Can you explain us what's happening in Canada around cannabis right now? Yeah, absolutely. So we're moving to legalized cannabis. So how it works is we have kind of a federal Cannabis Act, which lays out minimums, right? So the minimum age of access is 18 years old, for example, and then the provinces across Canada and territories actually have the powers to kind of adjust those. So what we're actually seeing across Canada is, you know, different ages of access, different distribution models across Canada. So it's kind of like a natural experiment happening. Well, we'll see how these different models are impacting things like usage rates and other things. You know, some of the details of that model are things like maximum possession for adults set at 30 grams, that will have a whole regulated system of production and distribution. There's a lot of really interesting pieces around young people. One of those being that for young people under the legal age of access, they're decriminalizing possession of under five grams of cannabis, which was a, you know, a pretty big step forward. Especially in Canada, we know that young people 18 to 25, followed by young people 12 to 17, actually have the highest number of drug-related arrests in Canada, and over 80% of those are for cannabis possession alone. So legalization in and of itself has a massive, massive potential to really kind of change the game in terms of, you know, how we're criminalizing young people for, you know, really, you know, things that actually don't indicate that they're, you know, bad folks just for possessing cannabis, but actually have very substantial impacts on the kind of their trajectories in the future. One of the main arguments, as far as I know, of the through-the-government legalized cannabis was to protect young people. So what, how do you see the regulation model really to protect young people? So if that's a really, really complex question, and I think it's really interesting because I think when we hear protect young people are, you know, what we reach to is more restrictions. So we think in order to protect young people, we just have to layer on all these rules, but actually what, you know, what we've been advocating for, what Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy of advocating for is the inclusion of young people in those policy decisions. So in fact, actually, protection perhaps looks like having access to education, improving young people's health literacy so that they can make choices, and if they're going to choose to use cannabis, they can do it in ways that are a lot more safe. And then other things around that is thinking about, you know, when you set age of access, for example, there was a debate in Canada about that being as high as 25 years old. You know, what happens when you're criminalizing the most, the highest users in a country of cannabis when you're moving to legalize it? And perhaps protection in that case looks like including people over the age of 18 and 19 in a legal market so that they have access to regulated and tested products so that they know what they're getting, that, you know, at the point of purchase, there will be interaction, conversation, you know, harm reduction, you know, opportunities for that kind of interaction that is missed when we're purchasing off of the, you know, the underground market. So I think that protection for me really looks like, you know, improving our education, you know, ensuring that we're not, you know, sticking to the same kind of fear-based approaches, which we're kind of seeing still happen here and just slightly repackaged to look really shiny and new, but really the undertones are still stigma-based and still fear-based. I think that they're, you know, because, you know, we're so concerned about this protection around young people, there still is a lot of worry that we're going to, like, normalize cannabis. But I think that, you know, there is some benefits to normalizing it, and it's really about normalizing the conversation. You mentioned the importance of including people who are affected by policies into making dead policies. So how do you see the process that led to legalization of cannabis in Canada? Was it inclusive? Was it transparent? So I think that the Canadian government really did a very extensive consultation. I think their external task force that really kind of, you know, visited all provinces and territories and really did try to bring diverse stakeholders to the table. You know, I think they did a really good job. I think the report was really clear and really reflected what, you know, what we heard in a lot of those consultations.  What the Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy did was we actually organized our own roundtable and we invited the task force to come to our roundtable. So we just wanted to include that because they had such an emphasis on protecting youth that they were actually prioritizing youth in that process. So since then, we've been kind of carving out a new relationship, I think, with the federal government and they've been listening to us in ways that we've never experienced in, like, the history of our organization. Can you speak about regional differences across Canada? Like, what different purges, different provinces took on the regulation of cannabis? Yeah, absolutely. So each of the provinces, because of the way our constitutional powers are divided, the provinces are actually in charge of things like distribution, things around consumption, public consumption, those kinds of things. So we see that with our alcohol model. So across Canada, you know, if you visit different provinces, you'll notice there are different kind of bodies in charge of the sales and distribution of alcohol. So in Canada, we're seeing a variety of different models and I'll just pull on a few different ones. So for example, in Ontario, the age of access is 19 and that is parallel with the age of access for alcohol. And they're going to have the government running the online stores. So online stores are really, really important, especially if you're living in, like, Northern Ontario, right? You don't maybe have access to those retail sites and then the actual retail stores will be private so that they'll be licensed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission and they'll operate kind of like on a private model. Places like BC, age of access is 19, also parallel with alcohol and they're doing a mixed model approach. So similar to their alcohol distribution model where they have both BC liquor and private retail stores, the same thing is going to happen with cannabis and BC as well. So they're going to have a mix of both public brick and mortar shops as well as private and then the government will control the online retail stores. Quebec is a really interesting kind of sub case and so their age of access currently is 18 but a new government was just elected in that wants to actually up that to 21. So if it was pushed up to 21, that would be the highest in the country and would supersede any kind of minimum ages of access for alcohol across the country. And currently they're going with a completely government run model. So it would be government in charge of both online and on the ground distribution shops. What's really interesting in the case of driving under the influence so there's a parallel impairment bill being revised and introduced as well and in Quebec they've actually implemented a zero tolerance for all people with THC in their system to drive. So considering we don't actually have the science to be able to measure impairment, this actually brings up a lot of really important questions around are we perhaps criminalizing folks for simply using cannabis but who aren't driving impaired, who maybe are consuming on Sunday and driving on Tuesday but they still will test over the threshold of THC in our system because it stays in our body for about seven days. So Quebec is the only one that has an outright ban for all folks. Places like Ontario are doing under the age of 21 is zero tolerance and for novice drivers. So we're seeing a bit of variations but I think Quebec is definitely one of the most restrictive models. So that generally are the three kinds of models that we're looking at, either a mix of public and private, entirely private with government oversight or entirely government run. What do you think will be the public health impact of cannabis legalization in Canada? It's a really hard question because I think what we're seeing in the States is sure there's a slight uptick in adult use but nothing's exploded, that youth use has stayed pretty consistent. And so I think we could also argue that the U.S. also operates on a more kind of commercialized model. So in here we're really kind of basing our model on principles of public health and safety. So I think we can anticipate perhaps even better outcomes. There actually is not going to be a lot of places that will be ready to distribute cannabis. So we won't actually have very many cannabis retail stores yet and it actually might take up to 18 months to get those actually implemented across Canada. So we're going to have legalization, we're going to have to likely access online for a little while, which isn't the worst thing in the world. But yeah, so and then another kind of public health kind of net gain that I think we can also anticipate is kind of building on the growing research around cannabis substitution. So using cannabis in lieu of or to reduce the use of other substances. So we're already kind of seeing that, but we just don't really understand the mechanisms behind it as well. So I think one thing we could anticipate is if we're tracking other alcohol use, tobacco use and other substance use that we maybe could see a decrease in those things, which would actually be a public health gain if you consider kind of the harm's risk profile of cannabis compared to other substances. What will be the most interesting questions in the first let's say three years of legalization? What do you expect that will be interesting to answer and see the results? Yeah, so I mean for me the research that we're doing right now looks at folks who are living on the downtown east side who are using cannabis to reduce or eliminate the use of other drugs. For me I think it will be really important to not just think about how cannabis legalization is affecting the general population, but really narrow in on these more marginalized voices. That when we're talking about legalizing cannabis, is it really legalized if a gram costs $10? Is that really accessible to all segments of the population? What we're seeing right now is that the folks that we're talking with are accessing cannabis through these free distribution programs that have popped up downtown and then they're also going to illegal dispensaries because they're able to buy grams for $3-4 kind of those bottom of the bin strains. So what happens when we shift into a completely legal and regulated model? And because of the way wholesale pricing works out, because of regulations on how low the pricing can actually be for the sale of cannabis, I think there's going to be really important implications for vulnerable and marginalized populations. I would say that many people are concerned that cannabis legalization only benefits the policy and the privileged people. Are there any specific policies that can tackle this or that can address these problems and maybe distribute the benefits to the vulnerable groups of society? Yeah, absolutely. So it's really interesting because if we look at the medical cannabis market that's kind of our blueprint for what the industry itself will look like. Predominantly, of course, like white and male driven and some of these companies are quite big. So there are some really important questions about how do we ensure a more inclusive market? How do we, for example, get these illegal dispensary operators to transition into the legal and regulated space? So I think that those questions are really important. But I think that there is some truth to the statement that legalization will benefit few. We're seeing some really amazing initiatives come out of the United States. I know Steve was talking about Massachusetts today and I think that they're an excellent example. They have an equity program there where they're expunging all of these past records for things that are legal in their new system and they're also letting them jump the queue in terms of applying for licensing to be able to sell cannabis and produce cannabis. So from where I stand, I think that there needs to be more mechanisms put in place by the federal government as well as provinces and they need to be working together to talk about what expungement looks like, especially for simple possession, especially for people that have been charged since 2015 when we introduced the legislation. So thinking about what are the mechanisms that we can apply there to not just eliminate criminal records but also ensure that we're having fair access to and participation in the legal and regulated market. Otherwise it will be dominated by few and there are a lot of things that we have to be proud of in Canada is that we have a really big, I'm going to say proud, but a really big underground illicit economy that BC cannabis, they have predictions that the underground cannabis economy is worth $7 billion. So how do we ensure that those growers that have been growing cannabis for 20 years to access the new and legal market, like maybe they want to be micro producers but how do we help them get from A to B and I think that's going to be really, really critical in ensuring a more diverse market. Thank you very much.


What should the price of money be? That's a question for markets, not for politicians, not for banks to decide for us. You said that your personal mission in crypto is separating the money from the state. So why do you think that is so important? Bitcoin appreciates relative to fiat. And the world will slowly learn what that feels like to save in an asset which is not debased continually. It will win even if only for that reason. People that work in the government are not going to be okay with losing that power. And they're going to work where they can to eliminate that change. We're definitely not at the final moment or the final boss at all. The fight is really just getting started.


What is on my heart is peace. With all that is going on in the world, it gets hard to wait and is easy to despair. Waiting for God is a test of our endurance, but what I am learning is to be at peace with God's pace. There are things we can learn while waiting that will equip us for what is to come. So let us be at peace with God's pace and wait with expectation.


All right, so I guess I'll start now. Everybody hear me? Yeah? Great, thank you. So yeah, I recently, like an hour ago, gave a talk about Oslo Policy in general. Hopefully you enjoyed it if you were there. This one is a little bit about moving away from using Oslo Policy to evaluate your policies and using something else called Oslo Policy Agents. So why? While Oslo Policy in general works quite nicely, it's quite performant and it's been there forever, there's a lot of challenges that we did mention in our previous presentation. Just to recap, some of the challenges is that policy in general is not very consistent. There's a lot of issues regarding scoping, not working well, like admin being admin everywhere and not an admin for a project. So there's also the issue of not being able to refresh your policy live. So having service disruptions, having to restart Keystone in order to get your new policy working, stuff like this. So taking all of this into account, just also having the policy in the YAML format and having to go through each node and update the policy there, you'd probably need some custom Ansible or Puppet or stuff like that. So it is already quite painful. So having this into account, I was looking for a solution that would already be accepted in other communities. And I stumbled upon Open Policy Agent. It's a CNCF project, the same folks that do Kubernetes. So it's been getting traction. The community is quite healthy. So I thought, hey, why not take it into use into OpenStack? So this is where it all started from. So what's Open Policy Agent? The main thing about it is that it's a service daemon or a library that you upload your policies to. So your service will talk to it and will ask, can this entity do whatever it wants to do? OPA will answer that query. It has its own policy language, so it doesn't use the same language as a slow policy. But it has a lot of nice features, such as live reload. You can authenticate and authorize the queries towards those low policy using its own thing. So the same language that you use to write your own policy, you can have it for the policy for OPA itself. So there's a lot of cool stuff going on over there. It didn't go. It's quite performing. And when you do an update of your policy, there is no service disruption. It just reloads. So taking OPA into use, right? It's great. We have this thing. How do I use it? So Oslo Policy has the ability of writing custom checks similar to the external check like this one. But you can use that to override all of your policies with a very specific rule. So I wrote a custom one, and it looks more or less like this. Quite straightforward, just OPA, Cullen, and then the URI for OPA. It could be the same URI for all of your actions. You could have even point it to different OPA instances. But I don't really know what you would do that. But you can if you want to. And yeah, so the code is out there actually. Hopefully we can get that merged. But it has already right now really, really basic stuff, such as you can use TLS with it. I have not coded yet the authentication using a better token. But that should be just one header. It's very simple code. But yeah, I mean, OK. We have a check that we can use in Oslo Policy. Cool. But how, right? You still need to get OPA to authorize. You need to do stuff correctly. So for this, I wrote a tool. So this tool, what it does is that you give it your policy, your Oslo policy, the one that you've always used and that you're used to writing. And it will give you out this rego language that is used by OPA. So it's interchangeable. You can just keep writing Oslo Policy. You don't need to retrain your people or anything. And it'll output rego. So I'm also working on trying to get system scoping, even though that's still not a thing in OpenStack. But I'm working on it to get it there. But still, I mean, you can still use the old ways to scope just with OPA, right? So finally, when you get your rego file, you can just run it maybe in your sidecar container or as part of a system demo or something like that. But I mean, you already have these rules that you can configure in different ways, right? Actually, OPA allows you to pull from a bundle so you can push rules to it or you can pull rules from it. So if you're running OPA and configure it to pull from a centralized repo, you can do that. So you get centralized login, right?  But all right, so what's next? I'm not really presenting the whole thing right now, but I mean, this is work in progress, like I said, performance. So while OPA rego is very performant, it's still not the same as having your in-memory cached rules from Oslo Policy, right? You do get some header from doing your HTTP requests, going through the network, even if it goes to local host. So you are going to have overhead. Also, while it's quite trivial to bundle your rules in a centralized repo, that doesn't really give you the version control or being able to roll back. So we still need to write a small server that does centralized policy and does handle versioning and rolling back and whatnot. So that is yet to be done. And finally, of course, in able to get this work done, even though I did this more or less in my free time, we need interest from people, right? So if you're interested in it, please mention in the reviews, please give me a call. And if you're a client for Red Hat, contact your representative and tell them we need this done. So we can get more time to work on this kind of stuff. So if you're interested, the GitHub repo for the tool is there. I also wrote a blog post where I actually mentioned how do you translate directly and manually from the regular language towards Oslo Policy and vice versa. So that's there. And yeah, do I have time for questions? Yes, three minutes. Any questions? It was 10 minutes, so I went too fast. Right, so OPA is just the agent, right? And you can definitely run that as a sidecar. Actually, a lot of projects in Kubernetes run OPA as a sidecar for their service. So let's say you have Keystone, it would run in the same pod as Keystone itself. Barbican in the same pod as Barbican. But it's also possible to just have OPA as part of its own container. And then the service is just pulling the OPA inside the same host. You are going to have that issue anyway if you want any sort of centralized policy unless you decide to just not pull and have a system that pushes in the required changes. And you can do that as well. You don't need to use the bundle service that OPA offers. So that would be another option. Anybody else? Thank you.


Hi, my name is Brian Holmes and I am co-founder of Citizen Cider, a Burlington-based business that makes hard cider. And also I'm a graduate of the University of Vermont where I got my Ph.D. in local chemistry and this is why I think you should choose UVM. Me and my two other business partners started the company from scratch. I graduated from UVM and was working as a research scientist for a couple years for a small company in Burlington and this opportunity popped up and kind of just swept me away. When you have a Ph.D. in chemistry you have a fairly developed background in a lot of the art sciences, physics, chemistry, some biochemistry. There's a lot of chemistry in physics and cider making, you know, and that comes into play for sure. I managed the lab, developed new analytical techniques so that's where the analytical chemistry comes in. UVM is a very important resource for us in hiring. There are definitely a lot of opportunities to hire talented graduates. Food science, chemistry, just to name a few that we pulled from up there. As far as UVM as a entity in this town it just has an awesome effect on all the businesses here, good mix of younger and older students and year-round locals and overall just a great vibe to it. If you're really interested in a great education and just being around a good culture, a progressive culture that has an environmental context, I think UVM is a great match for anybody who wants to have to find that balance of great academics in the natural world.


Mandatory pre-departure testing for all international arrivals to England will come into effect worldwide from 15 January 2021, including for passengers departing from Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. A limited exemption has been granted until 21 January for Clock Greenwich Mean Time GMT, for arrivals from Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda and St. Lucia to help Britons in this country's return home. Inbound passengers to England will need to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test result taken no more than three days prior to departure. The UK government has confirmed that mandatory pre-departure testing for all inbound passengers to England will come into force from Friday 15 January 2021 as an added measure to safeguard public health against the coronavirus and its variants. A limited exemption has been granted until 1 January for Clock GMT to help Britons in Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados and St. Lucia return home. This decision reflects current infrastructure challenges in these countries, including limited COVID-19 testing capacity and heightened demand for tests. Persons arriving into England from these three islands from the 4 o'clock GMT on 21 January will be required to comply in full with the new requirements. Visitors are strongly encouraged to use this time to review and clarify their plans for return to England, including considering options to revise flight departures and if necessary, put in place suitable arrangements for qualifying pre-departure tests. In preparation for travel passengers will need to find a testing provider, which meets the standards set out on by the UK government, the majority of which will be PCR tests. Full details of requirements can be found at www.gov.uk. Prior to departure, passengers will be required to present proof of a negative COVID-19 test result, taken no more than three days before departing to transport operators, as well as their passenger locator form. Carriers may deny boarding to those who do not have a negative test result. The UK Border Force will conduct spot checks on arrival into England. Passengers who arrive at the border without proof of a negative result will be subject to an immediate £500 fine. For people arriving from countries not on the travel corridor list, they will be required to complete a mandatory self-isolation period and the travel corridor list is regularly reviewed to manage the risk of imported cases of COVID-19 from high-risk countries. Passengers still have the option to reduce their self-isolation period as part of the test-to-release scheme launched last month, unless they have been in South Africa, Angola, Botswana, to name a few, in the 10 days prior to their travel in England. The current advice for persons in the UK remains that they must stay at home and not travel abroad unless it is for a permitted exempt reason.


Now quantum mechanics has a reputation for being confusing. I think the main reason for that is that it's often presented as a clash between two inconsistent models. In other words, the wave particle duality that people talk about when they talk about quantum mechanics, they're really two different models that people are trying to smush together to explain something. For example, for light, we know that light acts like waves when we do interference experiments, and yet early experiments showed and early calculations showed that they also seem to arrive in packets with discrete energy. So really waves and particles are just limits of the true theory of the quantum field theory that was really developed over a large fraction of the 20th century. But the first couple of decades of the 20th century, people were trying to put together a theory for light and matter out of these little pieces, these patchwork pieces of theory, just to try and make something that explained what they saw. And the biggest early success was atoms, both why they exist and how they interact with light. In the early 1900s, it was known that atoms were made up of positively charged things and negatively charged things. It was known that atoms could emit small negatively charged particles. They were then called corpuscles, but we now know them as electrons. And so the dominant model put forward by JJ Thompson was that the electrons existed in the atom and they were stuck inside a large, uniform, positive charge. And this was known as the plum pudding model. Thompson described it in more dignified terms, but the fact that these electrons were stuck around like raisins inside a large smudge of positive charge like plums and a plum pudding made a somewhat irresistible analogy. Now people knew that electrons were inside atoms because they could make them come out. And they also knew that atoms overall were reasonably neutral because they didn't respond to electric fields. And so this idea of having positive charge in there was fairly clear, but it wasn't clear exactly how it was arranged. The first person to really test this model was Rutherford. Rutherford had previously shown that an alpha particle was really just a helium ion. And so what he did was he took some gold foil, the advantage of gold being it's almost infinitely malleable. You can keep on beating it flatter and flatter and thinner and thinner until it's almost one atom thick. And he fired alpha particles at it. And an alpha particle was known to be much heavier than an electron, but not that much lighter even than a gold atom. And so he was really firing very heavy particles at these gold and was trying to see what would happen. So the alpha particles were of course positively charged and so they should be affected by the positive charge inside the atoms. Now if the positive charge in the atoms is spread out of a large area, then it turns out that it would only have a very small effect on the alpha particles. And so if Thompson's model was correct, the calculations were that those particles should more or less just go straight through. Which indeed they did. But some of them bounced far more than Rutherford expected. And indeed some of them more or less came straight back at the detector. So as they changed the angle of the detector they could see what angle these alpha particles were being deflected by. And they saw some rare events where they bounced dramatically back. And Rutherford was rather startled by this. He later said that it was almost as incredible as if you'd fired an artillery shell at a piece of tissue paper and had it come back at you. And what this said to Rutherford was that the positive charge inside the atom must be condensed down into a really really small volume. And so he had a new model of the atom which had a small positively charged nucleus in the center and then electrons going around the edge. And these electrons would be going around in orbit around the nucleus. And that mental model of the atom is still probably the most commonly used symbol for atomic energy and atomic physics today.


When the transport stratum does its job well and Connection is established for the user equipment to a network attachment point The service has to be provisioned Preferably in a seamless manner for that the service stratum is invoked for managing the mobility Let's look at some of the highlights of mobility management at the service stratum You may argue that once the transport stratum has established The requirements has has fulfilled the requirements for mobility management. Why do we need it at the service stratum? Let's recall the Kinds of handovers that could take place we we discussed them before we started with the transport stratum If the handover is taking place at the link layer, it means the IP addressing is not changing It is within the same Radio access network. So it's a horizontal handover. We know it can be handled at the transport stratum when we have Different mobile environments and the technology is changing We do handover at the network layer and we call it as the vertical handoff or handover These two are relatively easier to be implemented at the transport stratum But when we are required to do handover at the application layer it means that We are now talking about switching the service parameters from the Leaving network to the joining network It has to be implemented only at the service stratum And when it comes to the service stratum at the In the ngn architecture, it is the primary responsibility of the ip multimedia subsystem Let's take an example since we are talking about the application layer and the network layer is Below even not adjacent to the application layer if the ip address changes then It's quite likely that The service is disrupted So it means the service stratum Um assumes That the transport stratum provides it certain information about connectivity um It means that there is some kind of media independent handover provisioning In fact, there's a standard by IEEE known as IEEE 8 or 2.21 MIH or media independent handover What happens here is that the link layer information is used At the upper layer To make sure that the um handover at the service stratum is smooth um and is not affected by any significant link layer change at the transport stratum so the mobility management at the service stratum Can be seen in conjunction with the mobility management at the transport stratum Here in this diagram you see that we have the transport stratum doing its job The service stratum has now certain mobility management related entities. For instance, we have the service proxy Serving in proxy call control session functions the call session control function element Then we have the handover control functional element or entity These are interacting with the transport stratum and the user equipment or both depending upon the requirement You see here that the user equipment has shown to you here through the mobile phone diagram This mobile phone icon or symbol is now interacting not only With the transport stratum. It is also interacting live with the call session control functional element or entity At the same time it is communicating or interacting with the transport stratum which in turn is now Also talking to the service stratum. So you see that service stratum is Talking simultaneously to the transport stratum as well as the user equipment So we see that the service stratum mobility management basically is the interaction of the function elements or functional entities of the service control function and the transport functions the handover That we actually understand very well now is going to be implemented through exchange of control messages between The functional elements of the transport stratum as well as the service stratum because now the service stratum has to get some information like media independent handover in terms of the device identification like the Gateway access gateway or the edge gateway the controllers and the controller addresses to establish the Tunnels and data paths through the transport stratum because remember service stratum in itself cannot realize The service provisioning without the help of the transport stratum The service control function that is shown to you in the diagram through different the call session control function element There are certain additional elements as well. For instance, we have the Authorization and authentication function element We have the user profile which has to be consulted when a user equipment moves from one network to to other its profile has to be Tallied or consulted if the service can be provisioned to the user or not And then the subscription to certain set or suite of services is also an important concern So this is what the essential Mobility management at the service stratum is you can have a look at it once more. We have the Interactions shown to you either through the continuous lines or through dotted lines and That is pretty much all


Hi, I'm Wyatt, a junior majoring in finance, and I'm Jordan, a senior majoring in communicative disorders. We are so excited to celebrate Thank-A-Don or Day later this week. Your generosity has touched so many lives and it is exciting to hear stories from our fellow students about how your gifts have impacted them. The opportunities that we have on and off campus are direct results of your generosity. Whether we've been awarded a scholarship, provided an opportunity to participate in an internship, or continued our education through graduate programs, we are so grateful for the experience you've given us. Follow UA on social media this week for more stories about how charitable giving has impacted our beautiful campus. Your generosity is so appreciated and we can't wait to celebrate you this week. Thanks and Roll Tide!


Alright, so International Day of Radiant Peace is observed on September 22nd annually. It is a day where we get to spread awareness about radiant peace and promote peace projects around the world. Yesterday was International World Peace Day, so today is Radiant Peace. Let the peace be radiating. No, there are some pieces that are not radiant. That's what they tell me. I think I was watching the news today and former president of the Salami, I think, is the president of the committee now. The ones that call political leaders to come sign peace pact before an election. So the APC national chairman was there at his house. So he's saying that before the general election they should at least sign it twice. So they have to sign it two times. You sign and double sign before the general election. So just to guarantee that whatever the outcome, you will not incite any form of war and all of that. Peace, I don't know, with what is going on. And in fact, that's why I even want to have this conversation with what is going on. Is it possible for us to actually have peace? Because what I listen to in those videos are really troubling. Very troubling for me. I don't know about you guys. But let's quickly go through what our news is and we can then come back to our conversation for today. Our lady, I think you're ready. Yes, I am, because I want to get it over with. Okay, so we have news about a pastor who had apparently written dodgex and they now have imprisoned him. Let me just give you a brief. They say, Justice Oluwatohe Taiwo of the Special Offences Court sitting in the Kejalegos has convicted and sentenced a pastor, Odeji Brahim, Oluwako, to two years in prison. The assistant pastor of the redeemed Christian Church of God, RCCG. What are you doing? No, the city of David Parish for emphasis. Victoria Island was jailed on Tuesday, September 21, 2022. Oluwako's conviction came consequent on his arraignment by the Lagos Zonal Command of EFCC alongside his company, Peak Petroleum Industry in Nigeria, limited on an amended six-count charge, bordering on insurance of dodgex, stealing and obtaining by false pretense to the tune of 1. Okay, suppose Goop is like, takes in an era before, to the tune of 1.6 million dollars on January 19, 2019. Let me leave it at that. At first, I thought it was night. So I was saying that dodgex, bouncing cheques, we know about it and we know when they started putting it into the law. And if you write cheques and you know that, don't write a cheque. Your father is next to you. Yes, so you tell me about the law. I remember I used to be a bankers back in the day, over two decades ago, and people used to bounce cheques anyhow. Later on, I think they adjusted the laws and the rules saying, if you write a cheque and it does not go through, there's trouble. And so you should be very careful. You either post-date it for the funds you think you're expecting or don't bother writing it at all and don't close any business deals or funds you can guarantee are there. And what they said he did was he claimed that he was expecting money. But the money he was expecting hadn't come. But you did it twice. So ignorance is not going to get you anywhere. It seems that you were knowingly fraudulent about the fees or the amounts of money. At first I was saying when I brought it up as what's in the news that I don't think the punishment was commiserate with the crime that I felt that maybe they should have found something else, pay penance to whoever was affected or whatever. There's no need wasting taxpayers' money accommodating and feeding yet another prisoner. When there's many criminal laws or broken laws and criminals that have been convicted or should be convicted that you could be using those same funds in imprisoning, not this guy. But seeing that it is dollars, there's no idea peace about it. Let me quickly hear Gloria's take on this quickly. Obviously, so there's no way before you're presenting a check you need to be sure about what you have in your account. So for the fact that, and I don't think ignorance is an excuse in this day and age when presenting a check, which the law frowns against.  Absolutely. Let me quickly tie up my story because he's in line with all this conviction and it was lighted as she did. Let me just let you people know. I quickly changed my story quickly. Really? Yes. You had another one before. It was a China former minister of justice sentenced to death for taking bribes worth 16 million dollars. Now the former justice had been sentenced.  He's 67 years old. He was found guilty. And what they said was that in the time of his service as minister, justice minister, between March 2018 and April 2020, he was accused of taking advantage of his position. So between 2005 and 2021, including accepting bribe, totaling the sum of 117 million yen, and which if you convert it, it converts to about 16.7 million dollars. And bending the law for personal gains. And according to the report, the court stripped full of his political rights for life and confiscated all his property, personal property. So after his two-year reprieve, then they will carry out the death sentence. My sister, my brother. We want this in Nigeria. When I say this, I say Jesus, this is what we're talking about for two days. We're using it as a point of contact for Nigeria that talks in God's favor. May China have good and still money from us. Also, further we want to receive that kind of customers. Because like, I mean, even, so you see that sometimes when you were talking about, and that was where I was trying to tell you this is not issue of humanity. Because let me tell you something. If we live right doing for conscience, come on, we're not going anywhere.   You don't ask that question. That is what happened. And this is why impunity and lawlessness cannot, even if it is there, it will be very minimal. Thank you. It is not the way we see it. I remember the news in such a major way because it's not the norm. It's not the norm. It's the opposite. For them to believe in people. No, don't leave us. Let us listen to the people that we feel should be investigated. Like, they don't believe in me. They will believe in me. They are all of Nigeria. I'm telling you. Not anyway. I don't say because they apply when it is done. Please let us talk. It looks like what we are saying today is tied to something more natural. So in mine, a social media post shows a notice by surly local government leaders reintroducing radio and television licenses to drive in the council's internally generated revenue. It's short and straight to the point. So I would say, ha, you don't read. Everybody is looking for money. Nothing irritates the life out of me. Some stores, some businesses don't have radio or television. Why are you charging them for radio and TV license? Oh, they do it abroad. Every household is charged for TV. Even if you are watching on your phone and you don't have a TV. Every household is giving the TV license. They assume you have a television. If you have a box that is in your garage that's not plugged anywhere. These people, the problem I have with them is that copy-paste. They don't analyze whether it applies to us or not. They start trying to make it seem like they're doing something. What's in concern with you? It is worth. Not my finger. I don't know if this is a light on note. It has to do with animals. Oh, okay. Yes, but it's a sad one because recently 200 whales were found dead on the shores of an Australian beach. So the story has it that around 200 whales have died and just 35 remain alive following a mass stranding in Australia this week. And these pilot whales were found and exposed on the coast of Tasmania. And rescue efforts are ongoing, but a lot of them have died. And Brendon Clark, who is the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service Chief gave a report that their conscience in his speech he said that their conscience that some of them may re-beach themselves. So sometimes they push them in and they sort of find their way back to shore. Find their way back to shore. So it's really been this like the second mass stranding that is taking place this week and a dozen of them, mostly young males were believed to be part of the bachelor pod, but they were all found dead. About 35 have been rescued and they tried to push them in. And this 200 whales, this is the first largest experience of this was in 2020, where about 450 of these whales were stranded. Okay, so what you say is stranded? Sorry, I'm just trying to... Yeah, because they can't swim on the beachside. So somehow they found themselves in shallow waters. And I think if we can also tie it to the the whole climate change and all of the man-made activities that are just changing things. So the way they would normally float they're finding themselves in the opposite directions. I think land reclamation is not a solution to this. I'm just thinking in my head. So almost like creating a barricade where they can't come any closer to the sea. I'm sure they are on top of the... Marine scientists may advise against this. Like, you know, have people monitoring this shore. But this one is huge. It's a major one. But you know that even if you put barricades when they're coming a mass like this, they can break it. And these are whales. We're not talking about just small fishes. They're not that big. They're not that big. They're not that big. They're not that big. They're not that big. They're not that big. They're not that big. There was a try. That a whale actually found his way. It was not a mass. Yeah, that's what it is. That's what it is. We don't understand the indigenous species in Nigeria. Humanity. And they get to come. They come. They come. They come. Mommy, what happened? They come. First day I saw a snake being roosted. It was a root culture shock for me. I went to university. University python. Yeah. So they had killed the python. They beheaded it. And it was a big bone fire. No, bigger. But this big basin. And they had wrapped the python food in anything. Roasted the thing. You think it's fish. My mom said she's eaten snake before. It's like fish. It's like chicken. Yes, it's like fish. I don't even want to find it. I have a friend who actually groomed them for parties. In Nigeria now. They bring it. They get on the train and everything. So one day it was like, I'm going to gift you. I said go punish yourself. I've tasted crocodile. Crocodile tastes like chicken. Anything outside of fish. I'm not there. Alright. Let's take a break. Let's discuss a serious matter today. Stay with us. We'll be right back.


so guys i want to say a big shout out to you my ever patriotic subscribers that believe in what i do and always show support now there is a community tab that has been created by youtube where we can communicate more at a deeper level now i'm enjoying you to join this community where i get to share with you exclusive member only content that are different from what i regularly share on my youtube channel now there is a monthly donation involved as well so i look forward to seeing you join my community tab love you guys bye what's up guys welcome to another episode of bas lady quick one today oh my god i love this drama this drama is good i saw this video on youtube i love the way he was holding the groove the fact that the drama is giving me steady reading that has really burst my head that is what i expect from dramas just keep that steady groove beat for me the reading for me and you will see me displaying you know that is what we base player love seeing or hearing from good drama and when you see them you know them you know that this this drama is good when you see a good drama you easily connect go check out his youtube channel i don't know him i don't think i've come across them in person you know shoshamida is a white space to meet people every day across the world go check out his youtube channel i think he has a lot of things you will enjoy from his youtube channel so guys before we proceed if you're new to this channel and you've not subscribed please hit that subscribe button looking at you right there you can afford to miss new videos that i upload every way okay so guys let's go back to what i want to show you today um today i want to share with you some basic praise baseline you should know you know i keep saying this that praise is all about pattern you creating that little reading will make a difference you trying your possible best to create nice reading okay once you've gotten your progression of course what are you waiting for start building is like you improvising you know on the base and that is what praise is all about praise is as easy as abc worship is even more difficult than praise when you look at them when you compare them okay so praise you just have to enjoy yourself i like what the drama is doing and i said let me teach a tutorial on this so i'm going to show you everything i did the simple baseline i created there on that song we use this song while we sing this song in our local churches it's a popular praise song we all know we all make use of and their baselines are very very simple okay so take these see how you can add it to the one you already have with you okay so let's get started now the key of the song a flat which is our g sharp okay now the progression of the song simple basic praise progression continue that way five q g starting progression is four you go back to one you go to five you go to one that is just the progression okay that is just the progression now the first baseline i tried to create simple was this mind you all the chord progression on that song are major progression major chord progression major notes they are all major notes so what i did on the four is what i came to the one to do is what i came to the five to do and back to one so this is the pattern on the four the notes i put together to give me that reading to give me that baseline is one six four then i copied that pattern to my one remember the progression after four is your one then i copied the pattern everything that happened on the four i copied it to the one okay okay okay that that was it so everything that happened on the four on the far i'm going to my one which is my dough i'm doing so do i'm going to my five which is my sore i'm doing then i'm going back to my one that was it it has turned to pattern so because they are all major notes so it works what happened on the far is what happened on the do is what happened on the sore back to my do simple that was everything that happened on the first baseline that played on the song oh lord i am very very grateful so anyway you can improvise yours okay you can just build yours simple these things are simple to achieve to actually achieve now the next song is my lord is so good he's so good my lord is so good he's so wonderful or excellence or beautiful whichever one so god is good so that one one i was doing this almost the same pattern that one the progression started on i think it's just basic the the progression there is just two yes i think the the key basic progression there is the yeah that these are the two basic progression of that song a particular song now what i was doing the you know the progression started on the five call i'm doing this this is what i created so i use the far i use this movement connect to my one chord because the two major progression on that song is the five and the one so i was using this connecting to my one chord that was what i was doing and look at the fingering my lord is so good that was it okay so let me spell it out i started from okay so that was it that was the baseline i just um kind of put together right there on that song the same key so number there is then the next move six four five five then i'm going to my one this six four five five is a movement to my one is a passing movement to my one six four five five then i jump to one five one one one three five so that was it that was everything that happened there so guys hope you go one or two things from this praise baseline i just share with you and also i still have packages on different topics on the base you want to learn i have package on the pentatonic everything that talks about the pentatonic how to start building leaks from aid helps to start using pentatonic scale to groove okay i have package on that i have package on the reggae you want to really improve on your reggae baselines i have package on that i have package on worship you know you want to really improve on your worship movements you want to really improve on worship how you you you play some movement how you play some passing notes some leagues you know when you play to songs when you play to gospel songs i have package on that and i have package on praise indeed you want to improve your praise baselines there package on that i have package on that okay then makosa also you want to really improve i have package on that so everything is complete so if you want to get any of the packages you can chat me via the whatsapp number right there on the screen or in the description below or you can send me an email indicating you need this package now the package is not free it will cost you okay so i look forward to seeing you in my next video bye for now


and a feminine culture. And also in the spectacle that we have here as well, I noted in conversation with several people as well, that Theory Day here at Legal History Conference is one of our fellow conference goers. Looks like a barbershop quartet, we had a lot of male theory and I might break into doo-wop over here as the girl's finger, but otherwise I'm keeping time. I think we might think something about some of the subtext of rethinking about this. But I'll take more audience. What do you say? We can hear you. So I was curious about this when I was reading Peter's paper and then John, when you were talking about the Egyptian courts that happened when I was reading the paper, I was thinking that the Supreme Court and the debates among the justices about whether to open up, to televise the oral arguments and most of the justices add that they not be televised. And I was thinking that spectacle can also be anti-spectacle, that the very inaccessibility, the very privacy, the very fact that you don't have access to it, that it is a special place with its own rituals, with its own practices that are not actually open to the public is part of what makes that spectacle so effective and powerful. That's what they believe. At least the justices believe that something is at stake in publicizing and broadening the scope of the downability of their oral arguments. Maybe that's not true, but they seem to have something invested in the belief that the privacy endows them with greater power in some ways. I just want to read you about it, but both of you can do that. Both of you. John and me. Oh, John. Go ahead, John. My answer is yes. I think that there are any number of contexts in which privacy and closure empowers the law. And again, definite article. But I think Peter's point is really important, which is to say there are any number of contexts in which the absence of the image, the withdrawal of the image, hints at a formal publicity by virtue of erasing it. And I think that's exactly what happens in the Supreme Court instance. We all know they there. We've been given any number of imagistic bases in order to think that. But the withdrawal of the image becomes an enunciation of its power. And Peter actually argues that in the latter part of the paper. That's one of the reasons I suggest reading it. But I don't want to answer for you, Peter, because you have a much better one than do I. So I hope people don't normally have trouble hearing me. So if the peculiarly male of the device that could be put away. The image, television cameras came into the American courtroom in the McCarthy hearings on the back of war crimes trials. And there's an amazing history of how both at Nuremberg and in the McCarthy hearings, the camera brings the world into the courtroom. And the problem with that, and the McCarthy hearings, if you look at the footage, you're quite extraordinary, is that it distracts and it decomposes the highly regimented theatrical order of legal proceedings. So a court and a trial that doesn't have the camera is a court and a trial in which everybody has their place, except when the judge jumps off the bench. It is known who is talking to whom and in what order and indeed in what language. So I think the Supreme Court's fear is precisely a fear of the interdisciplinary of the outside, of taking away of this control and a movement of culture society visibly into the courtroom. As to the holding of hearings in private, and all of this interest in the image comes curiously with a feminine accent. Janus Anglorum, or Janie Anglorum, which is Seldin's book about common law, the feminine in common law, precisely in that title, arrives loosely at the same time as the translations of the Egyptian hieroglyphs and haripolo and the einigmata at a time when the image is something feminine. The image is a woman, the image is a face. I mean, there's a fascinating theological kind of denunciation of the image precisely for this opening up. But I guess the way that I would see the camera, which is coming, which is coming because every laptop has a camera, every phone, but particularly the laptop because courts want to be on the internet. So they are visible. You just have to turn the laptop towards them as it were. I think that it's simply a matter of time What does that mean? Well, I think that's good for us because it takes away that highly regimented theatrical control and broadens it into something that is less amenable to this textual solemnization and this very rigid hierarchy of performance, which is still being held on to. Just going to have a footnote. The notion of Nuremberg and the McCarthy era is very interesting because those are both moments in which the law is in question. And Nuremberg specifically was about creating a new notion of a legal regime. Of course, McCarthy was about the ostensible potential destruction of American law. So those are two really interesting images in which law in the uppercase and ritual in the uppercase do converge in the publicity of the image. On the other hand, the banalization of what's a judge duty and judge whatever has led to any other discourse. Is this really law or is it just basically daytime comedy? And again, in effect, that's raised a very interesting question about precisely whether this is really the law if it is made public in this kind of banalized notion. And there's, again, another sort of Benjamin subtext there too. I don't know why Benjamin is so much around today.  There is really the auto mechanical reproduction and the rendering of the banal does raise the question of what exactly is the law and what is the law. You're right, I agree with this one. Just to, the judge duty might be, one reading of her might be evidence of an everyday appetite for despotism in a world where we are all instruments and allow our agents given the civilization of technology. But that's actually sort of, well, that's sort of a segue into what I was talking about. Thanks for that. And that is, in the thematic of the civilization of technology as the sort of mark of the modern, I wanted to ask a question to maybe to tie us to the theme, to our warnings panel. One of the things I hope will discuss is our warnings panel. And that is the question of embeddedness to use the term that Paul Polanyi uses. You can shy, I think that's, in some ways, you've framed your questions in the very question of enchantment, secularization. But I'll soften shy, I think you're both asking questions about embedded life and that sort of way of being in the world, that we don't have any categories to describe anymore because we've already been disenchanted. So to give you an example, from my case of colonial law in India, and this speaks, I think, especially to a sauce point, or questions about a long culture, I would say that at least to think about the ways in which cultural defenses and culture as a name for politics, or what Arjuna Patherai would call culturalism. The use of culture in that way, for me at least, and you'll hear more this tomorrow, is the effect of a certain kind of civilization of the technical, which is the institutionalization of that thing we call the economy. And you can't think, and of course, you know, FNSE Inc. is sitting right here, so I don't need to learn, I'm afraid this is going to end much. You can really come out of books, this is very unfortunate. Yeah, but, so I really think that the third category there for thinking long culture is economy. We have to, in this context. So to just give you one example of the ways in which we might do, say, a genealogy of the idea of a gift and to traumatize your wacko figure that you talked about, in the late 19th century of India, there is an incredible amount of acrobatic jurisprudence over the institutionalization of law, warming, to establish a gift given in perpetuity. And this becomes a real problem because the richest people in India work in telegroups, vernacular capitalists, as I call them, establish indigenous forms of social welfare like temples, rest houses for travelers, religious travelers, cows, shelters, et cetera. All of these are dedicated to deities and all of these generally have vast tracts of land that bring rent, an income and rent. Now the income of that rent can always be used to, even if you give a gift for social welfare, can be used to defer a debt in your family firm. It can be used to set up more retail locations. It can be used for credit and then it will always return but the fact is there's a porous boundary between what is considered social welfare and what is considered profit. What the legal acrobatics of the British do in a series of high court decisions in the late 19th century from the British Council on the Long Way High Court in particular, is trying to figure out how you can establish a law of warming to a gift that will be given in perpetuity that can never revert back to the family. How can you pull up these things as trust and warming? And the way they do it is by defining the Hindu deity, the idol as they call it, as a legal subject, okay? And that, that is the fetishization that John Paramov is talking about. So they produce the idol as a legal subject. A legal subject whose intention can be discovered in the sort of interest in maintaining his house or her house without matter of poly. It's also good. And so, I give this as an example of the ways in which a kind of secular, technical worldview recodes an embedded way of life in which the distinction between public and private and in the 19th century, the Church of the Downsack to 1890 in India, established as defined charity as a gift for general public utility. Public utility is the category of public versus private is absolutely a play there. So how do you even think about these practices or these numois that don't apply in public privatization? They don't apply categories of charity and profit. So I think it's just a big way, it's another beauty here. How do you think embeddedness? I just want to introduce that as he's an anthropological question perhaps, more than anything else. And I just said a quick question for Peter because it was so compelling, Icon and Boikas. And if Boikas is the realm of technique, I would love for you to elaborate on if you can or if you thought about it on law as media. We've talked about law as technique, but I wonder if you'd like to have something to say about law as media. That is to say, the icon as, not just an image, but as a medium. I'll start with the first. I'm sorry. I'm just saying, so the story is basically a story of modernity is a simulation of the spheres of the world, the economy and culture, emerging this distinct and culture, doesn't appear until the economy kind of takes over something that belongs to the family or to groups that are not in the state. Only a solid notion of culture. Yeah, I believe that. Yeah, I certainly kind of like, I can buy the story. I'm shy to buy it because it's a very, very strong one. So very briefly, so I buy the story as half of the story in the question of the other half, which is when, for instance, religion is not translated or decoded into secular forms, but rather discovered as religion hence lies beyond the law and receives sort of protection by the law as religion. And that's the other side of this, I'm sure we agree. The embeddedness, I think that's helpful and goes along, I guess, with what's being said. But then the question is, what happens to this category of embeddedness when it's not about a post-colonial situation? That is, what happens, again, with Jews in Germany? So then you could say that they're being, that they have their culture and it's being sort of an influence way. So it is being appropriated by Christian understandings that possibility. I'm not sure that that's what happens because that takes agency from the Jews and the German Jews are German Jews, like the German Christians. And so it's much harder to say that this is something that happens outside of the embeddedness. This is, right now, so the question is what happens and I think there's an embeddedness of what happens when all this that we're talking about is what is embedded, that it is. And that's exactly what happens. Well, that's of the interesting fact. It doesn't undo the category of embeddedness. It's actually even more interesting, I think. I just wanted to kind of, following your answer, just kind of a question that we presented in the paper is what extent, I don't remember if it appears in the paper, but what extent is the whole story of Protestantism versus Catholicism? Because I think it's associated actually with a battle, kind of the Jews on a proxy fold, actually a battle which is not totally unrelated to Judaism and it's an internal Christian battle between, you know, rising Protestant state and Protestantism was seen as medieval on Judaism. I think that that is part of the story. It's not, I can't tell the full story because it's beyond, but the Hebris are mostly Protestants who criticize Judaism for being Catholic. Can I just add one point? I think there's a lot of important stuff in what you just said. We have a long conversation about it. Just two points, though. One is precisely the point you make about culture here and this is really, it is a very complicated issue because of course the term culture as a circulating possessed object exists within cultural fields in which culture itself becomes marked, very much like the law and the law and the law. And the way that that happens of course is deeply complicated. There are also situations in which culture as a political claim is quite different from culture as an inhabited field of significations and that congealing itself leads to a kind of promiscuity and politically, especially among anthropologists who talk about those two modalities of culture as if they were the same thing or a historical progression, which they're not. They exist with one another in an embedded way but in historically and problematically embedded ways and in part, of course, also by the deification of economy. Deification of economy and the two market-funded mentalism is one of those signifiers that actually tells more than it seems to tell. And in fact, one of the reasons we wrote a book called Millennial Capitalism was precisely about the growing faith. Well, that is what neocon servitism is about. It's about a faith in the salvific effects of capital to resolve everything. Capital, of course, deeply legalized, which is interesting and I think the place where this becomes really interesting in relation to Shai's story is, of course, the rendering by the Pakistani courts of Islam's intellectual property where ever since 1994, now Islam is intellectual property. You can't simply build a mosque or goodness knows, alienate a symbol. Those things are wholly owned and in fact, the judges in the case said this form of alienation is a material harm to Muslims just as the God Shiva has, in fact, sued in court. So these things become embroiled in, as it were, the sacralization of the economy, which has its own effects on the relationship between cultures as possessing cultures as a few signifiers. So, can I, should I reply maybe a little bit? Maria, would that be all right? Do I have time? I'll just talk if that's okay. I have kind of three thoughts. I'm not quite sure where you were taking it. The first is that there's an amazing study of Latin, of course, within the sort of universal tradition of Western law, as it's so called. The medium was Latin. And there's a study of exams taken, or amongst other things, of exams taken by children in grammar and secondary schools throughout Europe in Latin, at a time when the kids were doing between 20 and 40 hours of Latin a week, this kind of rope crunch. And the historian's conclusion, female historian, was that having looked at these exams about one in eight students had any working comprehension of Latin whatsoever. So, the function of learning Latin was as a symbolic code and as a way of saying that we studied and belonged to those who have studied Latin, but not that it could ever be used in any practical sense. So, there's that remarkable power of these signs that mean nothing, these signs that hold a value that is not in any sense, a literal value. And I think that fits quite nicely with kind of one of the ways in which we should think of lawyers and of the fictions that you're talking about, which was described in the Renaissance with a very fond of legal fictions that, you know, the ship was in Barcelona, two-way London was a common sort of pleading. You have all these kind of devices, male to female and so on. There's a common one that's been repeated quite recently. So, lawyers are euphanticists. Lawyers are fiction mongers. Lawyers are able to generate a discourse that has only the most tangential of relationships to anything other than itself. And that, in a sense, is how the medium develops. Then, there's a theological and there's a practical dimension because an image is something that is defined by lawyers as a mode of concealment. Now, there's an image is a way of concealing and a word is a way of concealing as well as promulgating. And the third point is the lawyers did become very obsessed with the advent of print with the medium and with the interconnection between iconomists and iconomists precisely because you can't promulgate law in Latin. You can't promulgate law in texts. So, there was, for 200 years, the most popular, one of the most popular forms of book was the legal emblem book. And that precisely has these images, amazing images. And you find a lot of texts. I mentioned Cook has a picture of Littleton and the Seven Orders of the Propositors' Lineage and so on. It has a picture of the law book itself on a cushion. It has a number of images and some of the continental books, even more so with color and Francis pieces, Hobbeses, Francis pieces, a very sort of significant one. There are plenty of others, but the emblem books in particular are the legal harders, in a sense. This is the response to Haripolo and the Enigmata The fact that law is a sacred knowledge which you're now presenting in the vernacular. So, how do you do both? How do you allow that paradox? And the emblem book is one of the most fascinating examples because it has all these tears. The emblem book is an image that everyone can draw from and it's a jurisprudential normative image. And at the same time, it will generally have a Latin motto which is obviously incomprehensible and then it will have a vernacular verse which will explain at an intermediate level because literacy is not that widespread as between and these are books that would be read and these are books that can be seen and then it dies. The reason I was thinking about it in a completely other way was I'm thinking about economy and celebrity and media. And the celebrity is an icon, so I'm thinking of icon and fetish and media and the fact that that's... That's the aclometry and the angelogical and that's precisely, I mean, the definition of honor is celebritas. And you'll find that in all of the early law books and then celebrity has its colors.  So it is precisely a coding of celebrity. I have a couple of questions about the relation between history and law and either a spectacle or a specter, the way that it came up, several of the papers. So at the end of yours, Peter, where you talk about how you've done a history that of something that never was, right, or something you talk about as an unwritten history, very stark by that. And I'm wondering, in that history, two things. What's the relation between the image and the theatricality and what's the relation of that history to the history that Roger was describing? Are you in line with that? Or is it a different kind of history than the one Roger describes as somehow ennobling through noble lives and whatever else it takes, the activity of life? And then for Roger, I was just wondering, and it was very quick what you talked about and I think it was in the paper about the revenge point that you made, about how revenge gives us justice and justice or somehow injustice exceeds law. What's that that exceeds law in this world? And then, is that excess the same as what Shine was talking about in his response to John, as what it is that these anthropological and historical accounts can give us access to? And is that, I didn't quite get in a soft paper, but I'm sure this might- They're all close to the door. No, no, there's one for each of them. They can choose if they want to give us. And then in a soft paper, at the end, when you say, oh, so now I have to do rhetoric, otherwise we're in danger of something that sounds like you're associating the specter with the causal account of culture. What does that have to do with your beginning example of that magician's case, right? Because what isn't being spoken there seems to be very different than what anyone else is not speaking of. And I'm just wondering if any or all of you want to address those. And I honestly, it's not at all as a criticism just because I'm just trying to figure out is there a way that I can put this panel together in a different way than the wonderful way in which I'm talking about it. What's this? Here's no way to ask. Yeah, yeah. No, they weren't asking a question. Sorry. You're going to start rather? I'll say something. Yeah. I think that I think that when John says that, to make visible the senselessness of law and when Shai says, do I need this? Yeah. When Shai says that I need to, that I said that law is always culture or history is human made. I don't think I was saying that and maybe Marianne's question allowed me to say sort of why. So when someone takes revenge, okay? Montecristo, just to take an example, many of us will know. He makes the claim to be the not of Christ. He makes the claim to be holy. He makes the claim that his judgment is divine and he makes it explicitly. And he makes it not as a lawyer. He makes it, as he says, over and over again in the text as an artist. As someone, and that raises the question of what an artist is. Shai suggested, and I think rightly so because Nietzsche at times goes on both sides of this. I may have to make it clearer where Nietzsche is and where I am, but there is at least a higher area in the Nietzschean art where the artist is simply a rapturous conduit for a holy, the realm of the holy. The argument that I'm trying to, are you making a book about the excess of justice, the excess in this justice, that justice is always an extraordinary act and not one that can be done for the law but has to be done by someone and acting personally and individually is that the Avenger, the person who takes revenge makes a claim to be doing that which cannot be rationalized. That which cannot be rationalized in the court of law or by procedures, et cetera. They just make a claim to do justice. At which point, it is up to the viewers, the spectators to decide whether the claim was right or not. They either accept the Avenger as just or they can say that the Avenger was an active in-justice. And the best place that that happened which sort of the argument goes is through a jury trial where the question of jury multiplication comes up. But, you know, as Harnett says in discussing the Schwarzschilder case of 1927 when he kills this headlora that had not on the pogroms and then gives himself up and puts him on himself on trial that is how one does justice by first killing yourself and then putting yourself on trial letting people say that what he did is justice or not. And so I don't think that's, I don't think that's man-making justice. I think what that is is us recognizing that if justice is going to appear in the world, it's going to appear in an extraordinary act in which we do justice and then that justice community recognizing that for them or not by others. In a sense, what I'm trying to say is that it's only an art that religion can happen, not in science or not in discourse. It's only in standing and letting oneself be and making a claim to be a conduit for a higher group, a non-discursive form of justice that we can actually have the possibility of a religion in the world. And also for justice. And that's the claim that I'm making. So that, and the lying as there is to come, yes, we make a holy lie, we lie that we do justice, we lie that we're God. But we know that's a lie. And yet the lie has to be beautiful enough, the act of justice, the revenge has to be beautiful enough to be believed and that's what keeps justice alive in the world. That's the claim that I'm trying to make. My specific goals has to do with with the quotation, the taxis tones that you're writing about and kind of refers to 19th century, you know, old antiquated 19th century notions of the college, you know, so. And you know, I didn't have time to present everything kind of in there. So it's just an attempt to create some sort of that with people doing taxis today. And now in ways that don't take into account the more complex notion of that. So the image and theater just very quickly, the Roman digest, as you know, bans theater for 200 years. What's it banning? It's banning foreign Greek history on it. Imitations or competitions with law. So theater in legal terms, theater and justicia is the discourse of jurisdiction. It's the discourse in other words of getting onto the stage and the image is surely the theatrical mass, the medium through which one can get onto that stage. And that is sort of to be a person in law, actually in law French is to be a person which I love it's to be a priest because you represent things parochial and to become a person and to have a space within the jurisdiction. You need to have that mask and you need to have that acclamation. Well, the image is the medium and the role through which one can participate in jurisdiction through which one can act and you know, precisely for Cicero again and they have to tell you is the lawyer's act Torres. Do we have other questions, comments? There was one here, yeah. So are you all. Well, I think we should thank our panel for us.