Our all-coin focus this week is on privacy coins. Do you think Bitcoin is private? Many believe yes. However, for those who use cryptocurrency for legitimate purposes, it is not. When you purchase cryptocurrency through most exchanges, you are required to prove your identity. This means that your identity is tied to the wallet you use to purchase those coins with, and anyone you purchase something from with that wallet will now be able to see all of your past transactions. For example, in the future, if you want to send your kids some Bitcoin to go see a movie, they could use your address to find out just what you've been spending your money on when they're not at home. This poses a problem for those who value their privacy and becomes even more unsettling when you think of what others can do with your financial information. For example, recently it was revealed that massive amounts of data was being siphoned from Facebook users and compiled to create profiles designed to target users in individual ways. So, if you were worried about Mark Zuckerberg stealing that selfie of you stepping my ties in Fiji, imagine if you knew exactly what you spent your money on while you were there. The lead developer of Monero, Ricardo Spagny, said it best this past January at Coinbase Headquarters after an operator of XmonxChange was kidnapped and ransomed for Bitcoin. If we don't have financial privacy, there are bad things that can happen. We might end up with targeted advertising based on spending habits, or targeted crime against the wealthy.  Even worse, you go to pay with Bitcoin for an item and now the owner knows your bank balance. This realization is what motivated the creation of coins like Monero, Dash, Zcash, Verge and Fightcoin, as well as a dozen or so more. These coins hide all of the information in any transaction so that no one can see who or how much was involved in an exchange. Problem solved, right? Not exactly. This level of privacy created a new problem of complete anonymity which greatly increases the likelihood of these cryptocurrencies being used for illegal means. It means that large amounts of money can be moved all over the world with no taxes being paid and no backlash for any illegal actions it might be tied to. Some privacy coins like Zcash have the option for companies to only obscure portions of transactions for auditing purposes. But is this enough? Privacy is popular. And the top two coins alone have a combined market cap of 5 billion. That is a lot of money floating around there being spent on Satoshi knows what. Are privacy coins a good idea? Do you use privacy coins? Let us know which ones you think are the best and why in the comments below.


bothers in the minds of the lawyers and the students like their judgments and the paper books which are running into hundreds and thousands of pages so the time is short everybody has 24 hours he has to settle everything then how do we actually go about it how to understand the nitty-gritty of that paper book of 500 pages or a judgment how to come up for a cracks because the next day that has to be argued and we have to tell the real facts how to come to the main bullet point no it you see it all depends again the quote where you are quote means level of court silencing if it is a quote of first jurisdiction it may be a district court or even if it is high court it's a written petition before single jet and first time you are arguing of course at that time full liberty is given to argue the entire case it is the first court court of first instance but when it is a second court I mean appellate court division bench again LPA etc is there or if it is third final court like supreme court the you see mechanics of the I mean the games change there there's already a judgment before division bench in LPA there is already or in civil case also it is first appeal or second appeal RSA under section 100 there are already two judgments so therefore of course with these judgments the judgment itself maybe in we don't know it may be five ten pages or maybe hundreds of pages and there are other records as well so therefore it is your you have to see and again at that comes by experience and everybody knows that and there are two stages one is admission stage one is final stage so at admission stage particularly when the time allotted to you to argue the case is very less and the court has to form a view whether to admit the case or not at that stage appeal or SLP etc at that stage it is for you to see what is the point that if a two basic points it is easy but then there may be so many points in a case and you may have framed so many questions of law but then you have to see it is which question which hits the nail on the head and it is your that skill to find out that and then say that point in the first instance which may carry the day so that is the which comes over a period of time and all of you know and your senior lawyers can brief you better on this like we judges in say whether it is high court when they are 40 50 cases listed every day for admission or it is supreme court then 40 50 cases listed every monday and friday for admission and you have to read this thick files not that let me tell you very frankly if it is file of 300 or 400 pages not that we have to read 300 pages of each case we don't read that we can't it would be impossible but then over a period of time we acquire that skill that after reading two things number one the judgment which is challenged and number two the this synopsis in the beginning as to what is attacked what is the prime attack we come to know whether there is any force in that or not so likewise a lawyer also of course creation of law has to be much more than that of a judge because we are not to argue the case ultimately we when we read at home and then the case comes just to save time we read at home otherwise we hear the lawyer and then find out whether there's any because we may have missed something any lawyer say I may have an impression that there's nothing in the case but lawyer may then at that time tell me something which I had missed and I said yeah yeah this is a point which is worth consideration but likewise the since the lawyers tell this to the court it is for the lawyers to acquire these skills as to what is that point which needs to be hammered in the beginning and yes when it comes to final arguments you have at leisure you can develop your arguments on each specs but according to me what I would say that one should before going to the court mentally not only mentally even on paper should structure his case for her case that this is the judgment on these grounds I am attacking these are the propositions a b c d and on these propositions these are the judgments on proposition a I'll state these facts which are there relevant either pick up from my documents or from the judgment and then I'll say how the judge has gone wrong and these are the judgments or I have to defend the judgment then task is little easier so these are the aspects which have to be kept in mind after hearing you I am reminded I will just quote in Hindi in Mahabharat they asked Bheem Bheem Andhera hai aur tu roti kaisi khara hai to he said abhyas Arjun abhyas so according to you it is only that we have to practice and practice the more we practice the more it better becomes and another point well taken from you is as you have said that the greatness of great man is not achieved in sudden flight but it is achieved while others were sleeping the other he was working day and night


Now you find something very interesting here in eBay and Visa Those are two-sided markets meaning that they they in order for them to grow they need two type of users they need sellers and they need buyers in eBay and they need card holders and they need merchandising visa and This is why their metric is not in terms of users or card holders or buyers Because growing only buyers will not grow Okay, so and you don't want to have multiple growth metrics you have you want to have you want to have one growth metric Okay, so obviously eBay in order for you to grow if we eBay grows the GMV It means that he's growing both users both kind of users buyers and sellers and same thing for visa So this is why it's not always the case that the growth metrics is in terms of users or units that you sell or stuff like that


The importance of today's conference is the first in a series which we are pledged to organise here in Wales where we bring together all those different interests, private businesses, public services, organisations, individuals, each pledged to make their contribution to tackling the urgent emergency that we have in the climate here on our planet and here in Wales. We're really pleased to be invited here. It's a bit different from blocking a street. It's really great to be able to have a dialogue with government and with people in the street. The opportunity to bring such an interest in an influential body of people together for a couple of hours in Cardiff is just too good to miss really. We have to respond to it, we have to prepare for the impacts of it and to do that we need to put people at the centre of the change. It's about building collaborative action between communities, between business and government and the public sector. I think my personal highlights being the talk from Extinction Rebellion that we had because they're very engaging especially for young people like us on what the consequences are going to be when we grow up in the future. You're very interesting hearing about businesses talking about this is a strategy for this but it's interesting to see exactly what's happening and what we need to do about it.  Today is our first step towards what action we will take to bring everyone together in Glasgow next year and show the great ambition we have for a very small country but the massive ambition we have in mitigating climate change.


What's up everyone takedown here welcome back to another video today. I'm gonna be ranking the free ps plus games that we got in 2019 let's get right into this Okay, so for me the free games that we got for 2019 for the most part were a lot of fun There was a couple months that honestly I did not enjoy the games or a couple months that I did not get the games But for the most part there was at least one game that I got each month for 2019 So I'm gonna go through all the games that I downloaded and played and I'm gonna rank them along the way now There is some games that were free for ps plus for 2019 that it did not play And I'm not gonna be ranking them today because if I've never played them or if I didn't download them There's no point in me ranking it because I've never played and tested out the game So we're just gonna get right into it right now up first is for January was a game called steep Which for me was a very classic Snowboarding game. I honestly haven't played a snowboarding snowboarding game since the early 2000s I remember having a few snowboarding computer games So it's been a while since I've played a snowboarding game this here. You can snowboard ski Jump out of the hit helicopters and glide. There's a lot that you can do in the game. There's a lot of races It's a lot of fun and it's always fun to play with friends Which is why I liked it whenever it came out, of course It was in the winter it was in January so it made sense for why the game was coming out But now that we're getting into winter again this year. I'm gonna start playing it a little bit more So for this game here, I'm gonna rank it pretty decent I'm gonna rank it seven out of ten because I honestly thought it was a lot of fun Next up is February, which unfortunately I didn't download any games because none of them were of interest to me But for March was a game that honestly, I wasn't expecting and that is call of duty modern warfare Remastered which now that we know that the last call of duty that was released was the remake or I'm gonna say remake for Call of Duty modern warfare It made sense why they had this for a free ps plus game because I've noticed a trend with free ps plus games where they will Share something or they'll have a free ps plus game because in the future There is going to be something related to that game that is going to be released Whether that is a new video game for that series a movie or something along those lines So call of duty modern warfare remastered. It was the first time that I played this game I never played it back on the ps3 I felt it was a lot of fun. The story was awesome It was the only call of duty game that I went and played on I think it's called veteran on that game So it's the hardest level. It was a lot of fun. I didn't find it as difficult There was a couple that I had to grind out because it was super hard But I just wanted to get a bunch of trophies which I did for this game this game here. I'm going to rank it the same as steep I'm going to rank it seven out of 10 Because this is the era of call of duty games that I really enjoyed playing now the current call of duty games I honestly do not enjoy playing and I probably will not get them again because In the past they started to go more futuristic now with the current modern warfare I hear great things about it, but I'm just not interested in call of duty anymore Next up is the free game for april, which is conan exiles. This is a very glitchy very Poor game if I'll just word it like that There's not much to do you can get an easy platinum because they left the admin panels in the game So you can go through the admin panels Do anything that requires you for a trophy so you can level yourself up You can have no health or you can have max health max armor You can have the one hit ability.  So every enemy that you can kill for a trophy You can just spawn them and kill them with one punch Honestly, not a lot for this game. This game I think is around $50, but it was free for april for ps plus Honestly, I would not recommend this game. This game is very poor very glitchy. You can fall off the map very easily It's honestly not fun at all I simply got it and I ended up getting the platinum, but it's just a very poor poorly constructed game So I'm going to give this one literally zero out of 10 Next is the free ps plus game for may and that is overcooked I actually downloaded and purchased this game whenever it was about two dollars Months and months prior to them having it free for ps plus, but I have played this game It is fun and it is more of a single player or a couch co-op game There is no online co-op or online mode at all The second one that came out overcooked too. That is the one that has online That's the one that I really wanted them to have for free for ps plus because I wanted to play it with a friend But unfortunately you cannot I can however game share and play with the friends, but they're not going to earn the trophies. I will It is fun. I do enjoy that style of game The teamwork aspect in the kitchen makes sense It's a very interesting game, but I'd rather it have online So for this one here because it's only couch co-op or you have to game share to be able to play with a friend I'm going to rank it five out of ten still not too terrible But it's just the halfway mark for me next up for june I actually got two free ps plus games first is borderlands handsome collection Now this is the first borderlands game that I purchased It actually has two games with it. It has the pre-sequel and the second borderlands game Honestly, I've only played the pre-sequel. I tried getting into it Honestly, I did not enjoy it So I've never played the second one or attempted to but it is on my backlogged list of games that I want to attempt and play I hear it's a lot better playing online with friends and Having a teammate somebody to watch your back and help you out with it So hopefully in the future I'll get into it and try to play it But for what I played so far, I'm only going to rank the game Three out of ten. It just is not something that I enjoyed I know the third one just came out. I hear great things about it But it's just not a series of games that I actually want to play and that I enjoy playing So I did not enjoy it that much But the next game for june was sonic mania. I remember playing sonic back in the early early days It was a lot of fun in this game here. It was basically a throwback. I did enjoy it I played a couple levels, but I haven't played it too much So i'm only going to rank it five out of ten, but it is honestly a fun classic sonic game Next up is july's game, which is one of my favorite games on the playstation 4 period Honestly, it's a lot of fun. There's a lot to do in it The story is amazing the fact that the choices you make and the decisions you make during the game Actually matter because you can kill off the main character pretty early in the game There's a lot of decisions a lot of choices and once you do one play through You can go back in either certain levels or replay the whole game and make different decisions and see how they play out So it's a lot of fun. I really enjoyed this one. I'm going to rank it higher than anything I've ever ranked on my channel before I'm going to rank it 10 out of 10 It's just I've really solid game and I really enjoyed it. It was a lot of fun Next up for august is another shooter game and that is sniper elite 4 Now this is the first time I've played a sniper elite game I do like sniping in video games like battlefield and call of duty, but it's hard to do in call of duty anymore But for me sniper elite was fun But you had to be very quiet the maps were huge. There was a lot of objectives It was fun. It's just not something I really dove into and got into 100% yet I'm going to rank it pretty fun I'm going to rank it pretty high though and the reason for that is because I love sniping. I'm going to rank it 6 out of 10 Next up for september. I also got two games So the first one is batman arkham knight, which is a open world batman game I've talked about this on the channel before it is honestly a lot of fun I really enjoyed it. The main story follows scarecrow and there's a lot of side quests for people like Two-face riddler the penguin firefly. There's a serial killer militia And so much more. There is a lot of side quests. There's a lot of supervillains in this game There's a lot to discover the story is amazing the fact that you can drive the batmobile This game pretty much has everything going for it an open world game Plus it is batman. So it's open world in gotham city. This for me was a lot of fun I love the game so much. I'm going to rank it 9 out of 10. It's just pretty solid game for me Next in for september as well is dark ciders 3 now This is the first time that I ever played a dark ciders game. Honestly, the gameplay is Fun, it's very interesting. You play as a female character, which you don't see as much in games anymore But it is a lot of fun. The gameplay is awesome. The whole underworld aspect to it I find very interesting, which I don't usually Go towards those games when I decide to play a game I am at a part where I am stuck, but I'm working through it And it's a lot of fun to just go and enjoy and the time flies by when you're playing this game Which is the type of games that I like playing I'm going to rank this one 6 out of 10 because I actually enjoyed this game for playing it for the first time It's a pretty good game next for october another month that I got two games Up first is the last of us remastered which came out in the playstation 3 originally But the remaster version for the playstation 4 It is one of the most sold games on the playstation 4 Because everybody in my opinion most people when that got the playstation 4 early on It came included with the playstation 4. So a lot of people got this game played this game It's a lot of fun. I already had this game before it came out for free for ps plus But it's a very interesting zombie story game the online in my opinion sucks it's more like a call of duty no zombies, but It's still a very fun game if you like the kind of open world zombie game It's definitely something I'd check out I'm going to rank it 7 out of 10 because I had a lot of fun with bits And the other game for october is mlb the show 19 Honestly baseball is not something that I enjoy I just got it so I can play with a friend whenever he decides to play it So we're going to play a little bit online, but I just found out that in March or april the online service for mlb the show 19 are going to cut out because they cut out every year whenever the new game comes out So for me that is a buzzkill It's definitely something that I'm going to attempt to play with my friends But on my own probably not because I'm not really into baseball What I've played so far on my own It's just Not really for me So I'm only going to rank it 3 out of 10 very poor in my opinion because it's just not a sport that I'm into Next for november I never downloaded any of the games because one was a horror game, which You guys know me. I don't like horror games and the other one was a japanese style game Which again, I don't like japanese style games So I didn't bother downloading either one for november But for december the two games that came out which I thought were pretty decent The first one is monster energy supercross basically a dirt bike game Which I remember playing back on the playstation 2 and I think I had a game on the playstation 3 as well For dirt bikes It's a lot of fun. It's very more Advanced than it was back on the games that I played prior Because you can get wrecked easily you can fall off the bike you can jump off the track accidentally so Just getting used to the gameplay and the mechanics. It's taking a lot to get used to it is a lot of fun I definitely recommend checking it out. I'm going to rank this one pretty high. I'm going to rank it 7 7 out of 10 because So far I really enjoy it. I love racing games It's off-road because it's dirt bikes. I like off-road racing especially so It has everything going for me and you can actually customize your rider, which I thought was fun And I think you can customize your bikes as well, but I haven't done that yet So 7 out of 10 for this game and the last game that I got for december And it's the last game for this video because it's the last game that came out free for ps plus for 2019 And that is titan fall 2. I actually thought this was a lot of fun I just started it it just started and got through all the training aspects of the game And now I'm just starting to play a little bit of the campaign and a little bit of online as well For me it has a lot of the mechanics from call of duty black ops 3 Where you are you can double jump you can run on the wall you can slide you can do a lot of stuff like that except it has Robots in the game. It has the titans in the game. So it's very interesting. I picked up these shooting styles very quickly It's a lot of fun. I've been having a blast with it It reminds me like I said of black ops 3 and I've never really liked the call of duty futuristic games But that's what this series and that's what this franchise is about the titan fall franchise. So It is a fun game. I'm actually enjoying it because I haven't played a shooter That is this style in a while. So I'm really enjoying it I'm going to rank it 8 out of 10 because so far so good. I really enjoyed it And it's a great game. So these were the free ps plus games for 2019 I just went through ranked them shared my opinions on them of what was The games that I liked the most the top games for the whole year in my opinion are going to be Detroit become human batman arkham knights and honestly, I'm going to say Titanfall 2 they're just three of my favorite games that came out free for this past year Everything else on this list most of the games. I did enjoy some like I've mentioned I just didn't enjoy too much or is expecting a little a little bit more out of them But honestly, I liked them. So I'm going to leave this video here comment down below What was your favorite free ps plus game for 2019? I also have a video coming out soon that I'm going to be sharing what I think PlayStation should have for future ps plus free games So I'm very excited to share that with you, but I'm going to leave this video here. Please take care. Peace


Suspense, and the producer of radio's outstanding theatre of thrills, the master of mystery and adventure, William M. Robson. A man must be born to be a king or trained for it. Daniel Dravitt and P. C. Carnahan had neither qualification. Indeed, all they had was ambition, but they made it, and they learned the hard way that uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. Listen, listen then, as Dan O'Hurley, he stars in Rudyard Kipling's great story, The Man Who Would Be King, which begins in just a moment. This is Frank Knight speaking for Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch. It's wonderful to win a Nobel Prize in Science, a Pulitzer Award in Literature, and Olympic gold medal in sports. In the field of time, did you know that Lawn Jean watches have won more great public honors for excellence, elegance, and accuracy than any other watch in the world? This is true. For close to a century, the highest authorities have ranked Lawn Jean watches as the finest achievement in the science and art of watchmaking. Yet, for a surprisingly modest cost, you may own or proudly give a Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, styled with distinction, cased in precious metal, promising a lifetime of faultless timekeeping. See your authorized Lawn Jean Wittner jeweler. He will be honored to serve you. And now, The Man Who Would Be King, starring Mr. Dan O'Hurley, a tale well calculated to keep you in suspense. It's dull and lonely standing the dog watch in a newspaper office anyplace in the world. But in India, in June, it's all so hot and stifling and very quiet. I was so occupied one night with nothing more important to do than wait for some trivial item to clatter over the wire from Europe. My office door slowly opened, and the man, no, a ghost stood there. His cheeks were deep hollows above his staring round eyes, and his clothes were rags hung on a frame of bones. You don't know who I am, do you? No, no, I haven't the faintest idea, but here you'd better sit down, old fellow, you're looking a bad way. Yes, sir. Thank you. It's a whole year I've been walking. Right here in this very office, we settled it. You're sitting right there giving us the maps and laughing at us because we wanted to be kings. And so it was, we were kings.  No, no, a man couldn't change that much in three years. You're not Pichy Conner. Yes, and I was the king of Kaffiristan, me and Daniel Trafford, real crown kings we was, just as true as gospel.  Pichy? I knew Pichy Conner and was, he's a king, wears a real golden crown on his head. So help me, he does. He's dead now, though. No, no, no, you are Pichy Conner. Yeah, yeah, look, you've got to keep looking into my eyes, and maybe everything won't go to pieces. All right, now tell me what happened to Pichy. Well, we left that caravan we was travelling with at Jagdalla. We, uh, struck off into the hills alone. Oh, weeks it was, we traveled. First there wasn't no roads, and after a while no food. But there was always the throms. Yeah, move along there. They're done in a star, the same as their cells. They'll go no further. Well, then we'll go on without them. I've not come this far to die on the side of a mountain. Wait, wait. Look, Daniel, over the edge of the rocks. What? Men they are. There's a score or more of them. And look, one has gone ahead of the rest, and nothing but bows and arrows. Break out a pair of the rifles, Pichy. Break out, Daniel. It's now that we start to become kings. Here you are. Now then, Pichy, I'll drop the straggler at the rear first, and then we'll lay a few at their feet. No arm to the one in front. We may need him. Blat on their blooming faces. Their leader is coming out alone. I await your command, O ye who speak in the voice of thunder. By the Lord, Ari Pichy, we're in luck. That's the old Afghan tongue he speaks. Speak up! Who are you? Where do you come from? I'm high priest and chief of the village of Baskai, a journey of only a few heartbeats. What's your name? Mazu Kanjabdalo. That's too long. What do we call him, Pichy? He has the look about him of an old soldier and friend of ours. Billy Fish? Oh, so he does, ye. He bestow an aim on you. From now on, you'll be Billy Fish. As you command, I obey. All right. Then put this on your drums. Tell them two kings have come out of the mountaintops. Two kings that speak in words of thunder so the earth trembles. Tell them two kings have come to Kapiristan. You need lots of dollars for an accident. You need the kind of protection that only Mutual of Omaha sells what you need. You need Mutual of Omaha's longer, stronger hospital insurance. Modern hospital insurance that's right for you. Single men and women, entire families, even senior citizens, no matter how old, can be protected by Mutual of Omaha hospital insurance. Here's what you need. You need modern insurance to help meet today's higher costs. Longer, stronger hospital insurance by Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association. Call your local Mutual of Omaha agent in the yellow pages. Or write Mutual of Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska for information on plans available in your state. And remember this, you can save money when you add Mutual of Omaha long-term coverage to your group insurance. The savings you make depend on your age and the type of group insurance you have. Write for details to Mutual of Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska. And now, starring Mr. Dan O'Hurley, act two of The Man Who Would Be King. Hey, you fishy? Daniel, why are you sitting here in the dark? I've been thinking. A man has to stop and think sometimes. About anything special, Daniel? Look at him, Peachy. Look at him blinking campfires, gleaming in the dark like the jewels in a crown. Ah, yes, Daniel. You've done a fine job for sure. All 23 villages get joined together as one. There are hours now. Every man, jack, woman, and child, we own them, body and soul. We're kings now, Daniel. Not proper kings yet, but we will be. Sooner than you think, Peachy. Huh? How's that? Billy Fish told me something today that fair amazes me. These people know the craft. What? You mean the... the Freemasons? Oh, Daniel, it can't be possible. So won't it? It's gospel true. He gave me the grip and everything. It's old, masonry is. It's older than the memory of man.  Well, why, some of the high priests know up through the fellow craft, but they don't know the third degree. See, if, Peachy, they don't know the third degree, but we do. Daniel, what is it you're fixin' to do? Do? We're gonna be proper kings. We've got them going and coming. Now, I'm gonna turn the whole country into one grand lodge, and some of the priests to third degree. And for me, I'll be the grand master of Kaferistan. You haven't got the right to. We've never been officers in no lodge. Yeah, right. What's a king got to do with asking for a right? I'm against it, Daniel. It's no good to go foolin' around with the craft. Ah, you talk like an old woman. The thing will work. I know it will. We'll make it a blooming ceremony. The symbols and the marks? Oh, for us, Peachy. The kings of Kaferistan. Everything is prepared, and the priests and the people wait. Well, they haven't much longer, Billy. Now, Peachy, how do you like my apron? It's a wondrous sight, for fair, Daniel. It made a white ermine skin, it is, and a master's mark with emeralds. You ready, Peachy? It's a bit rigid, Daniel. Then half we go and under the temple steps. Oh, we'll give them what for. Knock their blinking eyes out. That's what we'll do. They turn and they're blooming leaves and yelling their full words. Oh, it's just a good thing to be a king, Daniel. Stand where you are, master. They recognize the mark. That great stone in the floor. Why do they turn it over? Wait. Speak up, Billy. What's the meaning of it? See for yourself. Look. Daniel, carved on the back of the stone. Yeah. It is the master's mark, all right? And the same as the sign you wear. Only a few of the priests have known of the hidden mark on the stone. What does it mean? Many who have doubted you were a god. Doubt no longer.  I, master, I think that now it is the time for these gold crowns. How they glitter. They fit for the brow of a king. Oh, it is what we come for. Here, here now. Put them on. We'll crown ourselves in our own right. Listen to them. Here now something fishy. We come here to be kings and that's how we are all right. But, blame you, we ain't a couple of blooming gods to boot with a million people bowing on their knees. Let wind outside, bitchy. Winter's about due to strike and fill the trails with snow. There'll be a little movie in about before spring. You're right. Yeah, I've been thinking. A man gets lowly in the winter and cold. Why? So, bitchy, I've decided to take a wife. A, a wife? Who? Marum, the girl who brings the food. Oh, she's a well-favoured wench. But you can't do it, Daniel. We made a contract with each other. That was until we were kings. Well, kings, we've been these many months now. It's no good, it's no good. I'll tell you now I'm against it. Against it? You was against using the craft, too. But look what it done for us. This is different. Billy Fish will tell you all the same as I do. Billy Fish, yeah. Who's the king here? Him or me? Me, mine's made up. Three days from now, I shall have me a wife. And you can put it on the drums until every blighter out there in the hills. The kingdom of Kaphiristan is going to have a queen. Just keep in there, P.G. They should have bought her in here half an hour ago. I don't know, Daniel. How about you, Billy Fish? You put them up to stall and off deliberate like? Certain preparations must be made, master. She's across the court with some of the priests. Maybe they're trying to hearten her up a bit, Daniel. She thinks she's going to die, you know. Die, indeed. Master, it is against the laws of heaven for a woman to marry a god. I'm not a god. I'm a man. You know that by now, Billy. I should not want to think so, master. But either way, this can mean only trouble. I beg you to reconsider.  I'm through with waiting. I'm going over there. Master, please. We've got to go with them, Billy. Come on. Now you're bundling fools. Bring out the girl. Oh, now that's better. Here, girl. This is no way for a bride to behave. Oh, and a smile. Give us a kiss. Yeah, which has bitten me. The blood, master. Don't let them see the blood. No! 130 people killed by fire at sea. The captain dead, perhaps poisoned. The chief engineer sat helplessly moaning and wringing his hands. Was there a murderer on board? Now, read in the latest issue of Look Magazine, the mysterious and incredible story of the ill-fated vessel, the Moro Castle. You folks who enjoy the action and thrills of suspense will be particularly fascinated by Look Magazine's detailed report of the death of the Moro Castle. Did the chief radio operator deliberately touch off the fire, or was he really a hero? Were 130 people murdered and the Moro Castle burned to hide evidence that the captain may have been poisoned? Get the chilling answers in Look. Learn in Look about the one man on the ship who was acclaimed for superhuman devotion to duty and how he was later imprisoned for the bludgeon murder of two of his neighbors. Find out in Look how it was discovered that there was a pathological fire setter aboard the Moro Castle. Don't miss Fire at Sea in the new issue of Look Magazine. It's on your newsstands now. Get Look today. And now. Starring Mr. Dan Poherlahy, the three of the man who would be king. Confounded, heathens. I'll come back. I'll come back and beat their blasted heads in. That's what I'll do. Oh, yes, Daniel. Yes, we'll be back. All right. So much further, Billy. Only a short way beyond this ridge, Master. Well, so far so good. At least them blooming drums have stopped. At the top now, Daniel. And our right good climate's been. Wait. Look. It seems the drums have come before us, Master. Cattle. Now, less than a thousand of them standing there. Quiet like with them. Wicked long knives in their ends. There'll be no getting past them, Daniel. No. We're done for. Go on back, Billy Fish. Take your men away with you. Go with him, Pucci. It's me they want. I did it. Me. The king. No, Daniel. We made a contract, you and I. Billy Fish, you clear out. I am your friend. I stay with you. No.  A common no, Daniel. Pucci. No, no, no, no. Forget it, Daniel. I forgive you freely and fully. All right, then let them come. There's one thing they can't change, Pucci. We've been kings. Kings in our own right. Kings of all Kaffiristan. Yes. The sliced open poor Billy Fish. Like a bloomin' heron, they're dead. In the snow and the rocks. Oh, Lord man. But you, Pucci, you got away from them. Got away from them, did I? Oh, no, no. Strung me out on a tree, drove nails right through me hands, they did. See? But I fooled them all right, because morning came and I wasn't dead. Then I made them think that I'd lost my senses. And I was afraid to harm me, because crazy men is protected by Allah. Well, they cut me down then, and after a while they let me go. You poor devil. What have driven it? What happened to Daniel? Daniel's a king, and he wears a golden crown. But now what happened to him? He's never left me. All them long months walking on the road back, he kept me safe. The mountains, they danced at night. But Daniel held up his hand, and Pucci came along, bent double. I never let go of Daniel, and Daniel never let go of me. He's with me now, here. In this bundle, you knew all Daniel, sir. He was a king once. Look at him now. Oh, Mark. And now, you've seen that we wise, really kings. I'd be on my way. You'll pardon me, sir. I'll let him go. There was little else to do. He was only hours away from his death. I sat there and stared at the contents of the bundle he had left lying on my desk. Stared as the pale sharps of dawn struck fire in the red beard. Stared at the golden crown, sitting too large and too heavy, upon the wrinkled, mummified head of Daniel Dravitt, the man who would be king. Suspense, in which Mr. Dan O'Hurlahy starred in William M. Robson's production of The Man Who Would Be King, adapted for radio by Les Crutchfield from a story by Rudyard Kipling. In a moment, the names of our supporting players and a word about next week's story of suspense.  Variety spices the airwaves with fun every time CBS Radio turns them loose. The boys are Pat Buttrum, Art Linkletter, and Galen Drake. Here's a threesome that's really awesome for its total output of sheer pleasure. The remarkable wit of Buttrum, Linkletter's unending imagination in creating stunts and surprises. Galen Drake's way with words and stories. Put them all together, and you have a distinctly flavored different sound. Only a network could assemble for your weekday pleasure, and only the CBS Radio network does. Listen in daily, or as often as you like. With these boys whooping it up as you move about the house, one thing that's out the window with the dust is boredom. The Galen Drake show, Art Linkletter's House Parties from Hollywood, and Pat Buttrum's Just Entertainment. One at a time or altogether, they're good, clean fun in every weather. Try them often. Bring then O'Hurlahy and the man who would be King, where Lillian Bief, Ben Wright, Jane Avello, and Richard Peel. Listen. Listen again next week when we return with Mr. Raymond Burr, starring in Edgar Allan Poe's great classic of terror, The Pit and the Pendulum. Another tale well calculated to keep you in suspense. Get the complete news first on the CBS Radio Network.


Hello, I would like to welcome everyone to what I know will be a very fascinating conversation with the amazing Ethan Zuckerman, who needs no introduction, one of the best global thinkers there is, imaginative, creative, insurrectionist, but also institutionalist. Ethan is a professor of public policy communications and information at University of Massachusetts Amherst and the founder of more good things than I can list. He also told me that he's written two books and a big report during the pandemic. Ethan, you're amazing. Well, thank you and Martha. Thank you so much for being here and talk about needing no introduction. I'm sharing the stage today with Martha Minow. She's the 300th anniversary university professor at Harvard University. She's the previous dean of the law school. She took over from some slacker named Kagan, but fortunately was able to grab the reins. And she's one of the world's leading human rights scholars, as well as personal idol of Barack Obama. So speaking of needing no introduction, but we are here today to have a conversation with all you wonderful Burke folk who've joined us. Martha, maybe I'll lead off a little bit and just sort of talk about the book and then we can have a conversation about it. Wonderful. So first of all, thank you all for coming. I know that yet another Zoom call is really no one's idea of a good time at this moment in the pandemic, but I'm really so thrilled to have a conversation with my friend about this book and a little nervous because this is a book that offers perhaps a bit of a provocative thesis. So let me try to lay out the rough case and then Martha and I can sort of tangle a little bit about it. This is a book that I wrote really over the nine years that I spent at MIT's Media Lab, where I was running a center called the Center for Civic Media. It became sort of a hotbed for activism, for people who wanted to make social change using technology or media. And at some point in my time there, I get really interested in whether my students were ignorant of civics or just really skeptical of it. And I ended up sort of coming to the conclusion that many of the people that I was working with actually understood real well American political processes, but were simply very skeptical that it was a way that they personally were likely to make social change in the world. And the more that I looked at this, the more that I realized that when we talk about social change in the 21st century, we still tend to use the ideas and the language of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. We tend to think in terms of Supreme Court victories, protests and movements, legislative action leading to a system of greater justice. And what I found with a lot of the students that I was working with were incredibly skeptical of this theory of change. They didn't see real change happening, particularly from Congress, but even from the courts. And they felt like as individuals, this was not a way that they could make change. So I started asking this question, was there something that had changed between the 1960s and present? And obviously, there's lots of things that have changed between the 1960s and present. But one big thing that we probably don't talk about enough is trust. If you asked the average American, whether they have a great deal of trust in the federal government to do the right thing all or most of the time, in 1964, 77% of people would have said, yep, tons of trust. If you ask that question of people right now, about 13% of them will tell you that they have a high degree of trust in the federal government. It's not a smooth slide. It's actually a really weird slide. This trust goes down really sharply in the 1970s, comes back under Reagan, stays up a little bit under Clinton, but it has been very, very low for the entire 21st century, below 20%. It's not just trust in government. It's trust in institutions of all sorts. If you ask people, do they trust the banks? Do they trust churches? Do they trust unions? Do they trust newspapers? All those numbers are rock bottom with some rare exceptions. People trust the military more than they trusted at the height of Vietnam. Maybe that's good news. Maybe that's not good news, but it's not an indication of a lot of trust in systems. The reasons for trust are pretty complicated. It may have to do with rising inequality. It may have to do with better access to information. It may be particular. It may be that people lose trust in institutions as they publicly fail. We know that trust in the Catholic church went way, way down after the Boston Globe reported on sex abuse. We know that trust in business went way, way down after the 2008 crash and the bailout sort of following it. My question is what does this mean for civics? What I end up arguing is that maybe it's okay to be someone who doesn't feel particularly capable of making change through electing candidates through office, through bringing cases to the courts, through what we might think of as the traditional model of activism. Maybe we can activate a broader set of tools. Perhaps we can help people find paths to social change not just by using the lever of law, but also using levers of social norms, of markets, of technology. The book talks about some examples of how activists are able to make change using these different levers. I look, for instance, at the idea of encryption as a way to make progress on debates about privacy, where we haven't had serious legislative debates about privacy, but an individual, Moxie Marlin Spike, is able to release signal and suddenly put very strong encryption in the hands of lots of people and by getting it incorporated in WhatsApp, actually bring it to a very, very large audience. Then the last thing I'll just say at the beginning of this is that I try to make the case that it's okay to position yourself as someone who doesn't trust in an institution so long as you're trying to figure out what to do about that institution and that you might be able to go into that institution and try to bring it back to its core values. There I look at someone like Larry Krasner in Philadelphia trying to use the DA's office to turn the act of prosecuting crime into something that's about justice rather than something that's about punitive punishment. So there's someone working very well within the system but really trying to take it back to its core values. Our job is not to incarcerate as many people as possible, it's to achieve justice. You can relate to an institution by pressuring it from the outside and hoping to strengthen it and this is a very journalistic way of going. There's a very activist way of going and I talk a lot about lessons going back even to the Black Panthers of trying to hold institutions responsible through that outside pressure but then I also talk about this notion that there may be institutions that are just no longer fit for purpose, they're just not doing the work and they're just not trusted to the extent where we can make real progress through them and I think a movement like Defund the Police actually forces us to take this seriously. There may not be an incremental path to change within the Minneapolis Police Department, you may actually have to take that institution and radically rethink it if you want to make some progress around it. So the thesis of the book is lots and lots of people don't trust institutions anymore telling them get over yourself and trust the institution, not very helpful. Trying to help them figure out how they can be politically efficacious either from pressuring an institution, building a new institution, transforming an institution, using this wide variety of levers, these are all productive ways to go forward but then of course you write a book like this and not only do insurrection to storm the Capitol forcing you to deal with that whole question of just how far away from the institutions do you want to go but then you find yourself on a video call with a noted constitutional law scholar and Harvard law professor and you start wondering what have you really done with your life and what sort of questions are you about to face here. So maybe we can use that as an opening place to take a walk. That's fabulous. Well first I want to say to everyone buy this book, maybe steal the book but most importantly read the book. It actually is a book most needed I think at our time. It gives a map, a landscape, and really a very clear eye view of dangers although I believe you wrote it before January 6th and yet in some ways you forecast the risk of people taking over the Capitol. I do think that the book includes both many wonderful examples of constructive efforts whether they're outside pressure points on people inside of institutions or their end runs around them but it also includes some windows out of some terrifying alternatives and some of which we're starting to see unfold in real time. So I wonder if you don't mind just explaining to people what do you mean by an institutionalist and an insurrectionist and then the throw in the question can someone be both? Is this something that you can combine? Yeah so thank you and thank you for you know in many ways like bringing me to the hardest question first right. So a lot of the book pivots around these two terms institutionalist and insurrectionist. These are not my terms. I stole them from Chris Hayes who in a really terrific book about meritocracy and you know sort of shifting political sands in the United States suggests this idea that you can't really think of the US in terms of left and right anymore. You actually have to think two-dimensionally. You have to think left and right institutionalist and insurrectionist. So what's the distinction? Institutionalists believe that the best way to make social change is to become part of an important institution and help shape it to be better right. So the institutionalist approach to this says the police department isn't working. I'm going to be a good cop. I'm going to get recruited. I'm going to move up the ranks and I'm going to train people to respect human rights and I'm going to be involved with community policing. The insurrectionist approach looks at this and says have you looked at our institutions lately? You're nuts. There's no way that I'm becoming a cop. In fact I think we needed to fund the police throw it out and think about an entirely different model of security. How does it play out in political terms? Well actually we've got a pretty good lesson through the last couple of elections. Hillary Clinton is a left, a somewhat left institutionalist, consummate institutionalist, knows how the system works, has been Secretary of State, can pull on all the levers. Sanders, by the way, claimed to be a left insurrectionist. I don't know that he's an insurrectionist. He spent his entire career in government. I'm not sure how radical the guy actually is. Running against right institutionalists like Jeb Bush had been governor, knew the system and Trump, who I think arguably really is an insurrectionist, who really comes in and says you shouldn't trust these institutions.  Clinton loses not just due to a poorly run campaign, not just due to misogyny, not just due to all the sort of factors that Yochai Bankler and others have talked about in the media, but we were at an insurrectionist moment. We were at a moment where people on the left and right were pretty dissatisfied with systems. This book, if anything, is not a Trump book. It's an occupy book. So if we can go back in history and sort of remember, under Obama, you have people on the left occupying cities for a year at a time to argue that late stage capitalism and democracy is not working well for anyone. So occupy looks at this whole thing and says none of this is working. We've got to model a different way to live, but that ends up channeling the energy, I would argue, to Donald Trump who sort of comes in and says you shouldn't trust the system. Frankly, you shouldn't trust anyone. The book was intended to be a civics guide for insurrectionists. And what I meant by insurrectionists in that case were people who had lost faith in institutions and who would therefore work to create new institutions in their wake. I don't believe in a world without institutions. I think despite all the rhetoric around decentralization and such, it's really hard to have a functioning society without institutions. So fast forward to January 6th. You have people who are fueled by mistrust, and it's been weaponized by Donald Trump. Donald Trump's presidency tells people, don't trust the media. Don't trust the government. There's a deep state working against me. The only person you can trust is me. And then gives them a target to go after and you have a literal violent insurrection. That's obviously not what I'm trying to celebrate in the book. I'm really trying to celebrate movements that are looking at an institution and saying this is so corrupt that we need to think about alternatives to it. But I've got to wrestle with the fact that the book is sort of anticipating a mood of insurrection, a sense in which the systems are dysfunctional to the point where many people are frustrated with them. And Martha, I'm curious. Do you buy that diagnosis of a high moment of mistrust? Does that feel familiar, or am I being young and idealistic and sort of ignoring these systems? I think what you just said was a wonderful statement of our moment, and I absolutely agree that the statistics that you cite as well as just other sources of information demonstrate to me not only the declining trust in established institutions, established religions, established universities, established experts, but also a generational cliff where the distrust is greater even among younger people. And maybe the voting records of this 2020 election have turned some things around in that regard, but there's a really profound risk of a generational disengagement. And I think you rightly identified disengagement as the real enemy. I mean, I'll never forget actually being in a very strong argument with someone during college about Anne Rand and how I really disagreed with her. And somebody else walked up to us and said, what are you talking about? We explained and that person said, well, why do you care about that? And I thought, oh, that's the person I really disagree with. That's the problem. That's the problem. So I guess, though, where perhaps we differ, although I don't know how much we do, is that you find value almost undifferentiated in a variety of insurrectionist activities. Whereas I would identify a difference among those that are, and I'll list the ones I like and then the ones I don't like. And those that are seeking to bring pressure on the outside onto players on the inside, though you're quite right in describing the difference between the march and Washington in the civil rights movement, where there were sympathetic people on the inside versus the women's march against Trump. But that's one model and I'm for it. But a different kind is to build and runs around institutions, which I think can often be very constructive, where it's the Black Panthers actually providing resources or coders, as you have helped to marshal, creating alternative pathways for people to access resources and communication. I distinguish those, though, from something that I'm old enough to remember yippie-dum. There is something more like, well, just burn it all down and it's all expressive and we feel good because we are so great in our coolness. And I guess, although Occupy had some elements of hope, so did Arab Spring, they seem to be dominated by what I'm describing, which is if we just resist and sit down, then we've accomplished something. And I have less confidence in that. And then one more category, cryptocurrency. So the building of alternatives that are not just alternatives that help people get something that they need, but actually take down, further destroy the trust in existing institutions, whether it's nations or monetary systems, that worries me. Yeah, so the good news on this is that at the end of the day, we actually end up agreeing, but it's worth exploring both of these because they actually open up some interesting dynamics here. I said in many ways that this book was my response to Occupy. It's not a pro-occupy book. And I say that with some caution. My partner who is downstairs and is a practicing psychologist, and I think fortunately is with a patient, was one of the organizers of Occupy Houston. So it was a big part of her and her identity. What I worried about with Occupy in many ways was the theory of change, right? And I think this is in many ways what I would sort of diagnose when you're sort of looking at the yippies or when you're looking at people essentially saying, look, this system is really screwed up. And to the extent that you could find a theory of change for Occupy was either we're going to model more just communities with the hope of sort of scaling that up, or we're going to pick a specific issue where we could make real structural change. So I'll tell you a version of Occupy that I actually am very supportive of. It's the Occupy group in Springfield, Massachusetts. I'm a Western Mass guy. Western Mass is not Eastern Mass. And we have both serious rural and urban poverty. We have very serious problems with opioids. Springfield right now has only a 25% vaccination rate as compared to something like 60% statewide. And Occupy in Springfield started occupying every home that was scheduled for eviction. And so over and over and over again, the police and the sheriff's department would come and face 10, 20, 30 occupiers with a movement called Nobody Leaves, which I think it's just a great sort of name for it. And what it did, it actually had a very interesting theory of change, which was every time you had this confrontation between the activists and the police, the media jumped in. And so questions of housing, questions of housing justice and homelessness in Springfield has sort of vaulted to the center of the political agenda here. So the key is not, you know, whether the groups look silly or not, it's sort of whether they actually have a theory of change operating behind it. Now, when we get into cryptocurrency, it's possible for that theory of change just to be bad and wrong, right? So almost for a sense of completeness, there's a chapter of the book that looks at this idea of what do you do if you want no institutions. And, you know, it looks at this idea of bit nation. Could you have a blockchain based national identity that puts you in someone else's regime?   And there are a symptom of people being willing to trust some institutions and not others, right?  Yet people are willing to do it. Not only are they willing to do it, they're willing to do it knowing that in first generation cryptocurrencies, the transaction cost for one Bitcoin transaction uses enough electricity to transport my heavy butt to the Grand Canyon in my electric car. That's not an exaggeration. I actually use enough electricity to get me 2,500 miles. So how much do you have to mistrust the banks, the Federal Reserve, et cetera, to put your trust into those systems? So when you read something like cryptocurrency as a symptom rather than as a solution, it should be right blinking red lights. These are people essentially saying we just don't trust how these systems currently work. That makes a lot of sense. I do tend to think that the speculation in cryptocurrency has more to do with the speculation on the stock market that there's an irrational exuberance period that may have less to do with trust and distrust than it does with gambling. But I'd like to get really nitty gritty. Why did fix my street work in Britain and fix my transport not work and explain what those are? So thank you for getting into the details of this. And by the way, if you ever have the pleasure of having your book talked about by a respected scholar, one of the loveliest moments is when they pull an example deep from inside of the book. This is always a ton of fun when you get into this. These are both projects started by my friend Tom Steinberg. He ran a group called My Society. My Society is one of the very best examples of trying to use civic technology to make government services better. And fix my street was a system that basically lets you complain about a pothole or some other sort of problem very specific to your neighborhood. And what My Society system did was route your complaint to whoever in government was most directly responsible for this, which was usually your local district counselor. And one of the things that it did, which was tremendous, was sort of help you follow up on it. So when you didn't get a response within a week, which was the legal requirement for that person to get back to you, My Society would say, hey, did your counselor get back to you? Oh, no, what a surprise. Mark that here. Now we're going to escalate this up the chain. We're going to talk to that person's superior. And it was this wonderful sort of powerful system to get people to get more responsive government. And it had some really positive effects. They ended up going out and trying to do survey work on finding whether people had more confidence in government. It turned out that if you had used the system and gotten responses, you ended up feeling better about your local government, you felt like your concerns were being heard. So they tried to scale it up to bigger problems.  And they sort of assumed that it would work in the same way. But it turns out that transport is actually very, very different than just a local problem. It's got different supervisory agencies. It's got many, many, many more people involved. And what they started finding was that people would use this system and frankly just be really frustrated with it. And they ended up at a certain point essentially saying, this doesn't work. It turns out that simply telling the transport company that they're not doing the job isn't actually getting us accountability. This isn't just a matter of making things more accessible. You'd actually have to build social movements around this. My society looked at this and said, look, our job is not building social movements. So we're going to get out of this particular space. For me, what it does is sort of suggests that a lot of these civic text solutions that sort of say, if we could just make people more accountable, if we could just make our government more accessible, it would all get better. And I think the response is, well, maybe sometimes, sometimes we get evidence that government is working very well. Sometimes what we actually do is get evidence that a system is just very badly broken. And so accessibility and transparency are probably necessary, but not sufficient conditions to try to actually improve sort of government confidence in one fashion or another. Very helpful. And it does seem that either of those examples differ in many ways from the me too hashtag or the they gun me down hashtag so that the goal of some social media, civic media projects is not to make government more accountable. It is to build a movement or to allow the mobilization of people to change the agenda, if you will, of what is on public and private agendas. And you so usefully use across the book the framework Larry Lessig and others have advanced to keep straight and in our minds these different domains of law, code, markets, and norms. It did strike me that the norm one was one that you have a lot of confidence in. And I wonder if you can say, how do we know what should be under norms and what should be under code and what should be under law. So give me a moment to walk a path, which is going to walk me straight into the lion's den because it's going to walk me right into Supreme Court cases. And you know, here's a place where you may be able to help me out and all of this. But let's start with if they gun me down. Okay, so if they gun me down is a hashtag based social movement. It is started by a young lawyer from Jackson, Mississippi named CJ Lawrence actually is one of my favorite interviews for the book he's become a good friend we're Twitter friends now, but CJ reacting to Michael Brown's murder in Ferguson, Missouri, posts a pair of photos of himself. And in one, he's sort of, you know, it's a Halloween party. He's drinking out of a Hennessy bottle, he's got to do rag on. And then in the other photo, he is on stage valedictorian of his graduating law school class, and Bill Clinton is in the front row behind him laughing up rarously at a joke he cracked. And what he says with this is if they gun me down, which photo with the media use. And this is a reaction, first of all, to the fact that immediately after Michael Brown's murder, there are lots of photos of his corpse in the street being circulated. And then when those photos start being replaced with photos that they take from Mike Brown's Facebook page, media almost to a one, use a photo of Mike Brown shot from the ground looking up at him on a porch. He's flashing a peace sign he's scowling. He looks like a tough dude.  I remember being 18 and trying to look tougher than I was. There's all these other photos on Facebook, including one of him sort of face on with baby cheeks. And it's from the same time period. It's the same kid, but it's really, really differently. And so CJ starts this, this takes off three days after this campaign starts, there's a New York Times full page article about it. And you look on Google right now, go do a search on Google images, search for Mike Brown. What you will find for the most part is Brown in his graduation gown, which is probably the right photo to have used. You will find occasionally this porch photo, but it's mostly actually in clips from my talks, like unfortunately, like I have probably given second life to that image. But this is a very successful campaign to go after a normative change. When we think about black people killed by police and boy, there's a lot of them, what imagery gets portrayed to use to portray those victims. And the answer is in many cases, it's imagery that makes them out to be violent or dangerous. And so CJ wanted to call this out because it's not necessarily the legal shift that's the most important thing in Mike's Brown's death. It is an understanding of the racial violence and oppression that black people are suffering on a very, very regular basis, not just at the hands of the police, but at the hands of a system that tends to assume the worst about race. So why does norms change matter? So let's go look at a couple of court cases, right? If we look at loving versus Virginia, so the case that establishes the ability to intermarry, if you look at public opinion on interracial marriage at the time when loving gets decided. 1967. Thank you. In 66, 14% of Americans support interracial marriage.  I don't have the stats on who's pulled by it, but those are Gallup statistics sort of going out and looking at it. So what's happening in 67 is that the courts are leading, right? The courts are coming in and essentially saying, we know America doesn't like this, but this is the correct thing to be doing. We have to recognize that these are fundamental human rights. So let's fast forward to Oberfalka, right? So in Oberfalka, where we're establishing the right of same-sex couples to marriage, if you take a look at public acceptance, it's well over 60%.  And in many ways, Oberfalka is sort of catching up with the public opinion. One of the arguments that I would make is that between the heart of the civil rights movement and our contemporary political moment is that norms are now leading laws in some cases, that we don't have an activist Supreme Court that is pushing social justice and racial justice and trying to pull America along. We have the entertainment industry, we have social media, we have political and social movements moving the electorate and sometimes, and not always, sometimes the courts finding a way to sort of follow behind. And so that's the conclusion that sort of leads me to this point of saying, look, I love my friends who work in public interest law, who work on social change, who work on human rights, but I think we neglect the normative piece of this a good chunk of the time. And I think trying to figure out how to win those norm space battles as a way of getting us to those legal battles. Now, like I said, I've just walked right up into the lion's den. I don't know if I'm reading that correctly. Well, you're a lion tamer then. What I would say I couldn't agree more. The only things that I would add is that for most of American history, the court system, certainly the Supreme Court of the United States has been a reactionary force. And it's not surprising. The justices are appointed after successful careers. They tend to be a generation or two older than the median in the country. They only get appointed if they have the right networks and they're acceptable to the political parties. It's not surprising that they're usually a break on social change. What is surprising at this moment is that we have an activist court, but on the right, that is trying to drag the country in a direction that is not the majority's views, but it is not progressive. What I would also say just to add, because I think what you did was was quite lovely, is to say that the Supreme Court didn't want to decide loving versus Virginia. They had the question presented for over 10 years and they kept postponing and postponing. They were dragged into it. Once they decided the case, they went full force and they said they used the phrase, you know, Virginia defends its law against interracial marriage by saying it treats whites and blacks the same. No, it does not. It instantiates white supremacy. The only time that phrase has been used by the United States Supreme Court. So when the court gets dragged into a fight, but it has good lawyers, it can actually do something decent. Brian Stevenson, who you describe vividly in the book, who's one of the most effective advocates in the Supreme Court, he says quite frankly, I can win individual cases in the court, but we're not going to have systemic change until we change the narrative. And that is why he has turned, as you very well describe, to building a memorial about the history of lynching and a museum that links slavery, lynching, and mass incarceration. It's about a narrative. And I think that the theory of change, and you put that on the table so I want to come back to it, the theory of change that connects the dots between narratives and institutions is something that I think is worth discussing versus narratives and insurrection. So is the theory of change that if you get a different narrative, the people in the institutions have a different idea or something else? So let me get there because that's fantastic. But let me actually say something about Brian, because Brian actually had a lot to do with my motivations for creating this book. So I mentioned that it came out of my time at MIT. It also came out of my time with Open Society Foundation. So I spent some years on a board of the US programs of Open Society Foundation, where I got to serve alongside Brian Stevenson, but also alongside Cheryl and Eiffel, who heads up the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP. So if you want to learn contemporary activism, getting to learn from those two is about as good as it gets. And I found myself crossing swords with the two of them. They are both enormous believers in the power of law to bring about justice. But they are also brilliant, multifaceted thinkers who, just as you described, Brian has really gone from a transformation of realizing that with the Equal Justice Initiative, yes, he can win some key cases, but unless we actually deal with things like the legacy of lynching, which is something that both of those scholars have worked on, we can't actually have the larger transformation. And so that ability to work on narratives and to say, look, we need to understand that there is a terrible legacy in policing in America that goes back to lynching, that goes back to slave patrols, that these things have to be addressed as we try to address the very real problems of police violence. This has to be part of the equation. And so me learning enormous respect for legal theories of change, but also wondering what has changed between the Warren Court and the Roberts Court, because there's quite a bit that changes between those two. That was a huge motivation for this. So what are you doing when you're changing the narrative? I think the first thing that you're doing when you're changing the narrative is you're inviting people to ask whether an institution is still the right one for what we're doing at this moment in time. So institutions generally have been created for a particular moment for a particular solution. And we want to ask ourselves the question, is that institution working the way that we want to work? And when you change the narrative and you sort of point out, this just isn't working very well for us right now.  You have to sort of look at this and say, do we need to sort of rethink these institutions and also perhaps think about the context in which they came up? Probably the wackiest, furthest out there idea in this whole book is where I advocate for the big house. I end up advocating for turning the house of representatives into an 11,000 person body. This hails back to George Washington saying that we needed to have representation of one representative for 30,000 people. One for 40,000 would be too much. It would alienate us. But if we think about that context, if we think about that idea that we really do want to know our representatives in the people's house, and we think that we're no longer in the context of needing to fit into a physical room, we can deliberate in electronic systems, we could have representatives who are not in Washington where they could be lobbied, you can radically reimagine these institutions. So for me, Martha, that's the big thing. I want the narrative change to encourage people to reimagine.  What we believe is possible in transforming an institution is so narrow, and it's so much politics as the art of the possible that we aren't willing to consider the ways in which these institutions, in many cases, just are flat out failing us. That's so well put. Hannah Pitkin, the political philosopher, described institutions as products by people that end up carrying on what people imagined long after the people have died and sometimes not fulfilling at all what the goals were of the people because the institutions start to serve themselves, and it's that tension that you illuminate so well. We have several questions, and I'm just going to put to you one from Marcy Murningham asks about the relationship between your work and Albert Hirschman's ideas about exit voice and loyalty. So I love that Marcy came up with that. I was describing, it's chapter seven or chapter eight in the book, where I'm looking at people who want to create no institution in the place of an institution. So the folks who are trying to create their own nations, and Hirschman in fact is who I use, and exit voice and loyalty is exactly what I use. For people who haven't read this book, throw this on your summer reading list. This is one of those rare moments where a political economist can be a summer beach read because this book's only about 70 pages long. I actually read it for the first time in a Chinese restaurant and like ended up spending three hours over lunch because I was just so fascinated by it. But Hirschman basically says, look, when we don't like what a firm is doing, we can either raise our voice and say, hey, your product sucks, please make it better. Or we can just go and we'll go to another firm and the markets will tell people that that firm is no good anymore. So you're reading this and you're sort of like, okay, economics, that makes sense. Here's where voice comes into play.  And so when it comes to citizenship, you only have voice. There's really not the ability to pick up and move somewhere else for the vast majority of us. And so what you actually have to think about is the importance of voice and how you use voice to try to steer the nation back to its roots. And so I try to make the argument that the Peter Tills of the world who want to escape broken nations, either seasteading or by moving to Mars, are sort of missing the fact that the whole point of nationhood is that your wellbeing is tied up with millions of others. And this is why institutions end up being indispensable. You can't actually exit them. You can make them better. And maybe occasionally there's the moment where we say, this one's so broken, we actually have to tear it down and start from scratch. But the notion of actually being able to successfully exit them probably doesn't end up working. So absolutely props for bringing Hirschman into the conversation. And if you haven't read this little book, it's just really worth your time. Super. The whole idea that we can trust an institution is itself kind of hard to believe because as you explore, really trust is interpersonal. And it's based on proof. And it's more likely to be face to face. And people are more likely to trust the local than they are the more remote. And so once you have lost trust in national institutions, it's very, very hard to build. Barbara Fister asks about the immediacy of social media and organizing on the fly versus insurrectionists, inclined folks on quoting her, spending the time to organize a more long-term sturdy movement as Zaynep Tufekti has described on Twitter and tear gas. And does our social media networking favor emotional and fast public response rather than doing the hard work of making change? And I will just throw in what the psychologists and economists tell us about fast thinking versus slow thinking. So I should just say that for people who don't know Barbara, she's an incredibly accomplished library scholar. She's written probably the best paper in the last couple of years about misinformation called lizard people in the library. And it's just this fantastic, fantastic look at the challenge of combating movements like QAnon that are so good at using social media and are so good at using it to sort of create doubt and the ways in which these movements have sort of anticipated the media literacy strategies that we use to sort of try to get out of missing this info. And actually they're using those strategies because frankly they've learned really well for them. So again, on the summer reading list, totally worth your time. I mean, Barbara, I think what Zaynep does so well in Twitter and tear gas is sort of makes the case that social media lets people organize movements really, really fast. And those movements tend to be fast with graduate, right? They're good at mobilizing people around the motion. They usually haven't worked out some of the deep contradictions within it. Zaynep's work is really rooted in the hour of spring and she's watching things like conservative protesters and gay and lesbian protesters get out and march together because they can agree that they want Mubarak out. They can't agree about anything else, but they can get together for that sort of moment of counterpower. When it actually comes down to sort of governing, they're going to be completely lost. And I think that's right. I think that fast social media organizing tends to be at its best when it's trying to mobilize around the motion. And I think a lot of the movements that I talk about in the book, like me too, use emotion extremely effectively, listening to people who've been victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence and listening as people are willing to talk about something that they haven't talked about before is an incredibly emotionally powerful moment. And that's a movement that has had enormous impact, at least at the individual levels of individual predators starting to get held responsible for things. What I don't know that it's very good at is necessarily envisioning and organizing and building the more just, the less misogynistic, the more equal society that we need to build. And so for me, in many ways, the challenge of this book was how do you take these fast insurrection movements seriously? How do you give them the respect they're due, but also the skepticism that they're often due? But I do think there's enormous work that has to come after an argument like this, which is really how do you sort of build the new institutions? Barbara just joined me on stage last week at a conference that I was holding called Reimagine the Internet, which was thinking about this question of how we might start building more robust internet institutions. But that's early work. And this book is really the warning about taking these movements seriously. Well, no one's done more than you have to envision what a different kind of internet structure would be. And I'm very hopeful about all of that. I do think that it's not just the internet, though, that has brought us this contrast between the quick emotion and the hard work of building. I think about the French Revolution, and I think the jury's still out, frankly. They were bad things, but has it really built the better structure? I hope so. Sankov Batnagar asks about, can you say more about how institutionalists and insurrectionists enroll others in their changes? How they call our attention to the work they see as needed, how they bring us to the work with them and ourselves? Sure. So I think institutionalists recruit through some pretty well established methods, right? If you've ever been involved with a political campaign, you probably have a sense for how institutionalists work. They invite you to put up the lawn sign, then they invite you to phone bank, then they invite you to volunteer for the campaign. You find your way sort of into those structures, and you learn how those structures function. You learn how they work, and as you sort of level up in skill and ability, you level up in your sense of efficacy. So you feel like, okay, now I understand the innards of a political campaign, now I can participate in a much more successful fashion, and then you tend to replicate the same system that sort of came up, and you tend to sort of say, okay, let me recruit the next set of people. Insurrectionist movements tend to start from the point of skepticism. They tend to sort of say, here is something that is not working, and let me point out to you why it is so broken. And then it tends to mobilize, right? Insurrectionists tend to be very quick to take to social media, they tend to be very quick to take to the streets. Then if you're lucky, there is some careful hashing of methodologies. So one of the insurrectionist movements that I end up talking about in this is sleeping giants, and sleeping giants is complicated, and it's gotten more complicated in the course of writing the book. When I started writing the book, sleeping giants was an anonymous movement. Now we know that it's two individuals who've actually had a falling out, but the theory behind sleeping giants is, okay, we can demonstrate to people that their websites are hosting ads from far right-wing movements who they might not want to host ads from. Let's help people figure out how to pull their websites out of that rotation, and then the far right-wing properties won't be able to advertise on them, and they'll lose the money in the process. There's a million and one different ways that you could have tried to mobilize people against Breitbart, which is their chief target. They found one particular intervention, and by channeling that broad sense of rage at disinformation and media manipulation, and then focusing it in a place, they figured out how to have that tactical intervention. What insurrectionists can have a very hard time with is getting beyond that rage and the specific points of function to thinking about how you have that systemic change. So one of the movements that I'm going to be watching, I think a lot of people are going to be watching, is defund the police and essentially saying, okay, you've made a pretty good case. There may be police departments where yet another round of civilian review boards is just not going to figure out how to pull this off. You've got an effective tactic. What we're seeing right now is people are taking to the streets every time an unarmed black person is being killed by police, and that's probably what we're going to need to continue to do for some years. Now the question becomes, how does that turn into the institution building work of creating an alternative? Because we're not going to be without a public safety system in Minneapolis. There's got to be someone who's responding to the domestic violence complaint, whether it's an armed officer or whether it's a social worker. So now, how do we go from the power of the movement, the sort of interaction, this movement to building what will end up being a new institution in its place? And that's the really tricky piece of this, right? Like in almost every case, our alternatives to institutions are new and better institutions. And that's part of why we have to take the revolution so seriously. Well, it's so great that your book ends with word, imagine and demand and build. How can we, we need to need to imagine demand and build institutions that rebuild, rebuild levies before they collapse using the metaphor and the reality of Katrina. I also, though, can't help but note that about 10 years ago, Ethan, you said the world isn't flat and globalization is only beginning, which means we have time to change what we're doing and get it right. Is it too late? Here we are 10 years later. Yeah, that book, the Rewire book started with talking about SARS. It started by warning that global pandemics were possible, and that you actually needed to have deep cosmopolitanism so that we would listen to each other and try to figure out how to react. Yeah, I wish that book had sold a little better. Look, I think this question of institutions, how do they calcify and how do we build them to be more responsive? And here I'm looking at Aditya's question. I think that needs to be a question for every activist, for anybody who's involved with social change, whether you're an institutionalist or an insurrectionist. If you are going into a powerful institution or if you're going to try to knock down a powerful institution, you're almost inevitably going to be putting something else in its place. And it is a natural dynamic that institutions work to preserve themselves. They work to hold themselves above questioning. People in power like to remain in power. One of the things that I talked about very early on in the Mistrust book is the debates that the founding fathers had about insurrection. The book starts with Shea's Rebellion, which is an armed rebellion in Springfield, Massachusetts, and it's treated surprisingly loosely by the new American government. It's treated with a great deal of sympathy, in part with Jefferson essentially saying, you know, we should be aware of rebellion. We need rebellion to show us what we are doing wrong. We need rebellion to signal to us what are the hardships that people are. So the answer to this is when you're creating institutions, you need to be aware that you're creating an institution because you're solving a problem, that you're creating an institution at a particular moment in time, at a particular moment in society, that it works to the extent that it does based on those contingencies, and that you need to think about how that changes and learns over time, and that if you're not building institutions that can evolve and learn, you are setting yourself up for revolution and perhaps violent revolution. And maybe that's part of what we have to start thinking about, you know, even around something like January 6th. American system feels rather brittle right now, and the hope for bridging some of these gaps between left and right at the point where we literally can't even seem to get a commission together to investigate what happened on January 6th, this feels like a place where there should be some red flags waving that these institutions are going to need to find some ways to evolve and change, otherwise their capture and their decay may be leading us into a very dangerous place. It argues in part for multiplicity. It may be that the broken government cannot investigate the broken government and some other actors, some combination of civil society can do it better. I remember the being so struck seeing a medieval wall in Italy that had holes that were built for the expected period when the wall would have to be repaired, where the scaffolding would be built. And that's in part, I think, our challenge. How do we build new dimensions of existing institutions and new institutions that have those capacities to be reformed? Not so bad to actually start by reading this book, which brings back the revolutionary spirit of the founders of this country who were themselves well aware that sometimes you have to tear it down in order to build it up. Ethan, your gift to all of us. Thank you so much for this book. Thank you for this event. Thank you everyone for joining us. Thank you so much, Martha. It really honors me that you took the time to read the book and thank you so much for this conversation. And just love and thanks to all of my Berkman Klein Center friends. It's just wonderful to have the chance to share this with you. And Martha, I wish you and everybody a happy and restful summer as all of us are in this moment of maybe coming out of our shells and looking to see this next stage of transformation. Here, here. Be well. Thanks everyone. Bye-bye.


In this module and the next two modules, we would be looking into some very fundamental concepts in Islamic banking and finance. The first fundamental concept is Riba, which is known as Sood in Urdu and Interest in conventional framework or in English language. The concept of Riba is extremely important and we have to look at it from an Islamic juristic viewpoint. The question arises, what is meant by Riba and what is actually prohibited when we talk about Riba? Riba is a very simple concept, although a lot of people would suggest otherwise. Especially in Pakistan, there are many people who think that Riba or Interest is misunderstood by people. But in this module, I will tell you that probably this is one of the simplest concepts that the Quran has stated among a number of other things. In its very simple form, if two parties exchange something in unequal quantities, it gives rise to Riba. So this is the simplest definition of Riba. I will also tell you in Urdu that when two parties exchange something in unequal quantities, and in return, the second person is giving different quantities, then we will call this transaction a Ribwi transaction or we will say that this is called Sood. And what would be the quantity of Sood? The quantity of Sood would be the difference of two quantities. So if one person gives 100 rupees to another person, and in exchange, the other person gives 110 rupees to the other person, this means there is a difference of 10 rupees in this transaction. These 10 rupees would be considered as interest or Riba, and this interest is actually prohibited. And of course, it applies to money as well. So whenever there is exchange of unequal amounts of money in any transaction, that would give rise to Riba, and this is the Quranic concept of Riba which is prohibited. So if we keep in mind this definition of Riba, it would become very clear that the interest which is charged by conventional banks or for that matter by anyone that is actually prohibited by the Quran. Now we have to see what is actually prohibited in this Ribwi prohibition. We said that Riba is unequal exchange of anything. If someone gives 100 rupees to someone else and demands 110 rupees back, this demands is very important. If the person demands more than what the person has given to someone, this would be considered as prohibited interest, Riba or Sud. So any institution, any individual, if they ask for more than what they have given to someone else, that would be considered as Riba. So the most important thing in the concept of Riba is that the person who has given more than what the person has given to someone else, this would not be Riba. So if someone gives 110 rupees instead of 100 rupees, this is actually a charity and this is Sunnah. So the most important thing in the concept of Riba is that this is actually inequality of amounts in exchange and there is a compulsion in it i.e. one party compels the other party to pay back more. If that is the case, that would be considered as Riba which is prohibited in Islam.