Hello, everyone, and welcome to today's brown bag talk. I'd like to start with a land acknowledgement. The Archeological Research Facility is located in Huchin, the ancestral and unceded territory of Chicheno-speaking Ohlone people. Successors of the historic and sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. We acknowledge that this land remains of great importance to the Ohlone people and that the ARF community inherits a history of archeological scholarship that has disturbed Ohlone ancestors and erased living Ohlone people from the present and future of this land. It is therefore our collective responsibility to critically transform our archeological inheritance in support of Ohlone sovereignty and to help the University of California accountable to the needs of all American Indian and indigenous peoples. I'd like to point out that next Wednesday, we have the pleasure of hearing from Niko Tripsvich and Chris Hoffman who will give a talk about small objects and big screens exploring artifact collections and sites on the cave 3D visualization system in the ARF atrium. So with that, welcome everyone to today's Brown Bag Talk, data conversations, good practices, ethics and outreach with Dr. Lee Lieberman. Dr. Lieberman is a research associate of the ARF and is director of strategic partnerships at the Alexander Archive Institute in Open Context where she's building institutional partnerships with libraries, museums and other cultural heritage organizations in order to develop sustainable initiatives. She's also an archeologist whose research explores how and why artifacts and spaces were recycled and repurposed, especially in the ancient Roman world. She's taught extensively at the university secondary and primary levels in both the United States and Italy. From 2018 to 2020, she directed the development of the Digital Humanities Initiative at the Claremont Colleges, a Mellon-funded program that aims to create a robust curriculum in the digital methods for faculty, staff and students across the seven institution academic consortium. She currently serves as the manager of data and information resources for the Pompeii Archeological Research Project, Porta Stavia, where she's leading the publication of the artifact assemblages from the excavation, as the head of materials for the Tharros Archeological Research Project and as the data management director for the American excavations at Morantina, Contrata Agnesi Project. So today, Lee is going to give us a talk to introduce the Data Conversations Workshop series, which will explore various topics related to how data impacts our research, teaching and professional development. But before turning the mic over to Lee, I want to take a couple of minutes just to give a brief background to her talk. Let me just get my slides started. So this work is supported by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation as a match to an NEH challenge grant that the Alexander Archev Institute received in 2019. The AI, which I direct, is a local nonprofit organization working to improve research and teaching through innovative uses of the web and specifically with open context and open access data publishing service for archaeology. The Mellon and NEH funding supports a new data literacy program aimed at providing scaffolding to guide professional students and lifelong learners and thoughtful engagement with research data. It also supports the exploration of sustainable initiatives around digital data management, public humanities and data literacy with an eye to sustainability, which is the work that Lee is involved in. So this is just an overview of the topics that Lee's going to cover in today's talks that I wanted to give a take a brief opportunity to do some introductions and give, as I said, a little bit of background. I'd like to introduce you to the rest of the team that we're representing today. If you're able to attend subsequent programming and the Data Conversations Workshop series, we're hoping that some of them might be able to make an appearance, especially concerning one of our current, the current work in our data literacy program, which is led by Megan and Paulina here. And this is the launch of the Digital Data Stories Project. If you're immediately curious about this project, then to sort of find out more about it, definitely check out our blog on our website for more information. So why be deliterate? Through our work as archeologists, we produce clean, analyze, and translate data. This is well-represented by the types of activities that most of us perform, from artifact analysis to aerial survey, to excavation, et cetera. It's also well-represented in the types of records that we create, from notebook narratives to lists of finds, from photographs of specific artifacts to illustration of entire typologies. It follows that with so many opportunities for data creation that we should be data literate, or at least well-versed in the practices that involve data. As you may know, many of you may know from recent headlines, probably from signing petitions and taking other action. Many archeology programs and the humanities more broadly are struggling with losses of institutional support. This is well-illustrated by news and headlines like these that seem to be a more frequent occurrence as a plate. People who control flows of money are suspicious of the humanities and social sciences, and they push a narrative that we're irrelevant to a high-tech society economy, but we think that's exactly wrong. A high-tech data-driven society absolutely needs perspectives from the humanities and the social sciences. The humanities and social sciences teach appreciation for diversity, complexity, and agency, as well as skepticism about biases and ideological blind spots. That kind of awareness needs to be brought to data. So our data literacy program seeks to demonstrate the value of humanities and social sciences perspectives and interpreting data. That's what we mean by data literacy. It's not just about technical skills, but thinking how to use those technical skills appropriately and with much greater self and contextual awareness. So another aspect of this work is just very practical. We're trying to build capacity and archeology to create and reuse data more effectively. There's so many horror stories, costs, and missed opportunities around data. So data management, sharing, and reuse all need greater professionalism. A bottleneck that many projects currently face is relying on just one data manager position, which is often filled by a student who eventually moves on, and then everything falls apart. We all collect data, so we should all have some skills at working with data, rather than outsourcing the role to a single individual. Furthermore, broader skills-based learning outcomes will enable us to attract students that may not otherwise share our passion for material culture or the ancient world. This is especially important because many of our students are not gonna become archeologists in the end. In fact, it's arguably a good thing for more back-and-forth circulation between the academy and other career sectors. We want our academic, humanities, and social science perspectives to have a wider impact in other institutional settings. We should also welcome people to come back to academic roles after other types of work experience. Data literacy thus promises to help us in higher ed become less insurer. So with that, I will turn the mic over to Lee Lieberman to talk about the what and the why of data literacy. Great, thank you, Sarah. While I get my slides set up, I just wanna note I am zooming in today from my classroom on the Pomona College campus, and I wanna acknowledge the Tongva as the traditional caretakers of the land that I am on right now. As someone who resides on unceded indigenous land, I recognize that I have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this land, and I honor not only the history of this land, but also the Tongva people that are thriving members of our community today. So Sarah provided a fantastic introduction to why we think this is so important and why we're embarking on this data literacy campaign at open context. So I wanna build on that by starting off with just a few definitions. Everyone likes some definitions to ground the work that we're gonna do. So the first one is just a definition of data. It's probably a word we throw around all the time, but might not know exactly what it means. We consider data an object variable or piece of information that has the perceived capacity to be collected, stored, and identifiable. Data literacy it follows then is the ability to engage constructively through and with data. In other words, data literacy refers to the ability to read, to work with, to analyze, to argue with data. Data itself can be structured and unstructured. Data can be big or small. Data can be quantitative or qualitative. And one of the aspects of data that we're going to keep coming back to over the next 45 minutes or so is it's broader social context and how data without collaboration, how data without a social understanding is really missing a lot of its point. So Sarah spoke earlier about what's at stake for us as archeologists with respect to data literacy. And I just wanna build on that a little bit to stress that data literacy really isn't an all or nothing badge that you're going to earn at some point in your career. Ultimately, I think one of the most important takeaways is that data literacy is not about learning these specific tools or techniques, but it's rather about developing comfort around data and a familiarity with good data practices. Data literacy to that end does require practice. A great metaphor that one of our colleagues, Paulina shared with us last week, is that learning the principles of data literacy is like learning the alphabet, but you're still going to need to practice writing words and you're still going to need to practice writing sentences. So it's all about that practical and practice element. Also, I think it's important to remember that you don't need to know how to do everything, but I think you owe it to yourself to start to familiarize yourself with the range of what is possible around data, the kinds of vocabularies and tools and systems that can help you learn how to develop these skills. That way, when the what and the how of data literacy change, the why and the principles that ground us can really stay consistent for us. So turning from the what and the why then, I want to look at open and restricted data. Open data refers to research that is freely available on the internet, permitting any user to download, copy, analyze, reprocess or use without any barriers, any real barriers that are inseparable from gaining access to the web. The principles behind this definition of open data have been and are currently being defined in the context of big international conversations about open access to scholarly resources more generally. And we're tapping into those conversations when we talk about the importance of data literacy for scholars in our profession. It's worth reflecting on some of the positive outcomes that can result from our participation in an open data network. Open data promotes greater visibility of your data, thereby encouraging reuse and encouraging citation. We all love it when our articles get cited and when our chapters make their way onto a colleague syllabus at the start of the semester. So why wouldn't we want the same kind of reach for our data? It makes a lot of sense. Moreover, if you have access to other people's data, you've got access to models for your own data sets, which can promote better data creation. Open data is necessarily going to democratize knowledge as your data now have the potential to be shared with audiences that don't necessarily have barriers to those paywalls that many of us have come against. And finally, open data can also promote collaboration between groups that might not otherwise know about each other's work. And I think even about all of the different types of disciplinary foci that are represented in a place like the ARF, I think all too often we get stuck in our own disciplinary silos and just having the ability to access data and to really explore what other people are publishing and putting out there promotes collaboration in ways that we might not have even been able to to think through yet. However, all of these potential outcomes require training, require an understanding of the ethical landscape around data practices and data curation and access to data. An organization like OpenContext provides services for publishing data that can and should be open, but we readily acknowledge that Open isn't a possibility for all data. In some of the upcoming workshops in the data conversation series, we'll dive into this more fully examining issues of context so that we can make sure that data are protected when necessary and shared responsibly when appropriate. So I'm really looking forward to those conversations over the next couple of months. Linked data adds another layer to our discussion of this open data network. Linked data is a set of design principles that promote interoperability that uses web identifiers or URIs to refer to some shared concepts. Linked data principles encourage you to think about how your specific data set relates to a wider world of data. It's not just the technical infrastructure that supports this kind of work, but rather it's a broader methodological framework that really brings you into conversation with other people that are doing work in this area. If you think about traditional scholarly publishing, you would never really quote or reference another source without proper citation and linked data relies on those same principles. So when standard vocabularies have been published, linking to those standards, like some of the ones represented here on the screen, linking to those standards in your own data set not only saves you the time and effort of recreating the wheel, i.e. you don't have to come up with the definitions yourself, but it also allows you to participate in a wider network of data-driven scholarship. And then we turn to the question of privacy. Should all data be open? We've seen a number of articles that sort of encourage us to think about this with respect to the objects themselves and the materials themselves, but this is a topic that we may be less familiar about with respect to the data landscape. One example that I like to highlight comes out of my own dissertation work where I had a lot of trouble finding and then thinking about how to share details about the locations of tombs at a site that I was studying, Lentini in Sicily. These data have not been regularly shared previously and still aren't in many respects because of the existence of looters in the area. And scholars and community members have decided that it's more important to protect the integrity of the sites than to let other scholars know precisely where they might find these remains. It's really important to have conversations around these concerns with your local community, with your collaborators, to learn about the local and international standards that govern these kinds of questions and then to establish policies for your own research and your own field projects. Knowing about these things is sort of the start. And again, these are conversations that we're much more used to having around the objects themselves, the sites themselves, but with respect to the data, this opens up a whole different set of concerns that we should start to feel comfortable talking about with our colleagues. So with that brief background about open data and restricted data, I wanna turn to a discussion of our data collection methods as archeologists. Remember, data and data literacy don't necessarily rely on technology and they don't necessarily rely on advanced computational tools. Data can be collected using analog forms that you may or may not digitize later. And likewise, data literacy, as we've said, is more about a general attitude and familiarity with good data practices rather than expertise in a specific tool or a specific method. So as archeologists, we might come to data through field work. In the field, you and your team determine the research questions and you determine the means by which you're collecting that data or the data architecture for your project. That data then consists of observations that are recorded by you and members of your team. And necessarily that data then contains your own biases and evidence of your own priorities and your own interpretations. Biasis aren't necessarily a bad thing but they do need to be explicitly acknowledged. And that's very important when we're trying to think of our general approach to how we consider data trustworthy and what we might look for in a trustworthy data set. Outside the field, you might also come to data through library research. Many of us have probably worked on what we consider legacy projects. This term often refers to older projects where the data were collected in a way that might not meet today's best practices but data that we still nevertheless want to use and take advantage of for our own research. When we are using the resources that we find published in libraries or I can even change that to archives when we're using those resources in our research, we are applying the research questions and the data architecture to information that might not be structured in a way that is conducive to how we want to question it. Moreover, we're applying our own biases, our own priorities and our own interpretations on top of those of our predecessors, on top of those that are already sort of infused into the data set. And again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does require the understanding of all of these different layers in the ecosystem that we're creating and then using in our own research. Whether you are in the field or in the library, your work may require a certain amount of digitization. Digitization practices are governed by their own set of standards that are usually managed by our colleagues and collaborators in libraries and archives and visual resource collections. And this, I think, really highlights the fact that in our movement towards becoming data literate, we are not in this alone. It goes back to the idea that you don't have to be an expert in everything but it helps to know what the possibilities are and what the range of resources out there are. And I think that working with your librarians, working with your archivists to make sure that the data you are digitizing are in their appropriate form and at the appropriate standard is an important step in this process. You may decide for any given project to use a comprehensive database to collect and organize your data. A database is an organized collection of data and it's sort of basic definition. Databases will have a backend that is meant for the development of the structure and databases will have a front end that is meant for input and access to that by a user. Databases are not necessarily a requirement for any kind of work involving data so you don't necessarily have to leave this talk today and go learn how to do this. But again, this is one of those areas where it helps to have models and it helps to think about the ways in which you've accessed data in the past and things that you've liked about it, things that you haven't liked and how you might want to improve the experience for yourself and for people that might use your data down the line. If you do decide to build a database and use the structure to organize your data that you're collecting, there are some pros and cons to decisions that you will make throughout the process, especially regarding the type of platform that you use. One question that you wanna think about is the cost. How expensive will it be for you to maintain a digital infrastructure over time and who's going to pay for that cost because it can add up and usually including these in initial grants is something that we forget to do. The data often ends up being an afterthought when in fact, it should be one of the first things we think about when applying for funds to start an excavation or start a research project. There's a question of transferability or translatability. So if the specific software you're using stops being supported, how are you gonna be able to access your data? This is really important too when we think about the idea of the front end and the back end. So a lot of people will want to produce their own flashy website that communicates their research and their data to wider audiences, but all too often those flashy websites come and go and the durability of the project and the strength of the project is really based on the data architecture and the stability of that platform in the back end. And those are the questions that are again, often left a little short-sighted in these initial starts. You've also got to consider the learning curve for the creator. So if you yourself are gonna be building this for your own research project, a dissertation, a postdoc project, how hard is it gonna be for you to learn the ins and outs of using a specific platform? And then if you're thinking about how these data are going to be accessed by users later, how easy is it going to be for them to understand this interface that you've created? So just a few of the considerations that come up when you're thinking about databases and thinking about how to organize the data that you're collecting for any given project. But again, this isn't an all or nothing process. You don't need to leave this talk and learn how to build a database this afternoon. And in fact, the back end image of that database there kind of turns my stomach into knots. So I wouldn't blame you if you didn't wanna do that this afternoon. But nevertheless, setting yourself up for success, especially during the initial phases of any data-driven project by thinking through these important questions can really pave the way for success by the time you get to the point where you do want to build a structure like this. And there are many tools out there to do it. So experimenting early in the process and finding models that you like and that you find accessible and easy to use is one step that's going to get you there. When you're working on any data-driven project, you might also be interested in figuring out how to access open data archives. Where do I find data related to my research that is clean and that is trustworthy? So data repositories and data publishers all have different strengths and they cater to different types of formats. Some are disciplinary specific, some are not. Some collect data from a whole range of disciplines. And it helps here to familiarize yourself with some of these resources so that you can know where to look to find data for your research questions and so that you can anticipate where you might want to deposit your data when you've completed your work. And remember, having access to data means that you have access to these models that you can use to structure your data at the beginning or any phase in your project. So do you see good practices that you would like to emulate? Are there any relevant data that you should be citing and referencing? Again, participating in this open data landscape requires citation. Are there vocabularies or typologies or recording practices that you should cite even if that particular data set doesn't have records that are relevant to your specific topic? These are all questions that you can pursue just by tooling around some of the repositories and publishers that are available. It can be a really eye-opening experience and might have you asking questions that you didn't even know you had before at the experience. So from that conversation, let's dive a little bit into this idea of the background information around the data that we're creating. And this will surely come up in our next workshop on data trustworthiness. But we're gonna chat for a little bit today about metadata and unique identifiers. So metadata we can think of as data about data. And we might imagine this as kind of the tip of the iceberg that can give us access to the heart of the argument, the data below. There are three main types of metadata if we wanna organize them based on the things they can tell us about the data. Those are descriptive, administrative and structural metadata. Descriptive metadata such as who created this data? What is this data about? When was this data created? And what is its unique identifier? So all questions that could be answered by descriptive metadata. Administrative might answer the questions who owns this data, who gives access to this data and how can this data be used? And then structural metadata might answer the questions of how is this data set organized? What version of the data is this? And what other resources do you need to interpret or access this data? And again, these are the sorts of questions that you'll begin to think about and you'll begin to sort of suss out, does the data set that I found answer these when you start to question the trustworthiness of a particular data set and when you start to design your own data sets to be trustworthy. It's also useful to think about traditional knowledge labels. Traditional knowledge labels are an important resource that can sort of either supplement the way we think about metadata with the definition that I provided or can actually serve as an alternative to metadata. So traditional knowledge labels identify and clarify community-specific rules and responsibilities regarding access and future use of traditional knowledge. And these were created in sustained partnership and testing with indigenous communities across multiple countries. TK labels then offer community-based alternatives to the metadata standards that you might see in traditional catalogs and traditional repositories. And it's noted that TK labels are a relatively new thing. So this is something that we're still trying to figure out how to work with in the open data landscape that we are trying to participate in. Ultimately, TK labels acknowledge the fact that data cannot be created and managed solely from the outside, so to speak. And they allow us to really zone in on the wider social impact of and the roles played by research data. Overall, metadata and TK labels, I'm sorry, can inspire confidence. And this is what we're going to get into in more detail later in these workshop series. They can enhance discoverability. They can encourage reuse and they can promote ethical standards. And it's important to know, again, that you're not expected to become an expert in this. We've really got a lot on our plates thinking about data literacy and metadata literacy is a whole different field on top of that. So in collaboration with representatives from data repositories, from libraries, we get the idea that we're not in this alone. When we work within this broader community that includes experts in data management and when we take advantage of those personnel resources collaborating whenever possible, we really improve our practices around data. So this is just one more step in the line that we're trying to tow regarding data literacy. Unique identifiers are another element that can really inspire the confidence in a data set in a variety of ways. So unique identifiers are going to ensure the individuality of each record in the data set that you're creating or the data set that you are using. So think about this in the context of an archeological project where you might have a ceramicist who is numbering sherds and a zoarchaeologist who is numbering bones. If they both have a numerical sequence of objects, that can probably get incredibly confusing, especially for individuals who are not directly affiliated with the project. So unique identifiers allow us to all stay in a system where we understand what the other is talking about. So unique identifiers come in the local variety and this you can think of as the number that is internally defined and internally consistent. These are often human readable so that even as an outsider, I could come to this site and probably understand that pottery 211 refers to a particular vessel or a particular sherd. Universally unique identifiers are kind of a step above this and universally unique identifiers draw from standards that are published by the Open Software Foundation. These are typically not human readable. I wouldn't wanna refer to the sherd every time I talk about it by that long string of numbers but these are numbers that you more readily see on the backend of any database structure to keep the backend organized but not necessarily meant to be read by the users. Persistent identifiers are here, you've got an example of an archival resource key. These have two really important things about them. The first is that in a technical sense, persistent identifiers facilitate interoperability. So they give clues about the data and concepts that it may reference and recording schema that may be shared between different data sets. So technically they are very important but also in a social sense, persistent identifiers are useful for citation, the goal and one of the goals in all of this and they allow us to situate our own data within a wider context of related information which is ultimately not only our professional but also our ethical responsibility as researchers. And using that then to think briefly about some of the ethical considerations that go into this discussion that we've had today. We've touched on some of these already, the big questions like can I collect this data? Should I publish this data? Am I being collegial in how I'm citing others? How I'm using established community standards to organize my data? Data ethics is a field in and of itself and again while we're not required to become experts in this area, understanding and building up a familiarity with some of the principles that I'm going to highlight is really incredibly important for us in our journey towards data literacy. And we may already have some background in this area. So as an archeologist, I was much more familiar with some of the conversations around what kinds of objects can and should be displayed in museums. And it makes sense that similar ethical principles may apply to the data concerning those objects as well. So I wanna end with a discussion of just two sets of framing principles that can guide how we work with data. The first is the FAIR principles. FAIR is a stakeholder-driven initiative to make data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. And these are great. These are wonderful sort of rules to strive towards. But in many ways, this isn't enough. FAIR has rightly been criticized for focusing exclusively on increased data sharing while ignoring some of the power dynamics and historical contexts. This creates attention, especially for indigenous peoples who are also asserting greater control over the application and use of indigenous data and indigenous knowledge for collective benefit. So in light of those criticisms, the CAIR principles come out of this context. The CAIR principles focus on collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics guiding our work around data. And learning more about these is an aspect of any data literacy trajectory. But again, it's not all or nothing. So making small adjustments to your habits and your practices to make sure that they reflect these principles now will go a long way to you fully mastering them down the road. And the key point here, again, is the social context of data. Understanding of context really needs to drive our decisions around making data open or keeping them restricted. And community archeology practices may be one of the best ways to gain that contextual understanding, to know the kinds of communities that you're working with and the standards that they put for, for how they handle not only the objects and the sites, but also the data around those things. We often think just like with my slide before, it doesn't all have to be digital. It can be digital and analog. We can still do good things if we're using paper. And the same thing is true about data practices. Open isn't inherently good. And it's not inherently in opposition to promoting indigenous data sovereignty. It's gonna boil down to the context around all of this and thinking through the particulars of any situation and really just being open to asking the questions around this, this familiarity with the kind of work that is required to do data well and to become data literate is really the first step in our journey. So how can you move on from here? Some takeaways and some next steps. Some things that I think would be really easy for you to look into immediately after this talk ends today is to explore an open data repository. Start to find data that are relative to your research and models for your project. You can identify or establish a standard system of local identifiers for a data set that you've produced or are working with, right? Set that up for success down the road. And then brainstorm the kinds of metadata you would want to be sure to include with your published data set. This isn't a project that you need to undertake on your own. You will have help and you will have collaborators working with you down the line from libraries, from data repositories, from archives but being familiar with the landscape around this kind of question is a good start. There's also a number of articles that have informed my thinking about this but that can definitely get you started in this area towards becoming data literate. So I think that the scholarship out there might not always come from disciplines that we're necessarily familiar with. There's a lot of work being done on this by data scientists and data experts. And we as archeologists get to really benefit from that work and from the theories behind it that we may be less familiar with. And one other thing you can do is make sure you attend some of our upcoming workshops in the data conversation series. We've got three that are planned for the next couple months about data quality control, data cleaning and dissemination and then storytelling with archeological data. And I think that in each of those we're going to be able to dive a little deeper into some of the things that we introduced today. And I'm really excited to continue those conversations. Attendance to those is going to be free but we do ask that you register and if you have any questions you can be sure to email me and I will try to point you in the right direction. But on behalf of myself and the colleagues who have helped me form these ideas on data literacy and kind of the introductory thoughts we presented today I just wanna thank you all for coming and I think there's a little bit of time left too for questions if we haven't. Yeah, thank you so much Lee for that presentation. And yes, anyone who's watching live wants to type in a question in the chat. This is your chance so there's a little lag so I'll leave a few moments for any questions to come in. But in the meantime, I had a couple of sort of question e-comments that I wanted to add. I really appreciate your discussion of the the TK labels and the fair and care principles. I think that that community archeology the points that you made about community archeology are really and so the practices around that are exactly what's needed and sort of implement the TK labels appropriately. And I at least in my own experience in this area I feel like the fair principles are just something that's starting to be discussed in archeology and people are trying to explore how can we address these and the care principles are absolutely something that's needed along with the fair principles. And I just, I haven't seen them discuss quite as much and I haven't seen the application of TK labels thus far in these types of contexts that we work in. And from an open context perspective we could totally implement TK labels and we are actually in discussion with some colleagues now about starting to do that. And to see how they would work it's metadata on top of additional metadata that is really needed to address these sort of community archeology type questions. And I think that I just really appreciate that you commented on that. Yeah, and I think it's so sort of disciplinary specific too. And as someone who works in modern day Sardinia like these are things that were totally new to me when I started planning this talk and I think that does us a real disservice too because I think that knowing about this full landscape and the range of work that's being done on these issues can only enhance our work even if they're ultimately not going to be applied in their entirety to the work that we're doing having that background information is never a bad thing. Definitely, and I assume this is something that you're gonna dig more deeply into with the participants of would it be maybe in the data cleaning and dissemination workshop the second one? Yeah, I think especially the dissemination part is where it's gonna come in for sure because that whole conversation about what can be made public and what should be shared openly and how do we make those decisions and how do we sort of inform ourselves about why those decisions are the way they are? That's gonna be really exciting to talk about. Yeah, so I would encourage listeners to this that's on December 1st, that workshop and you can sign up if you go to the link that Lisa at the end of her talk to please weigh in on this discussion. We have a few questions in the YouTube. So, and Nico is asking in terms of linking to other archives are there initiatives in other countries that OpenConnect connects with and are these successful perhaps the US archives? Yeah, I can address that. Yeah, that's a great question I think. So, OpenConnect has a ranking the German Archeological Institute, the DAI and we have a mirror hosting from them so that actually hosts our data somewhere else but also speed up the access to the data because it's being hosted by another service and we also have archiving agreements we work with the California Digital Library here at UC but we also have some archiving services that are provided by Zanotto which is based in Switzerland and we also leverage the Internet Archive to do a lot of archiving of images and that kind of thing. So we do have lots of partnerships. OpenConnect itself is not a data repository we're the data publishing service and so the archiving has to be provided by we sort of use a network of partners to do different services for us because we are on a smaller side and so we leverage those partnerships to do different jobs as part of this work. Thank you. So that looks like there are no other questions coming and Lee did you have any final comments you wanted to make? Just that I'm excited to see people in these follow-up workshops I think that they're gonna be really exciting and they're gonna give us a chance especially with a workshop that's tailored for the ARF community. I think that it's gonna give us an opportunity to really dive into some of the topics that you all think are important and we can get into a lot of the particulars of how these apply to your own research and your own teaching and I think it'll be a really fun experience. Yeah, I agree. And I think this is also a nice opportunity for people to come in and sort of share their own data stories and experiences. Sometimes it's sort of therapeutic to come and talk about your struggles with data. The data was. With your peers, exactly. And I know as a zorkiologist I have a lot of stories to tell about those challenges and just one other point I wanted to make is I appreciate your talking about them. Basically not needing to know how to do everything but it's important to understand sort of how the ecosystem works and who does what. And so for instance, data management plans it's not just this sort of checkbox compliance thing that you just right want to be done. It's something that really should be discussed among the team and everyone should talk about their approach to data and what the project's approach to data is and who's providing what data and what their needs are and it should really be a collaborative process of development that should be revisited frequently. And I feel that there's a lot of work that could be done to improve data management planning in that way. Yeah, it's the sort of collegiality that you would bring to other aspects of field work and other aspects of research but I feel like people get so scared away by data and just sort of the technical background that it assumes sometimes. And yeah, to get over that hump and to realize that you don't have to do everything you don't need to know everything but you have to sort of be open and start developing this familiarity through practice and through time. That's the first step in the process, I think. Sorry, real quick, there's one more question coming in about asking about locations for where things are archived. I think that must be referring to new workshops where you discuss options for archiving your data. And sort of when you get to that point in your research process where you're ready to disseminate is that gonna be something that will be ignored? Yeah, I think that will come up more fully in the conversation about dissemination and kind of what that entails. But in the meantime, something that the question asker can do and that others can do is sort of go back to the slide in the recording that showed those different data publishers or data repositories and just kind of explore those to see what's best. A lot of institutions will have their own not only sort of scholarship repository but also their own data repository, which could be a very easy option for people that have that kind of access and access to those kinds of resources. But that may not be right. That might not be right to get your data out to the audiences you want to share it with. So looking at some of the disciplinary specific repositories, looking at one of those bigger institutions like Zenodo could be really informative because you're thinking through what you might wanna do with your own data. Okay, well, thank you very much, Leah. We'll look forward to the follow-up workshops. Thanks for coming to join us today. Great, thank you, Sarah. Okay, bye-bye.


Georgia Power is committed to safely delivering reliable power to our customers. Vehicles can be the cause of an outage. They can knock down a pole and tear down overhead power lines. However, a vehicle can also cause an outage by breaking or simply hitting a pole. Problems occur when a pole gets stuck and causes the wires to contact each other. Problems that cause an outage on an overhead line, such as a vehicle knocking down a line, also can affect underground service customers if underground power is supplied from the same substation. An electrical flash can occur when a vehicle hits a pole. The flash is very dangerous and power must be stopped immediately. To stop power, we have installed fuses, reclosers and breakers. An outage is the normal result when one of these devices senses a problem and stops power flow. The device responding to the problem depends on where the problem occurs. Let's take a closer look at each device and how it operates. The first device is called a fuse. A fuse is a device used to control the power flow to customers in a small geographic area. In the first scene, a vehicle hits a pole, causing a flash. The fuse detects a problem and quickly shuts off power to all customers downstream of the fuse. The boom that you hear is normal and is the indication that the fuse has detected a problem and stopped power flow. The fuse shuts off power until the problem is corrected and must be reset to restore power flow. The second device is called a recloser. The recloser is designed to control power flow to customers in a larger geographic area. In this second scene, a vehicle hits a pole, causing a flash. The recloser senses the problem and stops the power to all downstream customers. The recloser shuts off power until the problem is corrected and must be reset to restore power flow. Your lights may blink a few times before staying off. The third device is called a breaker. A breaker is located in a substation and is the main control point for power flow to customers in an even larger geographic area. In the third scene, a vehicle near a substation hits a pole, causing a flash. The breaker shuts off power flow to all customers it serves. Your lights may blink a few times before staying off. After the problem is corrected, the breaker must be reset to restore power flow. Fuses, reclosers and breakers do not prevent problems from occurring. Their purpose is to isolate the cause of a problem and minimize the impact on our customers. Safety is Georgia Power's primary concern. We remind all customers to stay away from power lines. To view additional power interruption videos, return to the main menu.


On January 11, a blizzard began in Moscow, the capital of Russia. The Russian press reported on this. Heavy snow and wind made it difficult for pedestrians and vehicles to move on the roads. Local structures asked the population not to leave the house as much as possible and not to use personal vehicles. There is a traffic jam on the roads, bad weather also affected the work of airports. Twelve flights were cancelled at Moscow's Doma-de-dovo airport, and six planes could not be received. At the Sheremetyevo airport, two planes were not allowed to take off and ten were not allowed to take off. At Nakovo airport, four planes cannot take off, ten planes are waiting for permission to land. Forecasters predict that the bad weather will continue until the end of the day.


The pandemic is still the headline, but the planet is also on fire. Tonight, we discuss the movement for a green new deal in Europe, in the United States, and around the world, and how that movement has changed, evolved, transformed, or not in a year of the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm joined this evening, or indeed this afternoon, for my guest by a friend, colleague, very inspiring economist and statesman, James K. Galbraith, my friend Jamie, who holds the Lloyd M. Benson, Jr. chair at the Lynn B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and a professorship in government at the University of Texas at Austin. Welcome, Jamie, to DMTV. It's a pleasure to see you all the way tuning in from Austin. Thanks very much, and it's very good to be with you as well. All right, so we'll jump right in. Jamie, everything has changed. Everything is moving incredibly fast. This is sort of the narrative that we're sold. Life has turned upside down. Our economy's plunged in crisis. Ideas are being ripped off the shelf. Paradigms are being thrown in the trash can. The geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting underneath our feet. How would you describe this present juncture one year after the declaration of the pandemic by the WHO? Well, I could only say I only wish. I mean, some things have changed. Anybody with eyes to see, ears to hear with can see that the ideas that we're driving global community are recently as 18 months or two years ago are defunct. That I think is obvious, but the hold of defunct ideas is does not disappear easily or immediately. So I mean, just to take the case of the United States already a year ago now in April of 2020, in a crash of the emergency, any notion that there were effective limits on what the federal government can do by way of sending out checks and stabilizing people's incomes were thrown away. It was thrown away for the business sector through both loans and loan guarantees and grants but made through the work of the federal reserve. But it was thrown away for the household sector through direct payments, extended unemployment insurance and other measures. And this was, we had the experience for a year and it was actually in many ways quite successful. The society did not melt down in a way that it might otherwise have done. In fact, would otherwise have done if people had been subject to income losses and then evictions and foreclosures and utility shutoffs and all of the horrors that were bad already but could have been much, much worse than they were. Has the country then moved to the point where it is effectively organized to take on the next phase of the challenges that in front of us? No, we haven't moved that point. There's discussion about it. There's even in today's paper, we know that the administration is preparing legislation. We don't know exactly what it will consist of but there's clearly a sense that a new direction is going to be needed. Does this country have the organizing capacity to implement that? That is a very open question at this point and we can go on to what's going on in other parts of the world momentarily. Yeah, I mean, I think you think a year ago lots of people were saying, citing the etymological origins of the word crisis that it actually comes. It's sort of an epidemiological phrase to refer to a change in the course of a disease where things are actually getting better. So it's both a kind of threat but it's an opportunity for learning and for bringing in those new ideas or healing a wound that's been gaping open in the global economy. I think now you mentioned, let's just stick with the case of the United States because I think it's illustrative and then I think we can go to other places in the world. So in thinking about how this crisis has maybe turned or what we've learned and how we've changed, there's a lot of talk now about these bills, first the ARP, the recovery plan and then now this potential infrastructure bill as marking some break with neoliberalism. Now, first of all, I wanna know from you, does it feel one year after the pandemic that we've broken with neoliberalism? And if we have or to the extent that we have, is this a simple case of when the facts change, minds change or are we being duped into thinking that there's some paradigm shift? Is there something more powerful underway? And I know I'm asking huge questions here but how should we make sense of this? What is actually changing under our feet before we talk about the details of it? How should we make sense of how exactly things have changed in the past year? Well, just to take up the American Rescue Plan, which is the one concrete thing that we have in front of us. I'd begin by, first of all, again, pointing to the experience of last year and secondly, to the political necessity that faced the incoming administration. It's very clear here we have a very narrow margin in the Congress. If you don't move quickly, effectively and massively, the chances are you're gonna lose that in two years. You have a president who has been around for a long time, has some experience of both Republican and Democratic administrations. The characteristic of Democratic administrations, Clinton, Obama, was that they were too timid and they got beaten, installed and in many cases, lambasted and ridiculed for not having done enough, aggressively enough in their first months in office. And you have the case of a Republican administration, well, actually several of them, Reagan and then George W. Bush and then Donald Trump, all of whom did very big things, things I may not have liked, but basically front-loaded their agendas, got them in place and then were in a position particularly in Reagan's case to be more flexible in the remaining years of the term. So the political lessons are there and then you also have the fact that the president is, well, I mean, he's not exactly in the first flush of youth and I think it's reasonable to say that old men in a hurry are not a bad thing. They recognize that they've got to get things done because they recognize that their time horizons are not unlimited. So all of that's come together in a kind of practical way to put the U.S. in the forefront of at least a change in attitudes toward the macro level fiscal policy, the attitudes toward public finance. It's also, I think, practically recognized that the U.S. is, if not uniquely positioned in the world to make that change, it's got the strongest position amongst the Western countries to make that change because it is the country that supplies the settlement currency to the rest of the world, at least for the time being. And so this is something which is open to the U.S. which would be a harder sell in a lot of other places. So does this represent a real acceptance of an alternative theoretical framework for thinking about economic problems? I only wish. I know my friends, our friends who have been advocating for such a change of perspective are, I think many of us are quite happy with the immediate turn of politics, but has the correctness of that perspective been recognized, acknowledged, has it been taken up? Have people been, have the doors of the academic power structure been opened to the partisans of monetary theory? No, they have not. And so I think that any real and deeper gains are very much provisional at this point. And that is before you get to the structural questions which I want to take up as well. Yeah, no, I mean, it's a very, it's a very interesting theory of political transformation that you're articulating, one that really is about necessity or dragging these forces along by the kind of sort of structural conditions that demand it. It feels like a very sort of Angelus Novus theory that we're sort of being dragged towards these fiscal stimuli as we watch the destruction pile up behind us, that there's not actually, we're not, what we're seeing in the case of the United States and perhaps you can make the same argument about the kind of painful process of arriving at what's now known as this recovery plan or EU next generation here in Europe, that this was after years of dragging their feed, net public investment falling to zero in Eurozone, obviously people ailing in child poverty levels rising the United States at these kind of structural conditions sort of demanded. And I think to me looking, we're obviously convened here to talk about the Green New Deal and I think understanding what's changing now is not, we can't just look to the past year, we also have to look to the past decade and to lessons that perhaps were not learned in 2008 or in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. Now, the Green New Deal as a policy paradigm gained some kind of popular traction, some popularity in the wake of the great financial crisis of 2008 in part because of a parallel that people were able to draw with 1929 with the fact that we were in a period of tremendous financial speculation followed by a depression that required the kinds of relief recovery reform that Roosevelt had put on the table a century before. But then it felt like, okay, we didn't really learn the lessons there. We didn't really get as far as putting a new deal on the table and then the COVID crisis kind of fell into our lap. Not exactly as an exogenous shock but something like an exogenous force. So my question to you is thinking now not just one year but 10 years, how does this present crisis change the kind of desirability or feasibility of something like a Green New Deal? Should we understand this crisis in that medium term process of, okay, finally, are European leaders in particular coming around to thinking, well, austerities may be not the most responsible way of handling this question of providing for citizens. And maybe the US is thinking, well, we need bigger stimuli to take care of people and think about things like child poverty or is that, are we not even there yet? Well, okay, let me back up a little bit and just talk about what I think is going on. You use the term stimulus, that's the description of the program. And I don't think that demand was ever actually the problem and I don't think what is going on is appropriately described in those terms. Those were terms that were suitable if you like the post-war Keynesian era when you went into a recession as a result of an over buildup of inventories and laying off of workers and so forth and then you gave the economy a boost to come out of it. What the pandemic actually did was to expose the extreme fragility of the entire structure that had been built up over 13 years since the great crisis in really over 30 years, which was heavily dependent on a very bimodal economy, a small group of extremely high income people who were in the business of producing advanced technologies for world markets and a vast number of people who were in the business of producing services for each other and both pieces of this got hammered in the pandemic, the technology sector because there's basically no demand for airplanes, for example, a world in which the vast number of them are sitting on the ground and no demand for office construction in a world in which offices are empty, no demand for retail malls in a world which is being taken over by Amazon, so on and so forth. And the services side, people can't be in direct contact with each other or those jobs just evaporate like so much mist in front of the morning sun. So they're gone. And some of them will come back but many millions of them will not. What the programs did was to basically hold everybody in place financially through this. It was more of a balance sheet thing. People have rent, they have mortgages, they have utility bills, they have grocery bills, they have student debts to pay, they have all kinds of things and handing them out a check meant that they could continue to make those payments by large. I mean, not everybody. And I was not going to minimize the suffering except to say that without that assistance it would have been much worse. And in fact, they discovered you could actually give a lot of people more money than they were making in their jobs. And this also kept the social situation stable. Economic stimulus, it is not. What's going on with a rescue plan is exactly, I think as described, a rescue plan. It enables people to get through another six months or a year as maybe the pieces start to get put back together in some way. But they can't go back the way they were. Things have changed. We are not going to return to the kind of economy in which basic people's jobs were providing leisure time goods to each other. And we're not going to return to an economy in which the advanced sectors are supplying a particular kind of advanced good to the world economy. That's got all changed. So what we have to recognize is that we have to use the resources that we have in a way that's directed toward the problems that we actually are going to face. So now you say, well, 10 years ahead. 10 years ahead, obviously the major issue if you want to put one on top of all the others is the climate crisis. It is the necessity of a green new deal and a green new deal is two pieces. One of it is energy transformation, resource transformation so that we begin to stabilize the ecosystem of the whole planet. And the other piece of it is the new deal piece which is to say something which is truly post-capitalist, something which is truly democratic, something which creates in a pragmatic way, institutions that we can continue to live with through at least a number of decades into the future as we continually adjust to circumstances. That's what we need to be thinking about. It is not just a device for existing political leadership to make themselves more palatable. And that's very much the sense one gets about Europe. And we'll see what happens. I don't want to hold out the U.S. as a uniquely advanced case here, but we'll see what this administration is plotting. I do want to come to the question of what's impelling and I think it's impelling us toward making some progress. And that is the experience of what's happening on the other side of the world, right? This is something very important that we need to bear in mind, which it starts with, I mean, it can start with, but it certainly is expressed in a way which cannot be mistaken by anybody, by the pandemic. There were countries that dealt with it. There were countries that moved on the first day to place controls on their borders and to get testing and contact tracing regimes in place and to isolate and protect themselves from contagion. Many of them were small countries, places like Korea and Singapore and Hong Kong and Taiwan did well and Cuba did well and New Zealand did well. But then there was also China. China's not a small place. China's 1.4 billion people which managed to suppress the pandemic over the course of maybe six weeks or two months and get themselves back to a normal condition of life in a country which has also succeeded in transforming itself technically over the last 30 or 40 years into one of the most advanced and carefully or fully engineered places on the planet. So when we're looking at what's out there for the global population, those of us who are not China have to recognize that demonization isn't gonna work because a lot of people can see very clearly that there is a level of competence which used to be characteristic of the West and which the West has lost. And that's what the greener deal needs to recapture is a capacity to do these things in a way which is in consonance with democratic values and consonance with a popular will but that is actually also effective and not just cosmetic or as sustaining of an underlying power structure that isn't really serious about these things. Yeah, so let's bring it to here in Europe. During my time as the policy director of 4DN25 for this Democracy in Europe movement in collaboration with you and DM'ers across the continent of this vision of a green new deal for Europe, something that would have both of those components you outline, take seriously the urgency and demand for a rapid decarbonization and green transformation and also live out that sort of Rooseveltian tradition gained the envision of rebuilding a new economy and mobilizing the wealth that we have towards good decent jobs and transformation of our infrastructure. And what's happened in the wake of this green new deal movement very much in the kind of pathetic and mimetic sense is that the European Union has adopted this name of a green deal, essentially greenwashing what is otherwise quite austere agenda and obsessing over how they're going to in various terms unlock, unleash or nudge private capital towards green investment, essentially pulling the classic European Union move of socializing risks while privatizing gains in green transition. And it's interesting, you put it in this way of, are we going to be building a more cooperative perhaps post-capitalist economy in the course of this green new deal or are we going to be inflaming a kind of xenophobic and imperial way of organizing the economy but it's, you don't have to read too deeply into these intentions when you hear speeches from people like Guy Verhofstadt who stand on their soapbox and say things like, we live in a world of empires the United States, an empire, China, an empire we Europe must be an empire and this green deal is our strategy for remaining competitive in that world of empire and externalizing our carbon costs. Yes, we're going to be the first decarbonized continent but only by basically sending our emissions south. So what does it mean to take seriously this idea of a green new deal as a vehicle of cooperation as supposed to a vehicle for geopolitical competition which really only promises to put us set us back half a century at a time when that type of international coordination towards protecting the human species is so essential. Well, I would generally speaking recommend against getting into a competitive struggle that one is going to lose. This is not a sensible countries and sensible leaders steer clear of that kind of problem. This is, I don't know one doesn't want to be remembered like Napoleon III, for example. It's just, it's a bad look historically to do this. So what's required is something that is much more oriented toward an actual practical plan of construction and development, redevelopment. That's why again, why this word new sits in between green and deal. Not because we're looking for novelty but because the new deal was a historical phenomenon that had that characteristic. Let me just talk a little bit about that because I think particularly for European audiences a lot of this may not really be familiar. There's a tendency to regard the 1930s as the era of John Maynard Keynes. Governments came in and started spending and running budget deficits. But the new deal, while Keynes was a factor in his thinking and it was known in the United States it was far broader than the Keynesian element. It consisted of every conceivable political movement from the late 19th century forward in the United States the populist, the progressives, the social democrats from the upper Midwest and all kinds of other people, a social credit movement. And it built up, it came in at a time when we were 70 years after the end of the American Civil War and the South of the United States was a exceedingly impoverished and backward region. And the new deal basically built it up and created the conditions for its emergence as a middle class society and ultimately for the emergence of the civil rights movement, but which was not a feature of the new deal in the first place but electrification of the entire American South and Southwest or it was an essential piece of this and there was industrial development that goes along with that. The construction of a public infrastructure of governments, schools and courthouses of transportation, roads and airfields. Much of this was made easy by the fact this was the high era of the rise of fossil fuels and particularly of oil. Now we have a different challenge now which is moving away from that but the underlying conception has to be similar. We have to decide what kind of society we want and how do we build toward it? And there I think actually the pandemic has given us in some sense some very useful guidance. We know here we are you and I talking in a way that a year and a half ago we probably wouldn't have done technically as possible, it's certainly much easier now that we're much more habituated to it of that involves no carbon emissions, no jet aircraft rides, no jet lag, no hangovers. It makes a great many things are now possible and easy that were not done before. People are working from home which means much less commuting is necessary which means many fewer automobile miles, many fewer carbon emissions. The office buildings that were maintained which are extremely expensive energy using glass and steel structures not necessarily may not be necessary to maintain as many of them into the future. One can go down the list of ways in which one can make the whole energy picture better without sacrifice of the quality of life and in fact to some degree with improvement of it and as the pandemic itself recedes the last thing we wanna do is to say, oh gee we're just going to greenwash the previous economy because we just add a lot of green energy sources to what you've had before you're not dealing with a climate problem. You're simply increasing the CO2 load keeps going up and that's the issue. You've got to have to figure out how to live well while actually emitting less of that stuff into the atmosphere. Yeah, I think for all, for myself even you know just hearing how breathtakingly ambitious the new deal vision was not just the vision the implementation was is deeply inspiring. I think it's also jarring to contrast that the dimensions of the original deal new deal with what is on the table in the form of this so-called green deal which of course steals so much legitimacy from that concept and from the green new deal movement more broadly as it's taken root in places like the United States but has so little of the content and it's not just the vision it's also the politics that undergird that vision it's the coalition for whom that new deal speaks. I think in Europe one of the challenges that we face as DM and in trying to build a green new deal for Europe movement that is across the continent is that for so long workers in Europe have been portrayed for cynical reasons as well as substantive ones as fundamental barriers to the green transition as fundamentally the antagonists of the efforts to decarbonize. So we have a classic sort of proletarian and young precarious split. You've got the student strikers in the streets who are fundamentally opposed to the miners in the countryside and that there's no way to bridge those two constituencies and catering to the former will any of the latter and catering to the latter will of course inflame tensions in the liberal parties that aim to represent the former. And so what we've ended up is this what I've with my colleague, Pavel Varga previously calls it decarbonization without democracy. It's this way of doing decarbonization. We've talked about the reliance on the private sector and nudging it with green taxonomies that are deeply flawed. We don't have to get into the details of that. But essentially it's not about driving a democratic transformation in the process of stripping carbon from the economy. It's about kind of preserving technocratic power and making as few as most sort of a very defensive position. These light touch interventions which claim not to be threatening the social order and the underlying fabric of these communities but in the process provide really paltry sums is seven billion euros over seven years for a just transition fund, right? To say, okay, we know there's gonna be some social dislocation in the process of the green transition. We'll just throw some pennies to the Hungarians or the Poles, right? Which of course is gonna line the pockets of the capitalists whose coal mines and factories are sort of put out of business in the course of the screen transition. But this is not a worker empowerment. This is not even a jobs program. I spoke a bit before about the dominance. Are you serious, seven billion over seven years? Yeah. I mean, the Navy couldn't build an aircraft carrier for that in the United States. But it's being sold, you know, the language they've underlined use is we leave no one behind. This is the European way.  And so- I trust not many people are fooled. Well, you'd be surprised by the quality of journalism in the Brussels bubble, but, you know, without trying to slander my colleagues too much just across the pond, I think, you know, there's a question about- There's a question about what- I've long taken the view that Western consumers of journalism are at least as clever as the old Soviet readers of Pravda and Izvestia and that one should not overwrite the power of journalism to fool people to believe things that they can clearly see are not true. I think we know. Let me come to this question of the coalition because this, of course, this division, it has its parallels in every democratic society. One can say that the loss of the working class, particularly the white working class of the United States was the phenomenon that delivered the country to Donald Trump in 2016. And that loss goes back to a split that goes back 30 or 40 years really beginning with the Vietnam War. So these are issues that have to be dealt with, but the way to deal with them is to present a program that meets the social and economic requirements of all significant factions in the all significant groups. And again, I want to come back to the model of the New Deal in that respect. The New Deal was not perfect. It did not meet the social requirements for progress for African Americans in the United States and that came later in the 1960s. But amongst the political constituencies that it pulled together, it was very significant and wide ranging. And it did not just focus on building dams and new industries and so forth. It was a project that built up communities. Viewers in Europe may want to check out the website of a group called the Living New Deal which maps out just exactly how many things happened in the United States. We're built in the United States that are still with us that were products of the New Deal. I mean, there are many, many thousands of them all over the country. It was a very, very big, many big things, many, many much smaller things. But in addition to that, the New Deal was also a cultural and artistic phenomenon. It also supported communities that bring us together as a population that define our, if you like, our cultural and our national identity and in a way at the time, that strongly emphasized the rights and the power of the common person. This was the era of the common man. And you can see this in murals. You can see this in sculptures. You can see this in photography. You can see this in painting. You can see this in every dimension of cultural life that was backed by the New Deal. As we come out of the pandemic, we need to think about these things. We need to think about what it will take to bring meaningful employment to, back to the whole population. This has been the scourge of Europe for decades since the 1970s. For the francophones, I'll mention the magnificent bande dessinée, le choix du chômage by my friend Benoît Colombe, and a colleague of his, Duvidier, which has just been published, that illustrates this history for France. The story here is that I don't think that the network, if you like, of profit-seeking services businesses, ordinary businesses, is going to return in the scale that is required to provide people with meaningful employment. So we're going to have to, as a democratic movement, think about how to structure cooperatives, how to structure other kinds of entities that can make that sort of work available and sustainable. Another economist, my friend, Pévelina Chirneva, has put a proposal together, which is articulated in a number of national contexts, the US and Europe, for a job guarantee for using, basically for using the public employment program, public and non-profit employment, as a way for people to always have a job available, doing something useful. And so nobody has to be obliged to be unemployed, to sit around filing applications and waiting for someone to come calling.  We can do something about that. A job guarantee program is a very effective, I think, way to approach the problem. And of course, as people are required by private sector employers, they'll hire people who are already employed. They'll hire people out of, away from the job guarantee, which is a good thing too. So there are ways to reconstruct our society. And that's what a green, new deal needs to think about doing in a very wide-ranging and comprehensive manner. For the final section of the conversation, I think it would be helpful to shift from looking at these cases. We've spent a lot of time talking about the case of the United States, for very good reasons, because of its hegemonic position and its particular leadership and the privilege that it has. Take only hegemonic position. Shake only hegemonic position, temporarily hegemonic position, and talking about Europe naturally, because this is the democracy in Europe movement.  And so in the case of Europe, if you look at how I mentioned this in my previous rant before you spoke last about the ways in which there's a real risk of decarbonization on the inside of the continents, simply exporting those carbon emissions to the outside and then kind of holding up this A plus report card to the world and marching through the halls of COP26 in Glasgow and saying, you know, aren't I great? Pat me on the back kind of thing, which Europe is very inclined to do in this new strain of exceptionalism. So, you know. I'm glad to say, David, that you and I are not citizens of a country that has any tendency to pat itself on the back. It's the epitome of modesty and self-effacement. You know, Jamie, as a young cosmopolitan, and a ruthless Jew, I feel I belong to a no-patia. But I do, I wonder, you know, I think I've been disappointed, I'll be honest with you. I've been disappointed in proposals that I've seen tabled in the United States, certainly in Europe, for how we might internationalize the Green New Deal. What do we mean to go global? This is something that, you know, my colleague, Janis Varoufakis, in Meta 25, has, we've written about how we might put together something like an organization for emergency, OEC for the 21st century, something that could really take on this scale. You know, what do you, how do you feel about thinking through where the Green New Deal is at? What are the barriers to thinking through this question of how we can deliver a global Green New Deal, a global green and just transition? How we can have the conversation you were just suggesting that we have about what kind of society we want to live in, about what kind of jobs we want to provide, about what kind of lives we want to live. How do we begin to have that on the scale that it requires, given that no country's green transition happens in isolation? Okay, so let's begin, take this up in two pieces. The first piece is that for dealing specifically with the problem of climate change in the planet, one has to deal with the largest economic entities and they are North America, Europe and China essentially, China, Japan. And those are, that's a manageable coalition if you put it together and do it in a serious way, you can make a very serious effect. Now, obviously you've got other parts of the world, you've got, you've got, deforestation is an issue and you've got a whole host of other things. But putting first things first, one has to go for the big prizes and get them under control and then proceed. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, oh, and I should mention India is also a very big case. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, then my mind, the first thing that one has to do is to put the financial relationships between the wealthy and the less wealthy countries on a, on a just and sustainable basis. Debt's that will not be, that cannot be paid will not be paid. Debt's that are burdensome and oppressive need to be written down or written off. And we need to have a structure for preventing, from getting away from this idea that the development is a function of, of foreign investment and the accumulation of new debts. My friend, Luis Carlos, Professor Pereira in Brazil is very good argument that while we can have a good benefits out of trade and particularly learning and transfer technology, the country should maintain control over their own financial environments and that it should be facilitated by international organizations. If we can make that change, it's actually within the ambit of the charter of the IMF, the IMF has lost sight of it. If we can make that change and then we would have to restructure and really change the power position of the financial sector in the rich countries, because you're going to restructure credit or debtor relationships, you're going to basically be reducing the financial claims and therefore the wealth of the oligarchs of the West. And that's a big challenge for an democratic movement. I mean, this goes back to, let's mention our friend Yanis Verifakis to be the first to remind us that you can have oligarchy or democracy but you cannot have both together. They are not compatible. That is something that the Athenians knew very well. And some things are reproduced throughout history. Yeah, just to stay there for one minute, just because, well, Perks are interested in your thoughts about this. You know, we certainly share this vision of this broad restructuring of the global economy as the kind of precondition to any serious conversation about what a global Green New Deal might look like, certainly about what the claims of justice or democracy might look like in those countries which are stuck in these relations of dependence along the periphery of the global economy. You know, the IMF may have its headquarters in Washington DC but let's not forget a gentleman's agreement that ensures European leadership at its helm. So I wonder, you know, if you're speaking, of course, to a broadly North Atlantic audience but lots of Europeans who are there and who care about this issue. And I wonder, you know, what are the chief barriers to delivering this kind of transformation? You know, Jamie, you've had great experiences not only working domestically in US government but traveling the world and working with different governments and seeing that multilateral system and the promises and its perils and its falsehoods and its opportunities for transformation. And I wonder, you know, looking at this crisis, many have described what we're up against as the greatest debt crisis in history in the heels of this pandemic which could become even worse as we end up in a world where the global North is broadly post-pandemic and the global South is certainly not, is certainly mid-pandemic for a couple of years to come. You know, how do we make sense of the opportunities that from the global North or indeed from the global South we might have to transform that system especially given what we're being told is a historic political opportunity structure with a sort of alignment of non-national populist forces in those two great blocks of Europe, the United States. Well, let me speak to the situation, first of all, internally in the United States because there's a consciousness here that is going to be raised if it hasn't been raised already as time goes on. American households remain deeply in debt. It's obvious that giving them funds enables them to get by but an increasing percentage of people are behind on their rent and are unforeseen on their mortgages. And at some point, those bills are going to come due and the question is what happens then? Do you say it's too bad? You have to basically head out on the street so your places can be repossessed or do you say, look, no, we understand. What you had to do losing your job losing your income, staying home for a year, year and a half was necessary for the larger society, for public health. And therefore these debts are gone. Well, if you make that case internally you can make it also externally. You can make it with respect to the whole world. And so I think there's a kind of a kind of sympathy or at least a common interest here which is going to be hard or to conceal from people as time goes on. In terms of the wider world, I mean, these are issues that I've dealt with all my life going back to the New York city financial crisis in 1975 when I was 23 and on the staff of the house banking committee and I was called upon to draft the first plan and put in it with my 23 year old enthusiasm that the bondholders should take a hit. They should be haircut as part of any resolution. And this provoked a telephone call and probably a good way to wrap up the show to tell the story. Telephone call from a senior figure former governor of New York resident of Georgetown by the name of Averill Herrmann who wanted a briefing on this subject. And my boss, the congressman, very good guy social democratic congressman from Milwaukee, Henry Royce sent me over to brief governor Herrmann who greeted me in his drawing room. He was in his pajamas. He'd broken his hip. He had, there was a Van Gogh on the wall and a Degas ballerina under glass and between the two of them I delivered my little explanation of why I thought the bondholders had to pay. Had to take a hit and he leaned forward on his cane and he said, I understand completely capital must pay as well as labor. And I think it's a pretty good story. In this situation, we all understand that frankly, we're all in the same boat. Labor has already paid, capital has not. And fixing things at the national level the international level is going to require a big adjustment for capital. It is one which gets us back to situations we have lived with, at least I have because capital played a much smaller role and bank finance played a much smaller role in the years before the 1970s than it did afterwards. And those years were more stable, more prosperous more democratic in some respects. And then the one sense and we simply as I say we cannot be ruled democratically and financially at the same time. And for me, this is an easy choice. Well, on that call to solidarity on that call indeed to courage for whatever 23 year old is watching now who happens to hold the same set back to sort of hold their pen hanging over the policy to drive us towards a more just and democratic world. I wanna thank my esteemed colleague and guest this evening, Jamie Galbraith. It's a pleasure to see you and have you on DMTV this evening. As always a pleasure, David and keep up all the good work and good luck as you're heading off. I know to Ecuador for a very good cause in a few days. Indiza, stay tuned. Thank you all for watching. Please make sure to subscribe to DMTV, to donate to DM25 to join the movement if you have not already. It's been a pleasure to have you here this evening and I hope to see you soon. Take care.