on the infidels And the questions are like and the questions are addressed like bin bas. It was the big sheikh The big moof tea we died a while ago and it's like can we go travel in the land of the infidels? Can we work there? Can we study there? And the vitriol and the hatred for us I mean how he characterizes is just so horrible I mean bin land did not come up with the word crusaders in the vacuum Bin bas is using describing us as crusaders Even when they're just as people are asking can he come can they just come visit and see the eifel tower Until you address that and and change the curriculum We're not going to change people's views Well, thank you so much. Thank you for all of your thoughts today And I appreciate having you on the panel on that not so optimistic note I'm sure there's much more we can discuss but unfortunately we're over time. So thank you everybody


The law courts that deal with recovery of damages are generally empowered to settle private disputes between citizens. In our current political and legal environment, this is a service to private citizens and only secondarily to the larger public. It provides a means for those who use the system to have their disputes brought before a judge in terms of injuries suffered by one party and acts of another that caused that injury. Where the concept is simple enough and the public purpose obvious, there is nothing obvious about the value this has to those who are in dispute. The first note is that it addresses a very narrow set of challenges, disputes where there are provable injuries. It does not address other disputes that might lead to breaches of public tranquility. The first warning sign on the general approach is that using the court creates legal damages. It is not a benefit for those who use the system but an additional cost and burden. That is troubling as it denies this as a service to those who are in dispute. It claims a public purpose that is harmful to the public that comes within the legal jurisdiction of the court. In that it is much like criminal law but administering punishment to those who might disturb the peace because of their private quarrels. That would indeed be a valid surface under the sovereignty concept of English law. It is less clearly so in a government that exists only to serve the interests of a sovereign citizenry. With this admonition, we can look to the processes of tort law as are in effect in fulfillment of American law. We have a tort law approach that is economic in purpose. It supports and maintains a type of legal practitioner business through the way the courts approach tort law. It uses the tort as a special arm of government that sees to the employment of tort law specialists. Tort lawyers are an effective necessity for making use of tort law. What we have is not any part of common law. It is not law for the common citizen in this. It is not properly within the common law foundation. It thrives on a special knowledge of legislation and legal principles that are not commonly understood. It is indicative that such laws and principles are not derived by leaders who represent the people. Laws that common citizens do not understand are not representative of them. Laws and principles created by actions of the court are through those who are not even elected to be their officers. So the first action of any citizen who has suffered a significant loss due to the acts of others is to seek a combination from private insurance companies. The unfortunate truth is that these private businesses often give better public service than the courts that hear the actions in tort law. If accommodation cannot be made or the damages greatly exceed the available insurance, then there is a secondary approach through review of the action with a tort lawyer. Again, the accommodation is more likely through private attorney actions than through a citizen accessing and supposedly using public courts. For the attorney, it is a business decision whether there can be sufficient recovery from available insurance or the wealth of the one who has caused the injury to pay for his legal services. There is a question of whether that injury can be proven along with proving that the acts of the other party actually and materially caused the injury. Lacking this, the injured party can still hire the attorney as a separate financial and service arrangement, noting that the action is going to be expensive and the outcome is not so sure that the attorney is willing to proceed on contingency of winning. For damage recovery actions, the next step is often contacting the party who has caused the damage, suggesting that he be represented by a tort lawyer and that they need to see if the matter can be resolved without involving the courts. Another alternative is for the attorney to file papers with the court to bring the matter to official court notice, which is an option that can further encourage the accused tort feeser to get an attorney and come to the table for negotiating a settlement. It is not at all uncommon for the accused to contact his or her insurance carriers to raise the potential for their joint interests so that he or she can gain a tort lawyer support from that source. This can greatly reduce personal costs for the one or both parties. The purpose of the first contact is not to heighten or better to find the dispute, but to see if the matter is subject to resolution through efforts of special attorneys. Encouraging use of the damaging court process as a public service is the last thing most attorneys will try. It is far easier and less expensive to use the court actions as a threat instead of any part of a solution. If the threat of going to court is sufficient to get the parties to agree, the action is settled out of court. If the court has been notified, then the court is again contacted with the resolution so that they can clear its files and cancel any action that has been set. If accommodation cannot be reached, then the process of legal adjudication is activated and the prescribed actions are used to establish the dispute for resolution in court. It is often sufficient with this step to so define the dispute that resolution becomes relatively certain and the parties are again urged to resolve their dispute without further court involvement. As noted in the assigned reading, it is only those actions where potential findings of legal damages far exceeds the threat of court expenses in time and effort and where reasonable accommodations have been rejected that the action gets into open court before the judge. The involvement of the insurance carrier attorney may well encourage the court action as the costs of any loss get spread over many customers to the insurance company and it can be beneficial to test out some new approach or way of limiting damages that is potentially beneficial to the business of insurance even if it only puts a moderate time and expense on the represented party. The action of a court to receive the evidence of the cause and deliberate on whether the evidence proves the loss of legal responsibility of the accused is undertaken if proven the judgment will address damages to be assessed along with reasonable attorney expenses. If unproven, the expenses may be assessed to the complaining party or absorbed by the court as its determination that the cause is properly brought before the court for adjudication that is support for the use of attorneys which is part of the existing legal system. The final act of a successful suit is usually for the tort fees or to arrange payment of judgment. If this is not done, the judgment may be taken to the appropriate police authority to seize upon the property to be sold at public auction and satisfaction of the debt. Finally the attorney accepts payment on behalf of his or her client and divides out and makes delivery of payment to the client. This closes out their contractual arrangement. Again, avoidance of government official involvement is highly preferred due to the expenses in time and services. Also, the service is not stable in the sense of operating rules of the court. It is, for example, currently vogue to start with the concept that one injured should be granted relief of some type. The court reacts with an attempt to find damages to redress, even if it is a bit of a stretch to find them. This is neither right or wrong in any absolute sense, but rather acts as a statement of the lack of definition in what our law courts should be doing in pursuit of justice and domestic tranquility. Being favorable to the complaint is technically no different than being favorable to the defense. It is the court favoring one side or the other in a dispute because that is the general leaning of the law that is in vogue. The courts do try their best to satisfy the public sense of fairness and justice, no matter what that sense might be. We also look at the concept of legislation of tort. Where does the private quarrel become a matter of public concern, such that there is some need for legislation to define a cause of tort action or to set limits on damages and recoveries? It is not a question that is easy answered, especially not on a political arena. If there is some way for the public law to be used to minimize the cost of legal actions while still assuring a high level of justice or services, that can be explored. Can government engage in a public insurance or citizens as though setting recoveries for common causes, so that only special case situations have to be addressed in court to find justice? Will this promote justice or injustice? We now have a punitive system where it does serve its basic purpose of providing citizens a mean to address more serious causes of damage in a nonviolent way. It provides a safety valve that promotes people coming to resolution without involving the courts, and that is also a value. It primarily fails for not being a service that gets delivered to the public. On the performance side, we have just two metrics. The first is what gets accomplished and delivered to the public customer. The second is what it costs the public to gain what the public receives. Of immediate note for performance, the required cost of attorney representation is part of the system cost, not some separate and external business. As it is required to achieve justice, it is a direct cost. The public service is in terms of having a nonviolent means for sovereign citizens to resolve their differences through damage recovery. This of course is not a public service. It is a service for those who have significant disagreements that are based on provable injuries and acts of cause for injuries. The public service is actually the handling of the more serious injuries that sovereign citizens receive at the hands of private parties. The injuries suffered from government actions are addressed in accord with legislation, but are otherwise denied. This does provide a level of resolution, though generally not one that would be called just. It is also being paid for by the parties more of a private service to the injured parties than any true public service. If you need court action or cannot avoid it, the judicial system is in place to seek monetary restitution. This is your legal system for handling torts through damages. It is not the only way that courts deal with personal wrongs, or we would have to seek to replace it with something that serves more equitably. It is backed up with an alternative law tort system that has traditionally been called courts of equity. The second side of tort law will be the subject of our next lesson.


Okay, guys. I sent an email out this morning because apparently there was a misprint on one of the practice exam questions. There was an incorrect answer that was given as correct. Hopefully, if you guys examined that answer in a little more detail, you would have noticed that it was incorrect, but it said that sodium chloride breaks up into sodium minus ions and chlorine plus ions. Instead of giving you that as the correct answer on the test, because I don't want you guys to believe that sodium would ever break up into minus ions or chlorine would ever break up into plus ions, no matter what the practice exam tells you. Instead, I'm going to go back and regrade all the tests, throwing that question out, and giving more points for the rest of the questions. Okay? So, I think that's the most fair way of doing it, just again, so we won't get in our heads that it's the right answer that I'm giving you credit for. So, we'll just throw it out. That being said, of course, there's no test to hand back today. So, what I'll do is probably just hand it back when I was going to originally on Friday. So, just you're going to have to wait until Friday to get your exam back. Okay? So, but if there are any questions or you think that, you know, something was misgraded, please bring it to my attention. Of course, I want to know all about that. You know, I don't want to discourage anybody from doing that. But, yeah, so when it, but when it is wrong, we'll just throw the question out. The other thing is, is today I'm trying to, trying something new. I put a microphone on, I hopefully, for the online people or those of you who watch the lectures. Yeah, sometimes they're hard to hear. Hopefully, this will alleviate all of those problems with, you know, audio. So, if this, if this works out, if anybody could listen to it, email me and tell me what they hear, if it's much better, or whatever, we'll use this microphone from now on. Okay? Hopefully, you won't hear all of my extra noises while I'm like my burps and stuff like that. Okay? But anyways, so I think the last thing we talked about last time, I think we got past wait, wait percent. And I think we started talking about parts per thousand parts per million, right? And we talked how these are exactly like the weight volume percentage questions, except where instead we've got weight volume percent. Let's just write these out all together. So we got percent weight volume equals parts per thousand remember is grams of solute over mills of solution multiplied by 1000 or 10 to the 3rd is 1000 PPT. When we look at weight volume, it's grams of solute over mills of solution times 100. PPT, remember is this is the units for parts per thousand, just like percentage is the units for parts per hundred or weight, parts per hundred and weight, weight, or percent weight volume is like the same thing. Okay? So you can see these formulae are very similar. And if we looked at parts per million, the only difference would be, so you guys know if I do that, that means the same thing, right? The only difference would be instead of a thousand here, it'd be a million. And I'm not going to write all those zeros. I'll just put 10 to the 6th that PPM and that's parts per million.  Let's just do it in wait, wait, the same thing. Thanks for pointing that out. When you're doing water, when you're doing water solutions, a lot of times the mass of the solution will be the same as the number of mills of the solution due to the density. But, again, when you increase the concentration of solute, your density also increases. So, yeah, it's good to do it in grams of solution, I guess, yeah. Okay, so let's talk about molarity and, or remember molarity and then talk about equivalence per liter and realize this is similar to molarity. So, if we looked at this question here and it asks, what does it ask? One molar Na3PO4, so one molar sodium phosphate, right? And it asks us, well, what's the concentration of, well, let's just do sodium ions and you can do the concentration of phosphate ions on your own. So it's asking us, well, what's the concentration of sodium ions? Well, how do we figure that out? Remember, the chemical equation gives us the ratio. So, remember, we have this 1 mol Na3PO4 ratio. So we're going to have this conversion factor of 1 mol Na3PO4 to 3 mols of Na plus ions. And then all we've got to do to figure out the concentration of Na plus is say, well, we've got 1 molar Na3PO4. Multiply that by, well, we want to cancel molar Na3PO4. Sorry, I guess I should have written this, too. So, this, I don't like this. 1 mol per liter, like that. So, remember, mol per liter is 1 molar. So to cancel that out, you have 1 molar Na3PO4 to 3 molar Na plus ions, like that, like that. And then 1 times 3, of course, is 3. So we've got 3 molar Na plus ions. So, again, you can use the chemical equation just like we could with moles here. We could do it with moles per liter. And moles per liter, remember, is molar. Okay, so very similar, but slightly different. Unit is the equivalence per liter. And equivalence is the number of charge or the number of moles of charge per liter. So let's do this same problem, except let's talk about phosphate and talk about equivalence per liter. So, if we've got 1 mol per liter, 1 molar Na3PO4, and we wanted to know how many equivalence per liter of phosphate we would have. Well, equivalence per liter, so instead of moles, it's actually moles of charge is equivalence, okay? So when you're asked, well, how many equivalence does sodium have? It's because you only have a plus 1 there, it's going to be 1 equivalence, okay? If we look at phosphate, it's got 3, a minus charge of 3. So we could say that has 3 equivalence. So you want to think of equivalence per liter kind of equal to moles of charge per liter. So if we wanted to ask, well, if we've got 1 molar Na3PO4, well, the number of equivalence per liter of phosphate, so equivalence per liter of phosphate would be 1 mol, I'll just do it this way, 1 mol per liter Na3PO4, and for every 1 mol of Na3PO4, we're going to have what? 3 equivalence of phosphate, like that. Where did we get this 3 from? Right there, okay? So like that. So we're going to have 3 equivalence per liter of phosphate, okay? So if we ask the same question, if we have 1 molar, sorry, 1 molar sodium phosphate, how many equivalence per liter of sodium would we have? What do you guys think would be the answer there for sodium? Think it would be 1? It would be actually 1 times 3, okay? Because you've got to multiply it by the coefficient, okay? Because it's going to be here, right, 3 equivalence because of this, but it's also going to be 3 equivalence of sodium because for every 1 mol of sodium phosphate, you've got 3 mols of sodium ions, okay? So you're going to have to convert that first, okay? So I'd like you guys to try that one on your own and make sure you can cancel out your units to get to 3 equivalence of sodium as well, okay? So it should come logically that it should be 3 equivalence because we've got 1 equivalent for every sodium ion, right? And for every 3 sodium ions, we only have 1 sodium phosphate, okay? So try to cancel them out on your own. So that's essentially this problem. Here we did the phosphate portion of it. And then there you go. You can do mols to mols of charge, mols of charge to equivalence. Okay, so let's talk about colloids now. This will be the last topic we talk about and the properties of colloidal solutions. In chapter 7, okay? Maybe get through with it today, maybe not. Okay, so what's the difference between a colloid and a solution? Well, a colloid, unlike a solution, contains solute particles which are not uniformly distributed. So what does that mean? Unlike a solution where if you look at a solution, right, the solution is clear. It doesn't appear to have particles in it if we're visually inspecting it, okay? A colloidal suspension, you can see the actual particles in the suspension, okay? So this is due to the larger size of these particles. So these particles are from 1 to 200 nanometers, okay? So it appears identical to the solution from the as a solution from the naked eye, but you can visually inspect them. I don't know if you guys can see it very well. If you shine a light through them, here let's see if we can turn off. Okay, so if you shine a light through it, right, you can see here we've got a solution. We can't see any of the particles. Here we've got the particles diffracting there and we can actually see them, okay? And then smaller than 1 nanometer, you have a solution larger than 1 nanometer as a precipitate. This effect that we're seeing here, the colloidal suspension, the particles will scatter light like we're showing here. If we compare it to a solution, we see no quote-unquote haze, right? We call this the Tyndall effect named after some guy Tyndall. So the Tyndall effect is this ability of a colloidal suspension to scatter light. So this is this haze you see when shining light through the mixture and with the solution, the particles are so small that the light doesn't bounce off of them, okay? Or at least you can't see the light bouncing off of them. Okay, so let's talk about colligative properties and colligative properties is just properties of colloidal suspensions, okay? Or sorry, properties of solutions, but so these properties of the solution depend solely on the number of moles of solvent particles and they don't depend on the identity of those particles. So these particles can be polar, nonpolar, small, large, so on and so forth. It doesn't matter. It only matters the concentration of the solute particles, it should say, not their identity. So there's four colligative properties that we're going to talk about. The first one is vapor pressure lowering. The second one is boiling point elevation, freezing point depression, and osmotic pressure. And each property depends on the solute molecules to not be able to cross a phase barrier, okay? So this is a phase change recall would be like going from a liquid to a gas or a solid to a liquid or something like that, okay? So these properties depends on the solute molecules not being able to do that, cross the barrier from going from, in the case of boiling point elevation, liquid to vapor or freezing point depression, liquid to solid, okay? Osmotic pressure is to go between or be able to get through a semipermeable membrane, which we'll talk about later. Okay, so let's talk about non-volatile, non-electrolytes, and this is what we'll think of all of the solutions of questions that have to deal with colligative properties, okay? We'll think of all of these solutions as having solutes that are non- volatile and non-electrolyte, non-electrolytic, okay? So recall what that means, non-volatile, volatile means to be able to go into the vapor phase, okay? So a non-volatile solute would be something that's, you know, rather heavy that you can expect that it's not going to go from the liquid to the vapor phase or from the solid to the vapor phase, okay? That's all that means, it's non-volatile. Non-electrolyte, do you guys remember what an electrolyte is? It's kind of that question that was incorrect on the practice exam, too. Anybody can tell me what an electrolyte is? So what is it? When something, what? Yeah, so when it gets dissolved into a solute or solution, right, it'll break into its ions instead of just dissolving whole, right? Like sodium chloride is a very good example of something that's an electrolyte. When we dissolve that into water, it breaks into its ions, like that, okay? So what do you think it means to be a non- electrolyte? It doesn't break up into ions, okay? So these are things that when dissolved don't break up into ions, okay? So those would be what? Covalent compounds, okay? So non-ionic compounds, okay? So you can think of a non-volatile non-electrolyte as something that's not going to go into the vapor phase or break up into ions, okay? So what is vapor pressure? Let's talk about vapor pressure. This picture here actually gives you a good idea about what's going on. So we've talked about this before when we evacuate, we have a flask, right? And we evacuate it, we take all the air out of the flask and we put a liquid in that flask. So say we sucked all the air out and we put a liquid in, right? So the only thing that's in there is liquid particles. What's going to happen is because there's no air up here, right? The surface particles are going to go up, vaporize and go into the vapor phase and, you know, rest on top of the liquid solution here. And over time, of course, we're going to have a lowering of that solvent level, but we're going to have particles in the vapor phase now and some particles still in the liquid phase, okay? So the pressure of these particles pushing back down onto the liquid, we call that the vapor pressure, okay? So on the earth, right, the relative humidity is like the vapor pressure, okay? What you find is that when you put a solute in there, a non-volatile non-electrolyte, so what can't, if it's a non-volatile non-electrolyte, what can't it do when we're looking at something going from the liquid to the vapor phase? What can't it do? We just talked about that for like 10 minutes. It's not going to vaporize, right? Thank you. It's not going to vaporize, so only the solvent particles will vaporize, not the solute particles, right? That's why when we look at A to B here, right, when we've got these solute particles in there, we don't see any of them above the liquid phase in this mixture, okay? So what is this saying is that when we compare the solvent by itself relative to the solution, right, over time more particles from the solvent alone will be able to vaporize from the liquid to the vapor phase, okay? But if we look at the solution, because there's the particles that on the surface, right, so we've got solute particles, our solvent particles, and some solute particles, every once in a while we'll have a solute particle, these guys can vaporize, but when we get here these guys can't, so this one won't be able to vaporize, okay? So due to this phenomenon of these solute particles on the surface blocking the lower ones to be able to vaporize, what you'll find is that the vapor pressure will be relatively lower in a solution than it will be in the pure solvent because the molecules underneath the surface that are the solvent molecules can't vaporize, okay? Because there's this physical barrier, right? It's like a wall, like if there's a door here, right?  Or I open the door, so it's like, here's the solvent particle, or the solute particle, I'm a solvent particle, I can't get out, right, until it moves out of the way, then I can get out of there, right? Okay? So it's going to take a long time, it's going to take a lot more energy, right? To get into the vapor phase, okay? Does that make sense? So if there's something in the way, I can't go, right? But if there's nothing in the way, then I can go. It can, it can, but, right? But it can, but it takes more energy, right? And over time, it'll take more, the ones that don't have to move around will be jumping off faster, right? Getting out of there faster. The ones that do have to move around, it'll take time, right? That's why, like, when you go to the grocery store, you go into the shorter line, then you go into the longer line. You go into the longer line, like do this, do this experiment.  That's like colligative properties, okay? So all of the colligative properties are like that, okay? They're all this physical barrier that this thing has to get through. Therefore, you're going to have vapor pressure lowering, boiling point elevation, freezing point depression, same as the lowering, and osmotic pressure. Of course, it's not just as simple as that, right? There's an equation behind this that you're just going to have to do some math problems about. But it's not so bad, okay? It's called Rawl's Law, and it's Rawl's Law vapor pressure lowering, and it states, Rawl's some guy who's dead, right? When non-volatile solute is added to a solvent, the vapor pressure of the solvent decreases in proportion to the concentration of solute added. So that makes sense, right? All that saying is that the more solute I add, the lower the vapor pressure is going to be, okay? The more and more barriers I add, the harder it's going to be to get through there, right? If there's only one short line at the grocery store, right? It's going to take you much longer time, unless there are much longer time than if there was only one long line, okay? So that's kind of like the saying, okay? So the pressure of, and here's the note, sorry, this should say solution, pressure of solution equals the, X is the mole fraction of the solvent times the original vapor pressure, or the vapor pressure of the pure solvent. All of this stuff has to be given to you. Just going to multiply them together, okay? And then you're going to have this, so you got the original, subtracted the new, that equals the change, okay? So whenever you got this symbol, remember this delta symbol? This delta means change of, okay? So this is the change in the pressure. So this is going to be, the change in the pressure is going to be the original pressure minus the new pressure, right? Does that make sense? So this is the original of the solvent, and this is the new of the solvent, so this is like the solution, but we'll just say the new of the solvent, okay? And that actually equals the mole fraction of the solute times the original pressure of the solvent, okay? So that's all you got to really realize. So I could give it to you, give you the change this way, or I could give you these numbers and you could figure out the change, okay? So again, all this is, is trying to get through these barriers, okay? It's going to be the same thing for all four of these types of properties. Here's a problem that you go through in detail. I'd like you to go through this one on your own. Notice here the mole fraction. This might be something that we talked about. So the mole fraction is just what you would expect it to be. X is the mole fraction here. Let's just go over that portion of this calculation. Mole fraction is just like percentage. So what is this saying here? So it's saying that we have 10 mls of glycerol and it's giving us the density of glycerol and we're going to have to figure out the molecular weight of glycerol. All of that gives us the number of moles of glycerol and if we figure out, and we've got the density of water here, we've got the number of mls of water so we can figure out the number of moles of water, okay? So from those two equations you get the number of moles of the two different things that are in your solution, the solvent and the solute, okay? So let's just look at how they're calculating the mole fraction, okay? Remember this is an integral part of the Raoult's law, this X here, this mole fraction. So the mole fraction of the solute, which is what you're looking for, is going to be the moles of solute divided by the total number of moles, right? Total number of moles. And what's the total number of moles? What do you guys think that is? Number of moles of what plus number of moles of what? Yeah, solvent plus solute. So here we figured out that this was 27.4 moles plus 0. what was it, 1, 3, 7 moles, okay? So that number there is going to be that number there and then of course this number here is equal to this number. So that's going to be 0.137 moles, okay? It's just like what you would expect it to be. The mole fraction is the number of moles of the 1 over the number of moles total, okay? So go through this problem on your own, calculate it all out and if you have any problems with it we can go over it next time, okay? It might be the first thing we do next time. But I want to see that you guys made an effort to do it, okay? If you don't make an effort then we won't go over it. If I'd be like, bam, tell me, you know?  So just like vapor pressure lowering, boiling point elevation, you can imagine you're going to have to go from, you can imagine the boiling point, you're going to have to go through a phase change, right? So if I'm going from a liquid to a vapor, that's what boiling is, right? If I'm going from a liquid to a vapor, that's boiling, right? That's what you would expect. So I have to go through the phase change of liquid to vapor, okay? Remember we talked about when you have a solution there's going to be particles on the barrier of the liquid to the, or of the phase change, in this case the liquid to the gas phase change that are going to not allow those particles underneath it to go from the liquid to the gas, okay? So let's talk about this. Okay, remember the grocery store analogy. Okay, so here, how many people have ever boiled something on the stove? Yeah, everybody? Okay, good. Some of you haven't, I see, but those of you who haven't take what the other people have done when they say, yeah, I know that or whatever and realize that it's the truth. Okay, so when you boil like water, you want to cook something, a lot of times you'll add salt to the water, right? Why do you add salt to it? Well, not just to season the stuff, okay? Not just because it tastes better salty, that's not why. But some people said it boils faster, that's what some people said, that's not really the case. It actually takes a longer time to get to boiling temperature. But what's another, somebody else said the reason? Why? It boils, it raises the boiling point, boiling point elevation, right? So what happens is when you make a solution, the, so let's look at this, right? So here's the pure water, right? So all of those at the surface are water molecules, okay? Compare that to our salt solution that we're going to use to boil our spaghetti or whatever, okay? Not all of those will be water particles, right? One of those or a few of those will be salt molecules, right? In this case we're talking about non-electrolytes, so let's just pretend we put something else in there besides salt, but whatever. You can imagine some of them are not water molecules, remember? And they're not going to evaporate, okay? So what's going to happen? What's going to happen to this molecule here, this water molecule there? Is it going to be able to evaporate? No, because there's a barrier in the way, right? So it's trying to, because we got this thing, this burner on it, you know? It's like, man I gotta get out of here, it's getting too hot for me, but it can't because it's being stuck, right? So what's happening? Well, these guys, right, are able to take off at will, you know? They're taking off going wherever, right? After the same amount of time, what would you expect? Would you expect, so say when this one's all boiled away, would you expect these to still, some of this to still be here? Why is that? Because there's the things blocking, right? Remember the grocery store analogy, okay? If two of you go in at the same time, one of you stands in the longest line, the other one stands in the shortest line, which one is going to come out first, right? So it's not that actually it speeds up the boiling, it actually slows it down, that's what we proved here, right? It slows it down. But what it does is it increases the boiling temperature, right? Because at 100 degrees Celsius, these guys are taking off, right? Because that's the boiling point of water. When you get to 100 degrees Celsius here, these guys want to take off but they can't, okay? So what's actually happening is you've got to get them to a higher temperature before they'll start taking off and boiling, okay? Remember this is, again, remember that barrier, right?  Because there's a barrier in front of me. If there was no barrier there, then I could take off, okay? So just like vapor pressure lowering, this is this between phases things, okay? And here's the equation for boiling point elevation, okay? KB, this K, that's just a constant, okay? That's something I have to give you. And remember the little m, do you guys remember molality? Okay? So if you don't remember molality, you've got to go back and learn it, okay? So if I said, well, there's water, there's it's KB, okay? If I said I had, let's do a problem with change or boiling point elevation. So if I said I had a, I don't know, 0.1 molar sucrose, this is a non-volatile, non-electrolyte. This is like coffee, like sugar in your coffee or something like that, okay? Solution, which would be, you know, one of these things. What's the change in temperature of your boiling point? So we know that, oh, sorry, not molar, molar, little m, okay? So let's do this. We know T is this, KB times little m, okay? Little m, well, we got this up here, right? So KB, that's given to us on the list there, so 0.512 degrees Celsius per molar, molal, okay? So what's the, what's the new temperature of the boiling point in the solution? What's the new temperature? Let's figure that out. So KB, 0.512 degrees C over one molal times 0.1 molar, right? Cancel, cancel, and we get 5.12 times 10 to the negative 2 degrees C, right? Okay? That's the change in temperature, right? That's a very small temperature, if you would imagine that to be the temperature that it's boiling in. So if I asked you what's the new boiling temperature, you would have to add this to the original boiling temperature, which the boiling temperature for water is 100 degrees C, right? So the new boiling temperature would equal temperature boiling plus the change in temperature, right? As you would imagine. And then we would just add those two numbers together. Let's get something very, very close to 100 degrees.  Notice the new boiling temperature is not at 100 degrees, but it's something that's higher than 100 degrees. So if we had a more concentrated solution, this would be more apparent, okay? So try it instead of with a .1 molar or a molal solution, try this on your own with a 10 molal solution and see what our new boiling temperature is, okay?  See if it really does happen and you'll see that it really does happen. So I think I have a, oh, the freezing point depression is the exact same thing, okay? The exact same thing except I'm going from instead of liquid to gas, I'm going liquid to solid, right? Has anybody ever lived somewhere other than Texas? Anybody ever, okay. Maybe if you've lived somewhere where it snows. Has anybody ever lived somewhere where it snows? Huh? Well, somewhere where it snows where they put salt on the road. Has anybody ever done that? Yeah, so Colorado. So you ever ask yourself, why do they put salt all over the world? Why is it? Because when it dissolves into the water, that's the ice, it'll lower the freezing point, okay? So what'll happen is that when you dissolve that salt into your water, right? And it gets down to zero degrees Celsius, which is the freezing point of water, okay? Our 32 degrees Fahrenheit in the United States, right? When you get down to that temperature, right? It's very cold, right? And everything freezes over and then cars start sliding all over the place and smashing into each other and causing wrecks and killing people and stuff. So in order to prevent that, put salt on the road. So when it gets down to 32 degrees Fahrenheit, right? There's that solution that's not going to freeze at that temperature. So it actually freezes at a lower temperature and that lower temperature is, in fact, much lower because they actually don't put a salt solution down. They put pieces of salt, right? So you can imagine at the point of dissolving in one big chunk of salt into a little piece of ice that concentration of that solution is very, very astronomical, almost infinite, right? So it decreases the boiling point quite substantially, okay? But anyways, it's the same sort of thing as increasing the boiling point, decreasing the freezing point. It's this constant which I have to give you, which is listed here. So what I'll probably do is give you this table on a test, okay? And you'll have to figure out through these numbers on this table what's going on. And I'll say, what's the new boiling or freezing point? Or I could say for an easier question, what's the change in freezing point? Okay? Remember the new freezing point would make you take this change, add it to the original freezing point and see what happens. You would expect one other thing I should say about this freezing point, right? You would expect it to be a negative number, okay? Because you're lowering the freezing point, okay? So here's, there you go. So notice your final temperature here is a negative number, okay? Most of these solutions we'll be dealing with are water, okay? So add 0 degrees Celsius water freezes. I don't want to talk about osmotic pressure right now, so I'll let you guys go three minutes early. Okay, so if there's any questions, I know if anybody has any questions about grading or anything like that, you can come up and talk to me. I know I haven't given the test back, but...


What's going on guys? My name is Jack or you can call me Aishinobi. We'll come back to a brand new video. Today we have episode 47 of Attack on Titan called Friends, so last episode we saw, you know, Historia take down Lord Race. Alongside the rest of the scouts of course, you know, Eren, like turning into Titan form, tossing all that gunpowder? Was it gunpowder down his throat? Blowing him up. Trunks went all over the city and they were like slicing up trying to find him. Historia very fittingly got the final blow to him, got all those memories that like went by while she did kill him. And then fall and of course we have this character development from her because she is this queen soon. And now she has to be this kind of leader and she's recognized that. So I'm guessing in this episode we're going to see the fallout of that and of course what happens to Kenny because he pulled out a syringe at the end. Maybe going into transform into a Titan because he's going to want to fix these injuries that he has. We're going to hop right into it. If you're new to the channel, drop a sub, hit that big blue bell if you haven't already. And Willy is linked down below and let's just get started. Oh, it's like the new, the new symbol of allegiance? The new flag, baby. It's looking nice. Oh, this is before he got to him. I feel like that's who he was there looking for basically. He probably heard about what happened or he knows what happened. They went to the city. He's like, yeah, I should probably go back. Yeah. Kenny's a pretty slippery man. Oh, oh, that's Kenny. This is Knife. Yeah. His signature blade. Those are the eyes of the person with the race family. Oh, those are the eyes that they have whenever they have all the knowledge. Oh, hurry. Because that's, oh, yeah, that's Rod. Rod, yeah. Yeah. Immune. Oh, that was, that was pretty slick. He just has the knife. He just has the knife. He just has the knife. He just has the knife. Yeah, he still has the knife. It doesn't really matter. Yeah, I don't think that's going to do anything, man. He used to see him holding the knife in his arm. Doesn't blame him. Hurry, he actually seemed level-headed. So, I'm guessing that's where his and Rod's relationship started. Oh, Steve. Holy. You sure she's alive? Yeah, bud. I think that's Levi. Yeah, I think so. They've been a couple of flashbacks with him. Jeez. I think growing up without sunlight is really depressing. Kind of Owen. Oh, sister. Okay. That's his uncle? Yes. I feel like I'm dumb for not knowing that, but I don't think they had made it very clear yet. So, he's known the whole, or them for a while, while, like even before. Wow. Oh, I told him all the secrets. Yeah. He predicted like a downfall, but was he not able to predict what would happen beyond that? He just knew the power of their family, and that it would go wrong. Okay. Kenny's past is surprisingly much more like sophisticated, I guess, than I expected. Everyone's just at that point. I just realized the bald guy was part of the score. Yeah, dang. It just looks so different without the uniforms, I guess. I guess he's like considering it because he's never had the power, but now he could.  Is an acronym. I think that he doesn't believe that. That it has to be part of that blood. Possibly. I feel like he's still not going to though. Like it's going to be more of like a symbolic thing or something. I don't know. Like that maybe even like the knowledge is even worth it. Or at least consider it. Yeah. Rain done. Because he just licked it up. Yeah. Something pushing on my guess. Yeah. Or he bleeds out. Sheesh. She looks somewhat different. Yeah. Really different. She's a lot older. Maybe it's like how I used to see her too. Dang it's like a new era. I'm glad Zoe's okay.  Is she technically still? Because Irvin's okay now. She told Irvin that she had to do. Yeah actually. He was like I can't believe she actually did it. Shakey cam. It feels like an arc is over. Yeah I mean didn't you say it was like part one? Yeah but there's still like three more or two more episodes in part one. Maybe a set of the next one. Her uniforms. Is she going to slap him? Is that her goal here? She's so tiny. That's so cute. Already a tyrant. I've never seen Levi look happy before. That's kind of depressing to say. Wait is that? Finally getting back to this. Wait. Nice. Wait. What happened? What happened?  He just exits like it's like a transformer doing a mix suit. Okay maybe they aren't maybe he isn't uh just a random dude then or like a random. What I'm so oh my god. So wait was he fighting Rainer because he said I won. He said I won. Also Ymir is nowhere to be seen. I thought they were all three together. True. Also maybe that was in reference to maybe he had a feud with Rod. Since Rod and the Reese family is like kind of dead. Yeah. He's like I won though. I don't know. But that would make sense with that. Like it was part of his plan to like overthrow the power. Also what city are they and they look like the city that like where Aaron is from. I don't know. It just looks like it from the houses or something. Maybe they went to the basement too. Maybe they got to the basement. Yeah before everyone else. And that's why he won. It looks kind of like it but I have no idea. I thought first thing I thought Rainer was either dead or was a flashback or something but he straight up I think just fought him because I don't know who else they would have fought against. My God. Well that answers a lot of questions because he was just sitting on top of the Beast Titan because he wasn't in it at that point. Yeah he wasn't in Bubble Bee. Well I don't understand guys. Well the rest of Beast Kenny I didn't realize like he was going. I thought he was like gonna pull out of it but like I said it was more of like a symbolic thing that he doesn't take the formula to become a Titan. He just kind of like lets his path in there because that was what his whole story had built up into. Guys that was episode 47 friends. It was more of like a kind of a resolution to this sort of arc. And I'm guessing next episode we're going to get more into the like meat potatoes like what what is next. Guys this has been episode 47. If you haven't already seen the last past few episodes check them out down below as well as willy and we will see you guys in the next one. Peace.


You respond to what you perceive and as you perceive so shall you behave So in any he jumps into the golden rule and everybody's familiar with the golden rule do unto others as you would have them Do unto you he says the golden rule ask you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you This means that the perception of both must be accurate You have to have a correct perception of others and you have to have a correct perception of yourself otherwise We're back to that behavioral thing do unto others as you would have others do unto you and Jesus is saying it goes much deeper than than just trying to Return kindly acts or to act kind and hope others will act kind to you It's like you have to perceive correctly And the way that first sense is there you respond to what you perceive and as you perceive so shall you behave It gives you a real sense that behavior is just like this This effect that comes automatically from after the perception In other words if I perceive attack My behavior will will be a response to that perception of attack It's not responding to what somebody is seemingly doing on the level of a form But it's my perception or the meaning that I'm giving to What I see on the level of form A good example would be that I think the movie being there with Peter Sellers And he plays this Chauncey Gardner this innocent real innocent like childlike Gardner who goes out into the world after these years in seclusion and a Group of like a gang in an inner city.  He's not ducking. He's not running. He's not space is intending up and Basically, that's kind of an extreme example of you respond to what you perceive, you know It's it's you have to perceive attack before you can respond in a defensive way and So that's I mean that's a real basic metaphysical cornerstone tonight when we go into things that that you have is what you Perceive it's the meaning that you give to the images that are in front that the eyes are seeing that that really is crucial in Psychology for years they've they've tried to figure out what comes first, you know, it's kind of like when you see a bear And and you start to run, you know, do you think oh, I'm afraid I have to run Does the fear come first? Does the what comes first, you know, because the you start to get all sweaty and your heart starts to go fast in Psychology for years. They've been wondering, you know, what comes first What's going on in the mind or what's going on in that brain that's having it making it come out that way? And of course, here's here's the master psychologist Jesus who's laying it out and saying well, you have a mind and Your thoughts is where it's all happening that basically, you know If you have a fearful thought or an ego thought he would call it, you know Then fear is produced as an effect of that ego thought It's not like the emotion comes first and determines the thoughts Or the emotion doesn't necessarily determine the response like of heavy breathing or sweaty palms or whatever But it's the thought that comes first So once again, that's helpful if you're studying metaphysics to say, ah If I've got to get to the source of the problem, I need to get to my thinking If I'm feeling upset if I'm feeling jealous or I'm feeling hurt or abandoned or I'm depressed or One of thousands of emotions the course simplifies and says those are all just sprays of fear There's basically only two emotions. Isn't it nice truth is simple instead of having to learn you got 15,000 emotions No, he says you got two emotions Love and fear and then he goes even further to say that that there's two thought systems in your mind Once the egos and once the Holy Spirit When you're listening to the Holy Spirit and you're lined up with that thought system You're going to feel loving peaceful joyful when you're listening to that other thought system in your mind You're going to feel fearful or one of those thousands of emotions that are not don't feel good Can be bored of me even boredom is a spray of fear You know envy just it doesn't really matter so that really simplifies things that there's these two thought systems in the mind There's not three or four, you know Just two and that you're choosing one or the other Every single second of every single day even in nighttime, you know when you're sleeping and dreaming the mind is very active and powerful And it's continuing to choose between these two thoughts is you have a nightmare You know you wake up in the sweat of terror or whatever, you know, it's still the same thing still choosing the fear-based thought system So that's good news now. We got it to that point now it's like well If there's this confusion going on I'm choosing between love and fear I've got to start to be able to tell them apart and I've got to start to get clear in my mind and have some discernment About these thoughts that are going on in my mind because other than that then it seems to be like the emotions just come It seems to be almost like the emotions are the first cause You know, sometimes it seems like there's something that happens and we have a reaction But other times have you ever had those times when you're just kind of having a melancholy day and you don't know Where it came from Or you're feeling a little down or depressed or a little fearful and anxious, but you you're trying to think what is it? You know, it's like it seems to be buried way down there and really it comes down to the mind is either choosing love or fear So we have to get into talking about the mind. We have to get into talking about beliefs Unconscious beliefs in the mind, you know to really get down to to get at what's going on So this is what the course is about Now to spring on the idea we just had I was going to jump ahead to page 200 and I don't know what that would be in the new one It's just a continuation of our first idea And it says but truth is real in its own right and to believe in truth. You do not have to do anything Not a nice idea to believe in truth. You do not have to do anything I think a lot of times we think of the spiritual journey is like oh It's going to be a long hard journey with lots of work And I'm going to have to do lots of stuff to get there and he says to believe in truth You do not have to do anything Understand that you do not respond to anything directly, but to your interpretation of it Your interpretation thus becomes the justification for the response So that's kind of just carries the idea that we've talked about where it's it's an interpretation that the mind's making Of what's going on on the screen. That's that's where the problem is That that really the only problem we have is we have an interpretation problem If you grab the lessons from the course, it would be lesson number two I have given everything I see all the meaning that it has for me You know, I'm giving it the meaning to three people see an accident happen on a corner eyewitness account They take down What did you see?  He's interpreting what's happening on the screen. It's funny That's not the way that we've been raised to think in a sense of that's not the way in the past In the past we've learned it's been like that movie made me laugh that person's funny He makes me laugh that person hurt my feelings, you know, that person just aggravates me so much I can't stand him at work or whatever. It's all Something that someone is doing, you know behaviorally is his cause and my mind is upset because of what they're doing and And all the only thing the course is doing is saying well, you got it backwards. It's the other way around That it's your interpretation of Your brother's behavior it's your interpretation of If if it's gloomy and cloudy for 12 straight days and you're down in the dump If the backward thinking would say I am really sad because I haven't seen the Sun for 12 days And I love the Sun in the course it turns around and it would say your interpretation of 12 cloudy days Is what's upsetting you? It's not the cloudy days Or 12 90 degree days, right? so You can start to get a sense that that the interpretation problem is a problem of of cause and effect being reversed You know where the ego's thinking is in there is saying Your little your tiny your weak your frail your vulnerable You're a little bitty body a little bitty person in a gigantic world And there's all these big powerful forces outside of you and you better be careful you know because The economy could collapse or AIDS could spread or you may have a hurricane or a flood or you know there's all these things that that you got to be afraid of that are out there in the world and Basically all that the course is doing is it's saying that's all the fear and all the upset is coming from our interpretation problem It's in our own mind That's good news in the sense that gee if I have made my mind up one way And I'm seeing falsely that I can I have the power of decision in my mind to change my mind about how I look at the world Then I can can give up fear Now that's the good news. It seems it can also seem like well wait a minute here It's seems like a pretty big job because there's lots of things that I'm afraid of in the world And there's even things that I'm not even sure but I feel like that are buried in my mind And I'm not even sure but there seems to be an awful lot of fears And it can seem like a big job going into the mind and looking at all these these thoughts and beliefs Get into a relationship That's the course's path in the sense that the course says you know whenever you're in relationship or you know you're in close proximity or It's this these beliefs get flushed up like rapid Because the mind has tried to deny them and and when you get into a relationship that the ego's basic urge is to project the guilt And project the pain outward onto the onto your brother and so really when that happens It's it's not it's not about You know poo pooing in the relationship or saying I've got to get out of here or this or that But it's like okay what there's something that I'm seeing in you My brother that that I have denied or that I'm unwilling to look at in myself And it just comes flying up and another way of course is to study the course because he lays it out You know he he starts to talk about these beliefs He talks about beliefs of time and space, which are pretty deep He talks about beliefs and levels of the mind and and he starts talking about beliefs in the mind and everything And as I've done computer searches through here It's been fun for me just to go through and print out all these different beliefs that he talks about all of them false But all of them things that that I need to look at you know And so I think just as you just study the book you you get a great shot Yeah, it's like raising all these unconscious beliefs to the light that it's not like you have to fight them Or it's not like you have to destroy them But all they have to do is be to be raised up so that you can see oh This is just a belief that I've believed in you know, and I can see I can hold it up to the light of truth I can see that it's backwards and cause an effect or I can see that it's it's not in line with the Holy Spirit Such system and then you once you can see it then it's dispelled Now there's a whole in another sense So the reason it seems to go on and on and on and take a while is that that basically there's all these beliefs but they're all sprays of the ego and Basically, it's a matter of going down deeper and deeper in the mind and being able to see all of the beliefs as false or I usually analogy sometimes you could think of them like a skyscraper and This it's night and all the office When the all the office windows are black because the lights are turned off at night if that's like the mind and The surface of the skyscraper where the flag's blowing that's that's where the experience is of being in the world It's like not really being aware that you're standing on on this giant skyscraper full of dark corner beliefs So you're up there and then basically the thing is of going down and literally it seems to be the experience of starting the top and going down by the floors and Going with the Holy Spirit and turning on these these light switches In each room and you can it seems like oh boy This takes a while to go down and get all these but but there's a there's a big shift that can occur And it only takes an instance because there is a main switch for the whole building If you can get down to the basement Where the main switch is the ego is out of business because then it flink the whole thing lights up The main thing too is remember we said that there's only two voices in the mind and that's the Holy Spirits and egos and You're deciding between one or the other every instant but When it comes through all the