The Ministry of Health, Wellness and Elderly Affairs continues to review the national plan for COVID-19 management. The COVID-19 vaccination program forms part of this plan and was recently updated following the introduction of the vaccine in February 2021 in St. Lucia. The review allowed the team to identify the program's strengths and to identify the opportunities for improvement as well as to assess and explore suitable responses to the program's limitations. As a result, it has been decided to undertake an accelerated COVID-19 vaccination drive. This drive will be undertaken for a two-week period, October 25 to November 8, 2021. The Ministry continues to monitor the position of global public health authorities to improve management of COVID-19 at our local level. With the recent information on the benefits of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines and given that the shelf life of our current talk of vaccines shall be expiring in the coming month, the Ministry has taken the decision to introduce a Pfizer booster dose. This shall be for the more vulnerable population groups which include people 65 years and older, people living with underlying conditions and frontline workers. The national COVID-19 vaccination protocol has been reviewed and updated. It now allows for booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine to be administered to this priority group, given the higher level of risk they are at for COVID-19 infection. In an effort to further protect the health and well-being of these individuals, the Ministry has found it a priority to modify the current protocols to allow for the administering of booster doses as of Monday, October 25, 2021. A booster is an additional dose of the vaccine given to an individual who has completed the recommended vaccine regimen. The booster provides an added level of protection to those who are most vulnerable to the virus and whose immune system would significantly benefit from this added protection. The booster doses will be administered 6 to 8 months after the second dose AstraZeneca and given to people 65 years and older, immune compromised people 18 years and older and frontline workers. The Ministry of Health anticipates a high demand for these booster doses and in response to this, dedicated sites will be established for receiving this vaccine. Anyone wishing to receive this vaccine can have it administered at the following sites. Rufort Parish Hall, Wednesdays and Fridays. The CSA Center at San Susi Mondays and Saturdays. Grozile Human Resource Center, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Miko Multipurpose Center, Tuesdays and Fridays. Denry Murders Preschool, Fridays. Souffre Hospital, Thursdays. John Odlam Secondary School in Marigold on Saturdays. Babuno Multipurpose Center, Mondays and Fridays. From Monday, October 25, all other vaccination sites will continue to administer first and second doses of the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines with more days for vaccination from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. VG Sports Complex, Monday to Saturday. Grozile Human Resource Center, Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Rufort R.C. Parish Hall, Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays at the Rufort Wellness Center. Larishos Constituency Council, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Lafag Wellness Center, Fridays and Saturdays. Labri Wellness Center, Mondays and Wednesdays. Souffre Hospital, Mondays and Fridays. Vaccination will continue as routine at all other wellness centers. Vaccines continue to be effective in preventing disease and death. Vaccination has been one of the greatest public health successes in St. Lucia and the Caribbean region for decades. COVID-19 vaccines bring a similar hope for ending the pandemic. We encourage all who are eligible to get vaccinated to reduce the impact of the virus on us.


Ladies and gentlemen, we take you now behind the scenes of a pulley said quarters in a great American city For under the cold glaring lights will pass before us the innocent the vagrant the thief the murderer This is the line up The man's in the front row the middle there. Thanks big line. They're about 22. I'll see you later. Yeah Mr. Martin. Oh, hello lieutenant. How are you? Just fine been here long not long Do you think you've got any of the men and the way be insured until you point them out? We picked up three or four on suspicion pass records and close to your description So what else they go to work I rough them up good a man now see I really rough He's down looking at the mug. Well, you'd sure think with four men to find you ought to be able to spot one of them I don't know. Maybe they haven't got any records They were pretty professional about it. We didn't even get a print. Yeah And we look at the M. Oh Four guys go into a theater stick it up one look out the other three guys go up to the manager's office We've had theater hold up sure but not four guys working like this young guys I'm rotten says the three who came into his office couldn't have been over 22 or three Nobody in our files even comes close to the descriptions out of town. Maybe Maybe they're first John They acted like cowboys and Indians Martin says he thought they were kidding until he saw the guns. Well, what have you done? State out the theaters Guthrie Yeah Yeah the Lincoln Okay Let's go some of those four guys just tell up the Lincoln Theater Fitch was on stake out tried to stop him try you down one but got shot up doing it on the way to the hospital How bad pretty bad Goodson Fitch caught one in the chest one in the right leg family been there in this room. What about the other one? No identification on him or he passed out. He said his name was Martin alley It's really blew him up. It's like went in the right hand up the arm right through his body funny Up the arm like that right through oh Here's dr. Lending and he operated on my money gentlemen. I am supposed you're the police. That's right. Dr. I'm Lieutenant Guthrie. This is sergeant Graham. How do you do? How's Montanelli? I can't say just yet. He hasn't regained consciousness since we removed the bullet we were hoping to question him But you can wait in the room if you like 304 Well, let's go in Just came from the theater to catch us. Come on in the room and tell me and we're policemen Dr. London said we could wait in here. Well, all right, if you said so, I'll get another chair. Thanks, please try to talk Okay, he's working pretty hard at it. Yeah What do you got coin now the cashier the theater saw the car and all she knew was it's boosted down Not much, but I put on an APB and descriptions tell it all the way around has to be the same Fridge he's still out to You want me to stick around yeah, yeah for a while why I got a day. No, I got nothing to do That's that huh?  You can get me at home Let's go man.   Who are you Martin? Ellie? Oh Tony Martin Ellie only a spanking cop shot my brother you get it now Anybody ever kidnapped the cop before huh?  Answer when I ask you something that theater job your first stick up Tony Makes you think so because you pulled another one three days late. So what? Smart hood would figure we'd stake out the theaters.   None of us got records in this town. Who's gonna find us? They'll find you Know the penalty for kidnapping in the state.  I'll go out and get them sandwiches. Okay. What do you want? Just get some step on this. Okay. How about the copper?  Okay. No, what we're gonna do lieutenant All right, we're gonna wait right here to see if my brother's gonna be all right Then we'll leave in a state You're gonna be sitting right in the front seat all the way Whatever you brother doesn't get all right. You're still sitting in the front seat Until we get clear Through the army full name Julio Martinelli 26 years. What should I say? I'm waiting on it now Just heard from the army an hour ago. He's got a brother Tony Martinelli Family deceased what kind of an army record does he have? Lousy both he and his brother are always in trouble. No overseas duty stationed in California. I Wonder what Ben is always supposed to pick him up. No. No, he's probably still having his car So they have records minor offenses, but habitual both serve small time Perhaps a dozen time any report on the blue sedan No, and here's something else to trade sent back these covering the descriptions of the other two guys with the Martinelli's Martinelli's brother Tony's a cinch to be the guy who ran the stick ups and these two guys have been picked up with him a Couple of times yeah, according to their records. They never pulled off anything this big just petty stuff in the past Well, you better have these circulated right And where's Ben? I don't know. He sure is late. You'd better stay here into a car This guy in the picture coming this morning and got some sandwiches to take out to take out Yeah, liverwires and six hamburgers. I remember cuz I ain't had too many customers You notice whether he was a scene and walk away across the street that way You see we stay open all night and he was my first customer. He walked that way right now And see what she didn't say killing me. He got coffee and sound where's your phone? It's right there. Let me talk to Waldo Hello, captain We got an identification on Luke Johnson. I'll need every available man to cover this area at least 15 It's my guest Johnson is holed up somewhere within walking distance of the river. Yes, sir. I'll keep in touch Yeah, I know of the address is 105 East River Something big yeah, those guys are stuck up the theaters. Yeah, I read about that. Well, thank you for your help, mr. Fro line for line Like on a golf course for a charter house Look, Tony, do we have to take this guy along?  He's insurance. What the back way? So help me Lieutenant you look awful brought some food.


What is the message you wish to give to members and participants at Co426? The main message really I would like to give is that each and every one of them plays a really crucial role. And in this role that they're playing they have to do it with conviction because the job that they're doing will actually be saving lives in the future. And this is not to be taken lightly so we have to push forward. We have to push diligently and we have to push in a very strong united voice to ensure that the agenda that we have put forward is actually implemented for future. We really don't have the time and it doesn't take one person to do it. It takes every single person, you know, all of us together to get that forward and achieved so we can look back in a few years and say we actually did it. Thank you.


I want to take a quick moment to introduce you to the judges, we have two high-fiving pros judging today. We've got Christy Thompson, Salah Ibrahim, and our head judge for today is Ron Winigals, the NCIFMU president and IFMU pro-linked judge. And myself, Christy, I'm also a judge. And Mo, I'm also the president's high-fiving pro-linked judge and I'm also your judging today. So we're going to get them started straight away with the junior men. We're going to get straight into it. And then we'll have a break after pre-judging and then we've got the evening show and finals starting in a row. Fine. So thank you all for coming, make a lot of noise for these guys and put in the enormous amount of effort in getting ready for the show. We always say well into one of our favorite shows because you're one of the noisiest prouds that we see. There's always one. No, no, no. Not at all. Alright, we're going to start again after Ron Winigals started. Enjoy the show. Okay, thank you. Alright guys, so we're just sitting here backstage. I just came off. I was in the last class of the day. It was men's physique open and I also did men's physique novice. There were six people in my class in the novice and only two in the open. So I was up against someone who could definitely become like an IFBB pro. When I saw him and I knew that he was the only one up against me, I just about gave up. I'm telling you. So hopefully I can show you some footage or a picture or something.   Alright guys, so before I head home, I may as well show you guys what exactly I had to do. Just line up here. Get my name called. Come out here. Stand right here.  I tell you that. It's pouring down and I've got no car. What am I going to do? Alright guys, it looks like it's stopped raining slightly. I asked someone in there and the last thing you want to do is to get any water on your tan or as you're fucked. So I'm choosing my moments wisely. But I'm trying to get out of the school so I can go back to my hotel room. Because tonight, but man, you know what? Even though it's going to look ridiculous, I cannot wait to see that picture of me next to that guy in tall open cars because he looked absolutely ridiculous. And I was completely out of my depth, but I just couldn't help but smile at him on stage because I knew that he knew and I knew that he looked amazing. Natty, half natty, fake natty. Who cares?  You'll put in the effort. So right now I'm going to try and catch a cab quickly back home to the hotel because I talked to a couple of people around there but there's a few people staying around eating and stuff, but I didn't actually bring enough food for me anyway. So I've got to go back to the hotel, get some food, chill out a little bit and then I'll be back here at five o'clock for the night show.  I was so nervous. I was shaking, like literally shaking. Yeah, it was insane, but I'll tell you what, that second one, after I'd done it once, right, easy, easy, easy. You just got to be, I mean, the more confident you are in your body and the work that you've done, the more confident you're going to be on stage and that's probably why I wasn't so confident because at the end of the day this isn't my peak, this is three weeks before. So yeah, but no, honestly awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome. The divisions before, like it's 2.30 now, I got there at like, well I mean I got there at 9.30 this morning, that's five hours, but the pre-judging actually started at 11 and it took three hours to get to our men's physique, which is the last division, so it's going to be the exact same tonight, even longer probably. They said maybe 10 o'clock we'll be getting out of there and we're meant to be back there at five. So I'm actually thinking I won't go back at five.  You wouldn't believe it. Got to lift back with a cop, free taxi, not complaining. I think you felt sorry for me because I couldn't get my tan wet, but I'll try and find my room key in it. So, show day, halfway done. I competed, motherfucker, did it. I got up on stage, shaking like a leaf, but I did it and I'm proud of myself. I still haven't drunk in any water today. What I'm going to do now is have a coffee. I had no caffeine this morning. That was the first time I've had no caffeine in the morning in months. So I was watching the pre-judging of the girls. I was just sitting there like, just waiting. I just wanted to pump up and the pump up, I got pretty good, man. I was pumping up for probably about half an hour. Some people only started pumping up probably five minutes before they went out, but the one thing I wanted to get pumped was my shoulders because I think that's probably the only thing that may be able to stand up against these guys in the IFBB. So I did that, got the triceps going, got everything going and it's all in the judges' hands now. I tried to smile. Oh, it's crack up, man. You've got to try it. You've got to get up there, guys. It's really fun. I am going to chill out and I'll be back there at five o'clock to watch the nutshell. All right, guys, so just getting ready to head back down. Just watching a replay of the 2015 Men's Physique Olympia Finals. Getting some inspiration. But yeah, I thought I'd show you the food that I'm going to take. So I'm going to try and aim for a high sodium meal, probably about an hour before I step on the stage, to bring out some vascularity, I hope, because I'm not feeling very vascular right now. So what I've got here is some little bacon pieces that I bought last night mixed with some pulled pork, barbecue sauce and a few rice crackers crushed up in there. So I only had this one container and I put it all in there so it's easier to take and I'll be munching on that probably about an hour before I get on stage. So no water, still, just sips. But yeah, that's about it. Can't do much else. I think the results are already done anyway. But what I'm hoping, man, there's six in my class and top five get awards and there's only going to be one that doesn't get an award. Fingers crossed that's not me. Fingers crossed. So we'll see how we go. It's still in the air. Wellington, who do you think should win this? It's an overall position. Please welcome these guys back on the stage. These guys are all individually won here. Categories, this is for overall... Come on! I'm going to start it. It's like the third time. Who's got it? I've got lots of music waiting for me. Alright guys, I'm walking in the rain. Walking down, lugging these 20 kilo weights down to my hotel. I just thought I would reflect and have a little chat with you guys because you've come along this whole journey with me and it's not over. But my suspicions were correct in that in Mempedeak novice over 180. There were six competitors. One guy was out of condition and I came fifth. So, yeah. And in the Mempedeak Open which I thought that all of the fricking novices would be doing but they wouldn't, they weren't and I was the only one. I came second out of two which I expected because as you saw in the overall that guy man, insane. And I went up to him afterwards and I said I just want to say one thing. You look amazing and good luck to Nationals. I'll be following you. And he's like yeah, thanks mate. Thanks bro, are you coming? Are you coming to Nationals man? I was like nah. Nah mate, I came fifth you know because actually top five is qualifications for Nationals.  But from here guys Shred is on man. If I needed any more motivation if I needed something to really hammer it in then this show was it and I needed work on my conditioning big time. So, I can't wait to see the photos the comparison photos and the stage shots because I paid to get the professional ones done. So you know, I hope they're alright. Thinking about it now what could you have done different but basically I mean it's conditioning man.


So the next talk is round optimal multi-party computation with identifiable abort by Michele Ciampi, Diva Ravi, Luisa Siniskalki, and Hendrik Wardner, and Michele is presenting. Okay, thank you very much for the introduction, Manuela. Yeah, so multi-party competition. We are at fifth session, not going to say what it is. But there are many models in which you can study multi-party competition. In particular, the model we consider in this work has dishonest majority. We assume no setup. We assume that parties are fully corrupted and they behave in a rushing way. It means that in each round, the adversarial parties will wait to receive the messages of the honest parties, and then they will speak. Then all our protocols will rely on standard assumptions. In particular, our protocols are based on trapster permutations, and we only deal with the black box simulation. So what we know is that in the case of dishonest majority, there are functionalities that cannot be realized. That's a bad news. So we cannot realize some functionalities with fairness. However, if we don't care about fairness, we know that we still need four rounds of communication to compute some meaningful functionality, and we know that four rounds are also sufficient. And some recent works show that you can do that from some number-threatic assumptions or from a malicious secure notion of obvious transfers. However, if you look at all these protocols, you will notice that they are under a notion of security that is called security with unanimous abort. In this security notion, what you have is that honest parties might abort or might get the output of the computation. But if they do abort, I mean it's not like one party will abort and the other no, like all the honest parties will agree that that's an abort. With unanimous, with the identified abort instead, what you have is that in the case that honest parties abort, they will also identify one of the corrupted party. And another question is whether we can still construct a secure protocol in this setting in four rounds, which is, as I mentioned, the optimal, the best you can do. And in this work, we answer to this question to the positive. And the way we tackle this question is by providing a compiler that takes an MPC protocol that is secure with unanimous abort and turns it into a protocol that is secure with the identifiable abort. And like one moreover, like the communication channel we use here is a broadcast channel where, like in each round, all the parties speak at the same time. And so focusing on the messages of this purple party on the left, each message will go in this broadcast channel, so every party will receive this message. So let's say that those are messages of an MPC protocol with unanimous abort. So one way that you can use to achieve, I think, favorable abort would be to attach to each of these messages non-interactive zero-knowledge proof. Because in this way, every party that receives a message that sees a message on the broadcast channel, even if this message is not directed to this party, the party can still check that the message is correct, because if the zero-knowledge proof verifies. Here, I'm lying a bit because, like, you need some special properties on the MPC protocol to apply this type of compilers, because you need perfect correctness, otherwise, of course, this doesn't work. But the big problem is that non-interactive zero-knowledge requires setup. As I mentioned, we don't want to use a random protocol, we want to rely on standard assumptions. So the trivial idea would be, okay, let's use then mostly around zero-knowledge, because we know that we can actually do zero-knowledge in four rounds. And so if you now look at the protocol, or at least at the messages that one party sends and receives, the view of this party is the following. There is an outgoing message and an ingoing message. And what you can do now is that for each outgoing message, you ask this party to provide the zero-knowledge proof, which we know we can do in four rounds. And the theorem of this zero-knowledge proof is this course that the MPC message, the outgoing MPC message is well-formed, that I've been following the protocol. And you do this for all the messages. This works, but you need that the zero-knowledge protocol is publicly verifiable in the sense that in this case, you need to provide the zero-knowledge proof to convince any of the parties that are involved in the protocol. And now, of course, that might be an abort in the zero-knowledge. And you want that even the parties that are not involved in the generation of the transcript of the zero-knowledge can identify whether the abort was triggered due to an incorrect behavior of the prover or due to an incorrect behavior of the verifier. And these zero-knowledge proofs are easy to achieve. So let's assume this is not a concern. What is a concern, though, is that this protocol is far from being optimal. I mean, those are not four rounds. Good. So then the next step to solve this issue would be to say, let's just run one big zero-knowledge where we prove that everything is fine. Of course, if you want to do that, so if you want to run a zero-knowledge proof in parallel of your MPC protocol and prove at the end that all your messages were computed correctly, you need this zero-knowledge to be delayed input in the statement because your statement, which is the set of messages you computed, will be fully determined only in the last round. So now if you have this protocol, the way an execution of this protocol would be, it should look like something like this. So this powerful party will compute the MPC messages and at the same time will start generating this zero-knowledge proof. And at some point it might be that the MPC fails. But we don't know the reason why the MPC fails. However, this powerful party here will keep generating the messages for the zero-knowledge until the end, proving that the messages that she has generated were well-formed. And now given that the zero-knowledge proof is publicly verifiable, the only reason why this powerful party would not be able to complete this zero-knowledge proof is because she was behaving maliciously. And so all the parties can identify this specific powerful party as being the corrupted party. So actually zero-knowledge in this setting is not really what you need something stronger. You need a form of normal ability on the zero-knowledge, which is something that we show how to achieve in the paper. But what is more interesting and what I wanted to talk in the last part of the talk is that so here we are running in parallel an MPC protocol and a zero-knowledge proof. But why would they compose? There is no reason why they would compose in parallel. And actually they don't, or at least we don't know, to be precise, we don't know how to prove that they compose nicely in parallel. So the main reason why the proof failed is because consider this is the real experiment where it's the protocol I described to you. And when you want to prove the security of this protocol, ideally you want to rely on the security of the zero-knowledge and on the security of the MPC protocol in distinct steps. So what we usually do is that we do hybrid experiments, where in the first experiment you run the zero-knowledge simulator, of course, and then you prove that this hybrid is indistinguishable from the real experiment due to well, the zero-knowledge property of the protocol. And then you say, okay, good, now we run the MPC simulator and that's all. The proof is done. Unfortunately, we got an error. So unfortunately, the last step of the proof doesn't really work. And because what do you want to do in the last step of the proof? You want to reduce the security of the protocol to the security of the MPC. And so it means that you are in this game. Like you want to say, now I'm able to construct an adversity that breaks the security of the MPC with unanimous abort. And the security game works in this way. You have a challenger and this challenger might generate messages for the MPC protocol in an honest way or in a simulated way. And we want to show a distinguisher to reach a contradiction. And so the way we construct the distinguisher is by creating an adversity that internally runs the adversary for our protocol, for the identifiable protocol, and just acts as a proxy between the Brutus channel and the challenger of MPC for the black MPC messages, which are the messages of the unanimous abort protocol. So okay, I mean, you can do that. Fine. The problem is that we are in the playing model. We don't have random oracle. So the way simulators usually work in this context is by resetting the adversity by doing some what we call rewinds. So it means that the simulator of the knowledge protocol might say, okay, here you are another second round. And I want to see a reply because I need to extract some secret for you from you to perform the simulation. But remember the adversity is rushing here. So the adversity upon resuming the second round, he could change the second round of the MPC as well. And now the adversity will never give you the third round of the zero knowledge, unless he receives a new MPC message with respect to the third round. So he wants a reply that is consistent with this green MPC message. But the thing is that the challenger, you cannot rewind the challenger. I mean, that's not how this experiment is defined. And that's problematic. So it looks like we need the stronger security notion. And what would be suitable in this context would be a notion of a multi-particle computation that allows for this type of rewinds. So the first thing we do is to define this security notion. And then we show how to achieve it. In this security notion, basically, you have your adversity. And again, the challenger, which does the same either he provides honesty, generated messages, or simulated messages. But now the adversity can say, okay, now give me a reply to this new and fresh second round, which is this green message. And the MPC challenger interacts with the adversity, but stops at the third round. And now the adversity can actually do this process many times. But he can do this only a bounded number of times where this bound is known at the beginning. And after this, only one of those sessions will be completed, let's say. And you can see that if you have such an adversity, then the previous reduction would work, because the rewinds made by the zero knowledge simulator would not be a problem in the reduction, because the MPC challenger is happy to give you more replies to multiple second rounds. Good. So now what it remains to show is how you obtain a protocol that is secure under this security definition. So consider for now just the two-party case for simplicity. We have this yellow party and the purple party. And they start running an MPC protocol, a normal MPC protocol with no special properties at all. So what is the problem of dealing with the Rewindable Security in general? So the problem is that if you just take an MPC protocol and you can see multiple third rounds as a reply to multiple second rounds, the problem is that this could break the security of the MPC protocol because you might be able to extract some secrets. I mean, after all, that's also how a simulator would work. I mean, the simulator does rewind. So it's pretty clear that you are breaking something by doing the rewind. A high-level idea of our protocol is to not then send the third message of the multi-party competition protocol in the clear, but we will encrypt this message. And how do we encrypt this? So upon receiving the second round, each party, and in this case, I will be focusing just on the orange party, creates a garbage circuit. So the garbage circuit will contain the transcripts generated so far and the randomness of the orange party.  This is the next message function of the MPC protocol. So with this garbage circuit, basically you can, upon receiving a third round message, the garbage circuit can generate the third round on the behalf of the orange party and compute the last round of the MPC protocol. So it's basically what I'm saying here is that the garbage circuit will do what the orange party will do in the protocol. And now, what do I mean when I say that the third message of the protocol will be encrypted?  And the way you get the labels is you by running an abuse transfer protocol, where the orange party will act as a sender using as input to the keys of this garbage circuit. And instead, the purple party will act as a receiver. And his input will be a bit string that represents the third round message of the MPC protocol. So the security of the T now tells you that this input, which is the third round message, is kind of secure. The sender should have no clue about what is the input of receiver in an abuse transfer protocol. And that's basically how we make sure that the third round is encrypted. But however, we want to encrypt, but we want to compute the output of this MPC protocol. So what happens here is that then the purple party will receive the labels that are consistent with this third round message. He will also receive this garbage circuit, but now he has the labels, he has the garbage circuit, and he can compute the last round of the protocol. And he can basically now just run, just compute the output for this MPC protocol. And this is done in a symmetric way. So the orange party will do exactly the same to get the output. Now, of course, it seems like we are saying, okay, now we need to run actually two primitives kind of in parallel. Now we have this abuse transfer, but what happens if you rewind, you believe it's transferred during the reduction? Okay, that's okay, because we know from a previous result that we want to construct a reliable secure abuse transfer protocol. So that's not a problem. So I should say that to go from the two-party gaze to the multi-party gaze, it's not straightforward. At least a two-party primitive. So as you can imagine, there are some problems when you go to the multi-party gaze, but the very high level, that's the very high level idea more or less. And so what we also think is that this approach might be helpful in any situation where you want, for example, combining parallel in multiple interactive primitives. This means that you could prove secure also two MPC protocols that are running in parallel. And this might yield, for example, to constructions like multi-party computation combiners that are around preserving and similar things. And yeah, we show that this notion is actually great when you want to achieve multi-party computation with the identifiable abort. And what we show is that all our primitives can be based on traptor primitations, but yeah, we think it's not hard to extend it and to realize everything from just oblivious transfer. Yeah, but we can discuss this maybe afterwards. And that's all. Thank you very much. So thank you, Michaela. We have time for questions. So the number of revinings in zero knowledge would be expected polynomial time, right? So what do you say B to B? Yeah, that's fantastic. That's a good question. So the point is that when you do the reduction, so our zero knowledge is not any zero knowledge. It's a zero knowledge protocol that we construct that basically we prove that if you get, let's say two accepting transcripts during the rewind, this simulation would work fine. Then what we argue is that in the proof, you will get these two accepting transcripts with some non-negligible probability and the reduction will go through. So in the reduction, we do not run and expect the polynomial time, but we cut the running time of the simulator such that the reduction remains polynomial time. Yeah, that's a reasonable question. And another thing is, did you also think about using non-blackbox zero knowledge? Yeah, so I was thinking about that actually this morning to use, to try to use non-blackbox zero knowledge in the reduction, right? And then the final simulator could still be let's say blackbox, but I mean, yeah, it depends. I would say it's not that trivial because if you're still, I think it would be easy if you just want the final simulator to be non-blackbox. I think it's fine, but if you just want to use the power of a non-blackbox simulator in the hybrid and leverage on these, it's an idea, yeah. Okay, so let's thank Mikael again. Thank you.


Hello there everyone and welcome. This is Melissa Arma with the Stock Swish in Reviewing. Discovered this was the Stock Swish Show Play of the Day today. Did this trade, didn't add, fell. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful move. Originally I was looking for this to break 99, then 98, it fell off the cliff. So again, it wasn't something that I normally want to hold trees as long as I held this thing, but it ended up being, that was the case today, that I was in two things this morning which again is unusual. They were snails, they were absolute, absolute, absolute snails, and so I had to wait for them to get the move, but it all worked out and it all paid off and I was very happy about that. So let's take a look at it. This was earnings, again it's earnings season. We're in full swing here. Stock close here at 108.74, gap down here and open at 101.04. Rallied then broke. So as you can see, as you can see here this broke late. So again, dropped, rallied, had a good entry in this, did the add, got the drop, fell, fell off the cliff right in here. So again, anywhere in here that you could have got out of it was profitable. Some people didn't do this actually because it did some other things that I had called in the room today. But I like this. I did this. I saw what was happening with this. I saw what was happening with the banks today too. Again, this was earnings. I look to rate the gap each and every single morning and then I'm looking for a rating of 20 points or more. It's a 26 point rating system. It's a sliding scale. The best gap is the one I want to focus on and do. Actually, we did something else like I said, there were two trades. For whatever reason, they were both little snails today, took a while to really get chugging along, but they did it. They did it. And the fact that I did the add in this really helped this go and make this just a huge, huge short for me today. I did not call a put in this. You could have done a put in this. I didn't even look at the price on them. By that time, it was too late. I don't only do the same trades as day trades and options just so you know. And again, the options newsletter is a separate service, a subscription service, but I do love day trading. I do really, really love it. And if you're looking to day trade, you can go prop if you want more margin. Prop gives you 10 to 1 margin as well. But the nice thing about being in the live room is if you would have gotten this call, you would have gotten the entry, the stop, the add, the targets and everything else. If you'd like more information or you want to sign up for the Golden Gate course, email me and Melissa at thestockswish.com. Have a great day, everyone.


Good evening and welcome to a conversation about equity and justice in the future we deserve. My name is Tim Waters and as a volunteer for Longmont Public Media, I had the good fortune of hosting this program, The Future We Deserve, which is a series of conversations based on topics that have come out a series of interviews that I conducted last March, April, and May in the early days of the pandemic as part of the Longmont Voices and Vision Project. I interviewed over 70 Longmoners and 67 interviews, and one of the questions I asked them was, what was their preferred future, their best hope for a post-pandemic future, one that they're willing to help create. And in many of the interviews, aspirations I heard from the people I interviewed was that we could move to a post-pandemic future characterized by more equity and justice than the pre-pandemic past. So tonight's topic is based on that set of responses, and I'm joined tonight by an outstanding group of conversationalists, experts who have dedicated their lives professionally and personally to the principles and creation of policy and practices to create more justice and equity in the world. And you're looking at my guests this evening. Our purpose tonight is to share their expertise, build on one another's ideas, see what kind of connections we can make as we go through the conversation tonight. For listeners, you should know that 40 minutes, this is a one-hour program, 40 minutes into the hour. We're going to invite anybody who's listening who wants to contribute to the conversation to call in. So you'll see a number, if you're a listener or viewer, you'll see a number that shows up on the screen. And if you'd like to contribute, we'd like to hear from you. But let me introduce this group tonight. I'm so pleased and proud. Kathleen, I'm just going to look at my screen and I'm not certain what the order will be for anybody else. But Kathleen McGoy is Longmont's executive director of Longmont Community Justice Partnership, Carmen Ramirez, who is the city of Longmont's manager of community and neighborhood resources. Carmen, I have that right. In our community services department and everybody in town knows Carmen and in the good work that she does. LaRona Garcia, who is the executive director of the statewide parent coalition and viewers might know LaRona from some other activity in the last year as a candidate for the United States Senate and ran a strong campaign, the honorable Judge Robert Frick, Longmont's municipal judge, and Brett Shelton, counsel for NARF, the Native American Rights Fund. So thank you. I know you all have a lot going on in your lives, the fact that you would dedicate this hour and one more hour later in the month to this conversation is deeply, deeply appreciated. So these are big ideas and trying to pick the right place to start, because I've been thinking about this as a bit of a challenge for me, like, where do we dip into this? So I just want to start with asking, you live your lives every day, top of mind, and deeply, you know, in your hearts, translating words like equity and justice into practice, into policy. I think of these as principles, but that may not be the right mindset for it. But I want to start by asking you, what do the words mean to you? And we can all facilitate as much as I need to. I know it's hard on Zoom, you know, you don't want to talk over each other. But Kathleen, I'll just start with you and, you know, let's go in the order of the introductions and then we'll free will, let's see where it takes us. I think you're muted. I just noticed. Thank you. I just want to acknowledge Tim for inviting all of us. You know, for me, the term equity is about making sure that people have what they need in order for things to be fair, recognizing that those needs are different and related to individual circumstances and related to often to systemic and historic circumstances. And for my work with Longmont Community Justice Partnership, you know, we work with restorative justice, which really tries to emphasize the importance of meeting victims and community members where they're at when they've experienced harm as a result of a crime. And so in a sense, equity applies to our work, very particularly in the realm of how can we make sure those who have been most affected by crime have a voice in getting their needs met. And of course, that involves also understanding what's the background and experience of the offender or the person who's caused the harm we refer to them as the responsible person. We know that for every, every one of those parties and individuals, they have a unique story, a unique set of circumstances that sometimes in some of our conventional systems aren't taken into account. Sometimes they are, but one of the ways that Longmont has really committed to trying to provide a more just and a more equitable experience after crime takes place is through this possibility of restorative justice. Before we're finished with these conversations, I want to come back and tease out as we think about justice, all the permutations of what justice needs and looks like. And I know it has particular meaning in the work you do. Carmen, I'm going to invite you to weigh in next. Thank you. And I'm glad we're all here because I think we can all really build on what is equity and justice. And for me, it's more of that frontline experience. And so I have to start with the inequities. I have to start with the communities that I'm serving and the inequities that they're facing. And a lot of that is systemic and historical to understand how to bring equity and being that bridge or that servant in that area. But the other piece to that is then how do I translate those inequities to institutions to understand what is the harm? What is the reparation? And what is the change that we need? So for me, a lot of it is starting with those inequities and over the last 30 years have had that frontline of seeing those inequities to better understand what is equity? Because many people confuse equal access with equitable access and they're not the same. I'll leave it at that. Well, I want to come back. We're going to drill down on some of those ideas as well. But just to kind of get us get all these big ideas out here, Lorena, pick it up from there. Yeah, you know, without repeating what's already been said, which I agree with wholeheartedly, I think when I think about equity, I think about action. And I think one of the biggest flaws I have seen in, you know, whether it's agencies or whether it's organizations or communities, talking about equity is that there is a lack of action following their, you know, their awareness that inequalities exist. And the reality is that we will never achieve equity if we aren't bold and courageous and taking really aggressive stances to do so, even if it might be against the grain. Because if it wasn't, then we would have already achieved it a long time ago. Yeah, courage is part of that. Will is part of that. We're going to come back to this. Judge Frick. Thank you, Dr. Waters. And I appreciate your invitation for being here tonight. You know, you asked me what equity is, and I think you have to look at it as an ideal of being, you know, just partial and fair. And you know, you think about these concepts of equity being similar or synonymous with like fairness and justice, but it's more than that. You know, we all come to the table with different life experiences or different reasons why you're here. And it's more than just trying to, a simple state of affairs or reaching a goal as a community, but more directly addressing the individual's needs and going forward. Brett. Right. I think what I could add to what's already been said is just an observation from a lot of my work that it seems like a lot of times I end up having to push back against a hierarchical structure that isn't necessarily justified in a lot of cases and the assumption that power is justified from in the exercise of power from from that hierarchy on those lower in the hierarchy for whatever reason, that's that's part of the problem. And then the existence of privilege, I think, is something that's that's tough to fight to it. It's really tough for those in privilege to let loose of any privilege or admit that they enjoy it. In fact, a lot of times, and, you know, let alone let somebody else succeed to some of the benefits that they might have gotten, it seems like they feel like by birthright a lot of times. And that's the cause of a lot of inequities, I think, in everything that we see going on in the world around us. So that's just a little add in a little more language to the discussion. So maybe we'll just start there and see how we spin out the conversation. For folks like old white men like me, right, who were born into privilege, is there, how do you deal with, for those who would see giving up, right, or yielding to someone else's interest? I'm not certain even to write language, but that's not viewed as a zero-sum scenario, right? Someone else's equity is not at the expense of old white men like me or people born into privilege. Is that, I mean, can you talk about that? Is that a problem in terms of the institutions you're dealing with or those in power? I don't know. I think other people have more to say on this, but, you know, from my standpoint, there's kind of two approaches I can take. One is I can learn the rules. I learned the rules of the game when I went to law school and I, you know, strategically might pursue protection or advancement of certain interests in the face of that structure and those inequities on a case-by-case basis and litigation. I've chosen to pursue a path more of building. So what I try to do is help native communities put in place justice systems that are more reflective of their worldviews and traditional cultures, which are more equitable by nature. That's all I could really say about that. I haven't gotten into the thick of what do you do in the system where I've learned how to use the, you know, how to fight the hierarchy, basically, by playing by the rules of the game.  So I think it'd be nice to hear from them. Well, is that a fair question or consideration for anybody else in this conversation? How do you, how do we move forward with commitments to equity to a more equitable and just world when some might view that as a zero-sum game or is, or do people view it that way? Kathleen? Yeah. I think that some people do view it that way. And there's a lot of resistance to relinquishing power or relinquishing the sense of we know how to do things well because we've already done them and we've done them the same way for so long. In order to challenge that notion, it invites, it requires all of us, but especially those of us who are sitting in positions of privilege and power, to be uncomfortable and to confront some, some things that we might not even realize, beliefs that we've internalized based on the historic context that has landed us where we are today. So an example of this that I would share that relates to justice is thinking about people who have experienced incarceration, right, that's, I think it's widely accepted that we have a problem with mass incarceration in this country that adversely affects those people of color in our country, right? Like we know that that is happening. And so one of the things that I think about, and this is not my idea, but it has been shared in the realms of criminal justice reform that I'm part of is what are all of the ideas and the talent and the resource that we are missing out on, because as a result of incarceration, we lock people up and send them away for so long. And then we don't have adequate systems or methods to be human with those folks post incarceration to really welcome them safely back into our communities, which results in this revolving door, right? In Colorado, 48% of incarcerated people will return to prison post incarceration within three years. So what is my responsibility or why would I be so threatened to think that the folks who have such a different experience than mine that actually is incredibly rich in a different way, what would keep me from entering into a space to listen to their stories and to listen to what they know that's very different from what I know because I come from such a place of privilege. I think that what that requires for me is simply first curiosity, a willingness to admit that I don't know what I don't know, and then also a willingness to sit in some discomfort, because probably I'm going to be confronted by learning things that are so different from what I already know, because the perspectives of people who have a different life experience are going to be challenging for me. Lorena. Yeah, I think that there's an element to the fact that we in the United States, we are all striving for the quote unquote American dream, but there's only so much American dream to go around, because not everyone can achieve the American dream. And a lot of that comes into play because we've been operate, we've been like almost brainwashed that there's only so much resources that exist. And that's just not true. That's just flat out false. I mean, when we think about, and I know where it comes from, right? Like, there's all of this, these progressive agendas of like tax the rich. And, you know, because we can't pay for services for the poor if we don't tax the rich. And it's like, that's actually not true. You know, but I think that one area in which we have failed in addressing the fact that there's enough, I mean, part of it is also equity means that there's enough to go around. And the reality is that we have failed in our education system of actually educating, how does our economy actually work? We're a sovereign economy. Like, what does that mean for us? What does that mean when we're up against like the crazy notion of it's okay to bail out corporations, but oh my God, how in the world are we going to afford supporting individuals and families? Now, that's crazy. We're going to have to like take out a mortgage on the White House. Like, those things are just, those things are things that we have failed miserably in helping the folks, all of us who are just, excuse me, regular people and understanding how our society actually operates. And I think that is going back to Brett's notion, going back to your question. That's because those who hold power want to hang on to it and feel like they will lose something if others emerge. You know, you reference where that starts coming. I'm going to ask you to jump here in just a second. I just reflect bringing my kind of experience as an educator into this and thinking about in the context of schools and in the education system only so many good grades to go around because we're going to grade on a curve, right? Everybody's got the same amount of time. Some need more time. And there ought to be enough good grades for everybody, right? When you have adequate time to learn to high levels. I mean, that whole model starts with a scarcity approach, it seemed.  But that's, I think, that's where my brain goes, where when I hear you talk about, you know, systems or models that start us thinking about the limits or the, or scarcity almost from the time people are formally educated. And then it, you know, carries into life. Carmen, jump in. So I think I'll just add that sitting with that uncomfortableness around what is, why do you feel threatened? What is it that you think you're going to lose is so important and especially for decision makers, but the other piece is that we then never look at the communities that we are fearful of or that we think have needs as an asset. We look at them through a deficit lens.   You need to focus on English. Instead of saying, you already came in with an asset. Let's expand, let's grow that asset and add a second or a third or fourth language. And those messages are really important to around power and privilege in the schools. Who is told that there should be well rounded and they should learn another language, but yet a child that walks in with a different language is told from the beginning, you're a deficit. So I think that's the other pieces. And I see that in our community that there are so many gems that the general community is not aware. If I talk about food deserts, people will talk about food deserts, but I see the tiendita, panería, the mercado that are sustaining those communities. And but they're not seen as an asset. And I think that's another component of when we talk about power and privilege. Where do we not see assets? And Brett mentioned in the native communities, going back to their cultural ways, that's an asset. And I think we need to appreciate that and that expands that resource. Before I utter anything else, Judge Frick or Brett, you want to jump in on any part of this? I was more thinking about, coming from a judge standpoint, and having those hard conversations throughout my practice of law. I've been a defense attorney, I've been a prosecutor, I've been civil lawyer, all sorts of things. It's the focus on criminal justice has changed. It's not just punishment, you're going to look at rehabilitation. You're not just looking at treating people who come before the court with similar situations similarly, but you look at the individual. I think that's probably the biggest thing. And I can say that I've challenged my colleagues both at the state level and the municipal court level. We're having these hard conversations and we're trying to reaffirm, especially out of some of the things that have happened nationally, as you look at different studies around the nation or different things coming out of, for example, Ferguson, Missouri, or some of the cases coming out of Texas and things like that. It's like, we have to challenge how you do business. Now we challenge how we look at the people who come before us. Because everyone has to be treated with dignity and respect. One more directly is we want to dress these biases, address these communities, and get everyone where they should be. Brad, before I say anything else, you want to jump in? It's just an observation that came to me, especially when Carmen and Lola and I were talking, seems to me that the perception of scarcity has a huge role in perpetuating the hierarchy as well.  So that kind of gets to why we would default or why mainstream society would default towards deficit viewing rather than asset viewing of certain things because it helps maintain that structure, basically. So it's scary to let go of that structure, let go of that control, just throwing it out there. Well, a scarcity view versus an abundance view, right? There's enough to go around. We can continue to create opportunities. I've heard several of you use the word fear and how fear plays out in our mindsets and how we react to the things that we see going on in the world. I want to come back to different ideas of justice as well. But this whole series of conversations are based on a question to people in Longmont about their best hopes for the post-pandemic future. Had I asked the question, what's your prediction for the post-pandemic future? My guess, I would have heard very different responses. I would have heard people's worst fears being expressed. But I wasn't interested in that. I was interested in people's best hopes because the potential for, it seems to me, a future of greater equity and justice has to be born out of best hopes. And it is the worst fears that we have, right? To which we react, that we activate our resistance to creating a worst fear, which typically creates the worst fear, right? You make it a reality. So what's your advice? Well, how do you think about this?  And to reset, you know, what's the mindset of abundance thinking or best hopes and what that has the potential, where that has the potential to take you or the people with whom you work? Lorena. I think Judge Frick was about to jump in.  I think what's interesting about the whole conversation around the pandemic and what's happening is, you know, and all these inequities being exposed and exacerbated or whatever that word is, you know, the reality is that like, our communities, communities of color, this is nothing new. We live through a pandemic of racism and of a poverty and of lack of opportunity, whether we have a health pandemic or not. This is our reality.   You know, and like naturally so, we should all be experiencing that. But I think that what I'm getting at here is that our communities, and this is something that we should be absolutely proud of, but it's also a detriment to us. Our communities are so powerfully resilient. We know how to get through this. We know how to make ends meet when we lose our jobs. We know how to find resources and scarcity. We know how to do this. And it is hard, but that's how we've lived for decades and centuries. What I would love, and I think what's necessary, is that we forget the concept of returning to normalcy. We cannot return to normal. If we return to normal, we return to our communities continuing to experience all of these inequities for those in power to continue to say, we are striving for equity, but not really doing anything, and that those with will continue to gain and those without will continue to lose. We need to get to a place post pandemic, where communities like mine, the Latino community, where communities who live in poverty actually have the tools and the resources and the opportunities that everyone else has to achieve economic self-sufficiency, security, continued education, that our health isn't worse just because of how we're born or who we are. We need to turn our society up on top of itself. Well, before I comment, Judge Frick, did you want to jump in as well and connect with what Karina was just saying? I'll follow what Lorena said. She kind of took my steam a little bit. She said that we have such a resilient communities. I mean, look at, this pandemic has turned our world upside down.  And so I think we're such a resilient community, especially the city of Longmore. I look at all the people. And so, I mean, there is our strength and that will guide us through this. We think about how we've changed the way we do business. And I must admit, you know, there's clearly been some inefficiencies and that we're stumbled along the way, but I think that is our biggest strength is resilience. Lorena, for what it's worth, the interviews that I conducted that were the predicate for this whole series of conversations. Of the 70 some people I interviewed, one person aspired to go back to the pre-pandemic normal. Virtually everyone else aspired to move toward a different kind of future. It was more just, equitable, shared, a distributed, sustainable, kind, generous, you know. So you're in good company, as far as I'm concerned, in terms of how people have been thinking about the future. And we just need to be bold enough, I think, to figure out, to stay with us and figure out what that means and looks like. And that's what I'm hoping you're gonna help us do here for the balance of this conversation and in what we do in February 24th. Who wants to pick up, Carmen? So, picking up on what Lorena said is we know that resiliency is there in communities of color. And I will give you an example. So we went through a flood and culture, the idea of resilient communities, 2013 a flood, 2016 the state decides, hey, I wanna look into those vulnerable communities and see how they were resilient. What we did with the Resiliencia para Todos, we identified cultural brokers. There was an investment that was made into cultural brokers, into training and formalize or making their network more formal because it's been invisible and it's been underground. We knew about that, Jim, but the general community didn't realize that. The pandemic hits and we're sitting at those tables where they're going disparities and like, I knew we were gonna be there, we've been here before. But I think that the difference in that hope is how are we gonna take the action to invest in building capacity so that that resiliency is more shared and not just placed as a burden on some communities. The burden is you were resilient, you survived, keep surviving. And I think we need to flip that and invest in our communities and address in a manner that is more culturally appropriate to our communities. Do you wanna say more about, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, but if we could drill down just a bit more on the kinds of investments based on your experience that will be most meaningful and the kind of capacity that those investments should be or hopefully creating in the community or in individuals or in families. So I'll give one example. I was in a conversation about investing in early childhood education.  And what that person said was that my hope is that at the end of the two years of investment, Latino parents will be empowered and own be advocates for their children's education. So in two years, you're gonna overturn what a system has done for many, many years. So I think that's one thing that we need to do is are we truly investing in building capacity so that we can have that access and really move forward? That means generations, that doesn't mean a two-year grant, a five-year grant. That means long-term sustained investments so that we are really checking that equitable box on that. If that makes sense. Sure, well, it makes sense to me. I'm gonna see who else now wants to weigh in and build on those ideas. Kathleen? Something that comes to mind for me about challenging that fear, I think that's where you started with your question, Tim, is our willingness to listen to each other and especially to hear about the experiences directly from those who have been affected. So I think Carmen's work with the cultural brokers is a great example. I think those are the voices of the community members that need to be elevated more in terms of equity, giving more space, giving more priority to the voices that we haven't typically always listened to for generations when making decisions. And so something that's really that I've noticed because of restorative justice is that it is through dialogue that people often start challenging their own assumptions and their own biases about others that may look or appear different than they do. And so if the same people are always holding the microphone, it's easy for those biases to continue and those biases perpetuate fears and also perpetuate those other pieces that we're talking about, the scarcity, the deficit, the holding onto power. So yeah, my question would be on the other side of this, where's the congruence? Like Lorena said, there's this aspiration of equity, but where's the action and the commitment? And I think a big piece of that is for those of us who have been holding the microphone so long to take a step back and to listen and to listen to those who have ideas and have that resilience from their experience and to put more faith and more action and commitment into those ideas. Yeah, as one of those who's held the microphone a lot, I can relate to the need to be quiet and listen, although people would say I don't listen enough, I'm sure Brett. Yeah, just to kind of build to or add my own spin to it, it seems like, in terms of talking about the hierarchy and the maintenance of privilege and so on, anytime you start to undermine the hierarchy or starting to threaten the stability of it, that's what triggers fear from those in positions of privilege over others. And I think we see that play out time and time again. I mean, that's just part of doing the work is some people are gonna react with fear when you start to undermine a structure that isn't just. And I think that's led to some of the bad events that we've seen in the United States in recent times too. I think the previous administration was based in its messaging a lot on fear and it was fear-based messaging that led to the insurrection on the Capitol and so on. I'll take the heat if anybody wants to disagree, that's fine, but I think it's pretty clear. And if you look to the spiritual traditions, I think every spiritual tradition in the world that I'm aware of talks about this battle between fear on one hand that people have to overcome and courage or actually love is what courage to love on the other hand, and that's when humans achieve their highest. And so you have to aspire towards the love and towards the courage to have the love. And that means if you're in a position of privilege, you need to actually have the courage to lose some of that privilege, to lose some of that. So that's different from giving from the position of hierarchy. A lot of times like giving and empowering is done in kind of air quotes or just a minimal amount so that you don't threaten.  I think, and this operates at all levels of hierarchy too. That's where racism still comes from in poor class white people. They still want to keep people of color down because at least they're higher up in the hierarchy than that. That's why a black president was a threat to a lot of people and why we saw a rise in racial messaging, racist messaging at that time. That's why a woman running for president at the time was scary to a lot of people and motivated the right wing to extremes to fight her. So just throwing that in, that I think we have to be real about that and the same action that is a giving up can also not be a giving up.  Well, my own experience is that everybody walks around with worse fears. They can bring to any situation. It's important to acknowledge them so we can move beyond them, what those best hopes are and work on those as opposed to hang on to be motivated by those worse fears. I don't want to take this in a different direction and let if there's more, we want to drill down on right here with this part of the conversation. If I were to turn it just a little bit, I would want to go back to as we think about justice. Judge Frick and Kathleen, you've both kind of framed justice not as a thing, but as potential many things, right? Or their permutations or examples of what is justice in the context of situations. So when some people think about justice, it equates to being punitive, right? Punishment, Kathleen, you were suggesting that that's not necessarily justice, right? Maybe there are times for that, but talk about, as you two think about justice, what are the range of concepts or examples of justice in the work of restorative justice, or from your experience, Judge Frick, as a municipal judge, as a key person in the criminal justice system? Go ahead, Kathleen. Yeah, so one way I can answer that question is just to frame one of the ways that we look at the distinction between punitive or retributive justice, which is the sort of concept behind our criminal justice system versus restorative justice is by looking at the three primary questions that distinguish those two approaches. So in retributive justice, we look at what law was broken, who did it, and how should they be punished for what they did? And there's a sentence that determines that, that's indicated by the state, typically. And restorative justice reframes those questions to look at what happened and who can take responsibility for what, who was impacted by that and how, and what can be done to make things right. So some of the key elements, if we were in a class, I would ask you, what are the differences that you hear between those two different approaches? But I'll just highlight that one of them that you just referenced, Tim, is having a more nuanced approach. So looking at the specific, and Judge Frick mentioned this earlier too, looking at the individual, looking at the circumstances, and listening just as much to the impacts to a victim and the community as we do looking at the person who caused harm. Restorative justice really frames things away from crime being a violation of the state, this sort of anonymous state, and instead says crime results in the violation of relationships, harms relationships, and that to have a strong and resilient community, what we need to do is focus on repairing relationships so that we can actually reintegrate and welcome everybody back into the community, back into their families, back into the school, and that we're actually stronger that way. There's richness there, if we can find ways to reconnect and repair instead of creating isolation and separation. And in that case, the victim of whatever the crime was has voice in what would be justice in that case, what would be just from their perspective. Correct. Yeah, both the victim and the broader community that's been impacted. So in restorative justice, we acknowledge that any sort of crime has ripple effects for the entire community and that the community actually can be the voice of justice, what could the outcome be? We don't have to rely on an outside external party or institution to determine that for us. We can actually rely on those who have been impacted including the person who caused the harm to determine what needs to happen next. Judge Frick, you wanna add to that? Yeah, and you ask what type, what are the types of justice? And to kind of break that down a little bit for, there's really four different types of justice. Distributive, who gets what? Procedural, treating people fairly, fairly treating people similarly. Retributive, in other words, punishment for wrongdoing, and then also restorative, which is trying to write the relationships. And clearly there's been a change in focus over time. You know, as a judge, you have a lot of discretion in sentencing, but I look at like my counterparts in the federal court system, they for a long time had very strict guidelines about if you commit this crime, this is the punishment, very severe. Kind of going back, you have to look at the individual. Certain crimes, is there a punitive function? Sure, but you have to look more directly as where they're coming to at the table. Does this person have a substance abuse issue? Does this person have some mental health needs that need to be addressed? How do we, does this person have a home? Does this person have a meal? And every day, I look at some of the cases that come before me and my colleagues and stuff like that. It's like, you have to look at the immediate needs. I mean, let's talk about building relationships and everything else, let's talk about the immediate need of, this person needs a home, this person needs food. And so these are all challenges and I wish there was one right answer, there's not. And obviously every case is unique and every case is individual. I think you have to keep having those conversations, keep having to build that person up. I've often called the local courts the quality of life courts because we're better equipped to handle these day in, day out issues. And I look at specifically the municipal courts and our state courts here in Colorado have much more ability to do so than our federal counterparts. And that's just, you have to look at those simple words as how do you put that person in the phrase we want them to be which goes through a whole conversation of equity. So our distinctions like or between social justice, criminal justice, economic justice, environmental justice are those meaningful distinctions? I mean, they apply obviously in specific contexts but is there a difference in your minds between environmental justice and economic justice or criminal justice and social justice? So those may not be meaningful distinctions. You know, I think they do have different distinctions depending on your conversation. You know, we're all in this conversation we're talking about social justice, we're talking about justice and equity before the courts and that sort of thing. So I mean, I do think there are some nuances. But again, it all goes back to equal and full participation, you know? But I also wanna weigh in just on that. I'm gonna pivot back to equity here. Okay, I have a similar- I was just thinking if anyone else wanted to jump in but I'm gonna dive into this. Go ahead. So the reason why I'm shaking my head no is because when I think about all of these different names that we wanna put to different justices, the reality is that they're all connected. You know, when you think about like the criminal justice system, right? And then all of the considerations that Judge Frick was mentioning, when sentencing and when considering the person's background and experience, that criminal justice element is directly related to the social justice, to the economic justice, the educational justice that that person is going through. So we can't look at a person or at a community without looking at if we want to separate all of them, which we can because then we can have like organizations and people fighting on all of these individual pieces. But the reality is you can't look at an individual and only look at one piece and one side of that. You know, because we are made up of all of that. We are intersectional creatures and we can't get away from the fact that the environmental and climate justice issues impact us no matter where we live. Economic justice impact us no matter how wealthy or not wealthy we are. You know, racial justice impacts us no matter what race and color we are, you know? And so I think that that's the reason why I'm saying they're not, they're sure. We can call them out for different things, but the reality is we can't look at a person without acknowledging that we are all impacted by all of it. Yeah, great observation. Anybody else want to comment here? I do want to say to listeners we're more than 40 minutes into the hour. I think we have a phone number that's being shared if anybody wants to call in to contribute to the conversation or ask questions of these experts here on equity and justice. Let's pivot back to, well, both to justice and equity but it's starting on the equity side of this. In the world, how will you know? When you see, whether it's people or circumstances, situations and you say to yourselves, that is an example of progress in terms of equity, whether it's any of those distinctions of gender equity or educational equity. I mean, I think Lorena what you said would apply as well, right? We're all affected by inequities no matter where they occur or how they occur. What do you look for when you recognize there's an example of greater, a reduction of inequity or greater equity in your work or in your community? Are there examples that you could name? When you see it, that's an example of it. Is that a bad question? I was an archeologist.  I was saying, it's not so much, you have to call out these injustices whenever you see them. And you have to realize, you have to be open and willing to acknowledge those truths but also recognize the dangers that are there. You have to call them out when you see them. And when you see the opposite, not the injustice but justice or an example of progress on equity, what do you see? How do we mark progress? I think it goes back to what Lorena was talking about and the capital. When we're seeing those very communities that have been resilient by surviving on very little and they are no longer just surviving or having to be resilient than those removal of barriers. And I think it's very challenging when you have to call it out. The other thing is you have to sustain those removal of barriers so that race, ethnicity, gender, none of that becomes a reason why you don't have not only access but success in really building your own capital or whatever that is. When I was doing work with gangs, we would talk about that you could go into any prison in this country and ask them, what did they dream of being when they were younger? And then start looking at what's all the things that became barriers to them achieving that dream. And when we hear folks saying, I got it, I've achieved my dream, I can't tell you the number of kids that are told numerous ways that they cannot, they will not. So when that stops being the message and we're investing in those communities, then I think we're closer to equity but it's gonna take a long time. Well, it's not gonna happen overnight but you're all in roles where you have a chance to move the needles, right? On equity in the community or Lorena with your work you're doing with your statewide parent coalition. And reasons to be able to mark progress and celebrate progress is it seems to be an important part of an initiative or an effort in the interest of greater equity and justice. And so know when to celebrate, when to high five, at least metaphorically and build on successes. So that's kind of what I'm curious about. What are the successes that we would identify and which we wanna build? I have some and I just wanna offer if anyone else wants to speak. So I feel like I'm talking a lot on this. Zoom. You're gonna see another hand going up. Okay. You know, I think when we see justice being achieved or we're getting closer to justice or closer to equity, you know, I think about, for example, an initiative that the Colorado State of Parent Coalition is working on right now where in 2006, Colorado passed a slew of horrific anti-immigrant policies, which basically said that if you can't prove lawful presence, then you don't have, you don't get to get a professional or occupational commercial license. You don't get access to any sort of benefits. You can't even compete for grants or small business loans.  That has horrifically, detrimentally impacted Colorado as a whole and much more so individual families for 15 years. Some of the work that the Colorado State of Parent Coalition does is we train informal childcare providers, predominantly immigrant childcare providers, one of those many of them are undocumented to be high quality early childhood educators. Some of them wanna go on to become licensed childcare providers, but they can't because these laws in our books prevent them because they can't prove lawful presence from getting a childcare license and starting their own small business and helping fill the childcare licensed gap that exists. So what we're doing is we've built this really large, amazing coalition to repeal those laws and affirmatively state that the state of Colorado and local communities can in fact provide benefits, public benefits, including professional, occupational and commercial licenses without the qualification of proving lawful presence. When we get rid of that piece of having to prove lawful presence, we are already getting closer to equity because we are getting rid of a ridiculous barrier that has no place in being there and we're offering the opportunity for those who are qualified to be able to participate fully in their society, in the economy and in helping their families achieve economic sustainability and starting their own small businesses and being able for DACA students who graduate with let's say a medical degree to be able to get a doctor's license or a nursing license. I mean, to me, when I see that effort and I see that it came from those who are directly impacted, that to me says we are getting closer to justice. And then we have legislators like Senator Sonia Hawkes-Lewis saying I'm championing this because I believe in it. Then I know that I see that we have people in power who are going to be fighting to help us get to equity and justice. Will we fully achieve equity and justice once this bill passes? Cause I promise you it'll pass. Once this bill passes, are we gonna achieve it? No, we still have a long way to go but we are so much closer than we would be if we didn't even try it. Well, I would say that's a big one in terms of market progress. And I'll be anxious to know when you have a bill number for reasons that we've talked about on other occasions. But that's a big one at the state level. What about at our level? What about at the municipal level? What would be the equivalent of that kind of progress in terms of steps towards equity or the inclusion of a population in a more equitable setting or environment? The examples? Carmen, I talk a little bit about in the budgeting process the city goes through, there's an equity lens. Is there not? The city has a pretty sophisticated criteria for evaluating budget proposals. But isn't there a lens, an equity lens that's used in terms of the implications or impact of budget ideas that might not have an impact on the whole community but would impact segments of the community and therefore are favored or rated as a higher priority in terms of the city's budgeting process? So what I would say is we could do better. I don't think that we have the right equity questions. We are not asking questions about community impact. We have identified areas much too like what you talked about justice, environmental, social. So we've identified areas, economics, we've identified quality of life and that includes neighborhoods. But we're still not asking the right questions around community impact and access. And then there's an accountability piece which for most organizations makes it a challenge when you have programs and services that are provided specifically to a community that's under resourced, we're not seen equitable. How do you compare public safety to early childhood education? Well, I'm gonna start to put a wrap on this but I wanna use that as a place to start. You're all invited to come back on February 24th. I think you've all agreed to do that so we can continue this conversation. And a place to start would be what are your recommendations to move us towards your and my aspiration for a more equitable and just post-pandemic future? So think about what those recommendations are, whether they're in for your nonprofit, for the city, for the state, for the association or others that are served by or have some implications for NARF. That's where I'd like to start on the 24th. And I would like to say to you, thank you again not just for your time tonight but for all that you do in the world and in this community and in the state of Colorado and nationally. You could be a lot of places tonight but you agreed to be here. And I'm deeply appreciative of that, more appreciative of what you do every day. I wanna say to listeners for tonight's program, this group, welcome back on the 24th. If you like this program, tell your friends and neighbors. If you don't like what we're doing, let me know. What I need to do to improve the value and the meaning of these programs. This is public access television and we'll take all the input we can get to make it relevant, meaningful and entertaining for the community. I do want, as a matter of practice, I wanna sign off in these programs by repeating a blog post by Seth Gooden which I think just has a lot of significance what we're trying to do here with this series in the future we deserve. Seth Gooden writes, we can choose to commit to a recursive and infinite path that elegantly creates more of the same. We can choose possibility, we can choose connection, we can choose optimism, we can choose justice, we can choose kindness, we can choose resilience and we can decide to take responsibility. Each leads to more of the same. So think about that. Join us on February 24th for the second of this series. Thanks for allowing us in your home tonight. Long web viewers.


Cardi B thinks the US might be on the cusp of another lockdown. The WAP hitmaker has taken to Twitter to ask her followers whether another lockdown is on their way despite the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination. The trust stopping star previously blasted former President Donald Trump for his handling of the pandemic. Cardi B thinks the US might be on the cusp of another lockdown. The WAP hitmaker has taken to Twitter to ask her followers whether another lockdown is on the way despite the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination. Cardi asked her followers if they think the US will be closed down again. The trust stopping star previously blasted former President Donald Trump for his handling of the pandemic. In an interview with President Joe Biden, Cardi called for honesty from the government amid the ongoing health crisis and told him she doesn't want to be lied to and just wanted answers. She then told the president she wants to know when this will be over and explained she wants to get back to her job and stated one day Trump was saying the virus is nothing and said people need to stop getting tested but the next thing you know he had a mask on his face. Cardi called on President Biden to tell her the hardcore truth about the pandemic and insisted she wants the president to tell her what the steps are for the country to get better and tell her why the process is taking so long and why other countries are doing better than America. Hello. Hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


If you just take a look around you, you will see how almost everything we use and experience in our environment is designed. We live most of us in surroundings that are almost entirely human made. Design involves creating products, systems and services. From my spectacles to your smartphone or computer on which you are watching me, from the room in which you sit, to the mug of tea or glass of water by your side, it has all been conceived and carried out through a process of design. You may ask, is this design or is it technology? Well, design is multi-disciplinary. It engages with all disciplines. So when it comes in contact with technology, it strives to make that technology accessible to people. Its engagement with art leads to aesthetically designed products and clear communication. Its partnership with ergonomics leads to user-friendly products. Ergonomics, that is a word that may not be familiar to everyone out there. What does it mean? Well, a useful definition is that it is the science of designing products to optimize them for varied human dimensions. Ergonomics is sometimes called human factors engineering. We will be discussing this in detail a little later in the module. Let me demonstrate. Take the problem of the jam pickle bottle. See what I do? How easily that got done. The designer of this tool really understood the human hand.