Life with Luigi, a new comedy show created by Cy Howard and starring that celebrated actor Mr. J. Carol Nash with Alan Reed as the squalor. When Luigi Basko left Italy to start his new life in America, he promised his mother that he would write and tell her about his adventures. So now let's read Luigi's letter as he writes to Mama Basko, Dear Mamma Mia, most wonderful thing about America is that the system of a transportation they got here. Like a fellow user told me, Luigi in America is nothing easier than to get it taken. If you want to go someplace they got a streetcar, buses, a taxi, a subway. And yesterday I'm even reading the paper how one a fellow is across the whole country by term. Of course the fastest the way to travel here is by airplane. You should have seen those airplanes of Mama Mia. All day long they're flying over Chicago and I know they all are going to Washington because every time I'm a look up it's a say on the plane, DC-6. Next the fastest thing to airplane in Chicago is the taxi. No, no, I make a mistake of Mama Mia. Faster than a taxi is a pedestrian. He's got to be faster or as soon as there will be no pedestrians on it. But I'm not trusted the taxis. So Mama Mia, I'm a user-centered of the other transportation system right now and I'm going to go to my native school of class and I take a bus. America, I love you. You like a papa to me. Promotion to ocean. Ah, here comes my bus. Good evening, Mr. Busy Drive. All right, step up and have your dime ready. Sure are here. Ten pennies. Everybody's got ten pennies, funnicles of dollars. Nobody's got dimes. But a penny's, penny's, that's a good American of money. I know. Here's your dime. Thank you. Put it in the slot. All right. Oh, well, here's a fall on the floor. I will find it. I will find it here. All right, now step to the rear of the bus. But what do you want now? Please, I'm a like a transfer. Anything to aggravate me. Here's your transfer. Thank you. That's two cents. Well, please, you got to change it for a quarter. When it comes to transfers, they never got pennies. Only nickels, dimes, quarters. Here's your change. Thank you. And step to the rear of the bus. Mr. Busy Driver, what's the matter now? All the people that pushed up together in the back of the rear, there's nobody in the front. You like that way. Now step to the rear of the bus. Please, Mr. Busy Driver, I'm not meant to fall down, but the bus is a starter suddenly. Oh, starter suddenly. You trying to stay on the economy, you fell to the floor? I'm not saying. Oh, what's the matter? Oh, my thumb is a hurt to me. Oh, building up a case, huh? Please, I'm not building anything. I'm just to go to school. Well, you ain't going to get away with it. I got 300 witnesses in the back of this bus. What's your name? Luigi Basko. What do you want my name for? Your address? 21 or not. The Hollister Street. Oh, my thumb is a hurt. Stop appealing to the people. Ladies and gentlemen, you all witnessed what happened. Will you please pull out these cards? Because I'm in a step to the rear of the bus. All right, class. Quiet, please. I'll call the roll. Mr. Basko. Present. Mr. Howard. Present. Mr. Olson. Present. Mr. Schultz. Birthday cake. Mr. Schultz, why do you say birthday cake? With three presents, I figure there must be a party. Mr. Schultz, you're acting silly. Then somebody spiked the punch. Oh, thank you. Thank you, fellow boobers. Who would I be a sensation in television? Milton Schultz. Mr. Schultz, please. Now, class, tonight we're taking up that grammatical part of speech known as the object. Now, who can give us a sentence with an object? I can. All right, Mr. Howard. What is the sentence? I object. No, Mr. Howard. That's not what I want. Now, can anybody else in the class give me an example of an object? If no one else can, Miss Baldwin, I will badly give you 50 sentences containing objects. And I hope everyone falls on him. Over the schmuck of. I know you can, Mr. Olsen, but perhaps first someone else would like to try. Mr. Basko, you haven't said anything. Suppose you give us a sentence with an object in it. Step to the rear of the bus. Well, that's very good. What's the object? My thumb. Your thumb. How did your thumb get into this? Bus is a step and I'm a fall on it. What? Mr. Basko, you're not making much sense. Yeah, that's what I like about Luigi. Good old-fashioned, un-stupidity. Wait a minute. Maybe Luigi is trying to tell us something. Job. I jump in Yemeni. Here's Thomas. Really small, isn't it? That's all right, Mr. Sporting. And if you don't mind, I'm a liker to go home on a socket. Oh, Luigi, if this really happens what you said about the bus, then you are doing the wrong thing. You shouldn't soak the thumb, you should soak the company. You're whole of it. They might give you $500 for the thumb. No, thanks. I'm not going to sell it.  I remember once my brother Ludwig stepped off a streetcar, got shoved by a taxi into a bus, and the bus knocked him 11 feet. Just then a cop came along. Who was the lucky thing up for a Ludwig, huh? What lucky, the cop gave him a ticket for J-Walking. What a smile, Luigi. I'm just trying to cheer you up. Schultz, you really think Luigi should ask the company for money? Why not?  Pick my advice. Well, I don't know, Schultz. Go ahead, Luigi. What can you lose by asking them? Can the bus company make trouble for you? Can they hound you? Can they lock you up in shale? Schultz, can they? Why not? After all, they're only in Eupen. Luigi, my friend. Hello, Luigi. Hello, hello. Trouble, trouble, trouble. Since I'm bringing you from Italy, always you're getting into trouble. Why wasn't I smart enough to bring over here Perry Como? There's a fellow who's had a nothing. Today he's making a fortune with his own barbershop. Well, my little pumpkin ahead, what's your trouble now? That's a long story. Yesterday, when I went to school, the buses started. Suddenly, I'm a fall down and a height to my thumb. I'm asking the class for help for Schultz to say ask them for money. But this morning, I'm going to get a letter from the bus company because the driver hasn't taken my name and address. What's the trouble, my god? Sure. What do you expect when you go for information to a bird of brain like a Schultz, when all the time you can come to Pasquale for facts, whose head is thicker with them? You're so right to Pasquale.  That's a funny thing. When I'm a sailor, it's a come out of differing. Well, give me the letter you've got. Maybe I can still save you. All right, to here. Bad, bad. Pasquale, you're hauling the letter up a cider down. That's the way you handed it to me. Let me see. There, Mr. Bosco, see U.S. police. What's the Pasquale? It's to say, see us, please. All right, all right. Come tomorrow at 10 a.m. Hey, Luigi, what for? They want to see you in a nighttime. Pasquale, a.m. is in me in the morning. Who's asking you? Now, let me finish. When do you come tomorrow? Ask for Mr. Fenton, who's the head of our clams department. That's the clams department. Luigi, if you keep interrupting, how do you expect to learn anything? Oh, is there no doubts about it?  Biggest crime in this country is to fall down on a public vehicle and strike you thumb on a bus. And you know why? Why? That's the way they call a bus a strike. Interference with a transportation. Pasquale, what am I going to do? There's only one way out for you, the American way. You got a suit. A suit? Ah, that's the meaning you take of the bus accompanies the court and you take away everything that they got. Pasquale, what am I going to do with all of those buses?  You win and you get maybe five or six. Dumb question this man asks. But Pasquale, isn't this the nicer thing to do? Sew or bus accompanies? What are you talking about, Luigi? In America, everybody's a suit.   And I guess this is the way they do things in America? That's a common sense, Luigi. Judges have to live. You know, judges have done to get any commissions on a traffic ticket. The cops, they keep all of the money. But Pasquale, if I was a, like you say, sew this to bus accompanies, what would it be like? Well, Luigi has all the kinds of suits. So let me explain to you. There's the law suits, the civil suits, the criminal suits, and just a plain suit. That's a call to herring a bone. But Pasquale, what kind of suit is it called if I'm a sew the bus accompanies? Well, it depends. You liable to get money from them, but they liable to get money from you. You liable to go to jail, anything's liable to happen. That's what they call a liable to sew.  Luigi, the choice is a no more with you. Look at the letter, the bus accompanies a Samuel. See that a red seal on it? Yes, sir. That don't mean the company's a prover by good housekeeping. And if the country red doesn't mean only one thing, FBI is investigating. Pasquale, all I'm gonna do is to fall under my thumb. Stop over the propaganda. First, the thing that we're gonna do is hire you a lawyer. A lawyer? How am I gonna afford the one? Cost you nothing, the lawyers are gonna have for what you get. Of course, I'm gonna give you something for my advice.  Well, Luigi, in that case, we're not selfish. Yes, sir. We let you keep the whole thing. And now, for the second act of Luigi Vasco's adventures in Chicago, we turn to page two of his letter to his mother in Italy. And so, Mamma Mia, I'm asking a question. If a man is to fall down in a bus, what should happen? He should have become a self-operator, no? Not in America. Over here, when you fall down in a bus, the driver is attacking you, and he's making people fill out the cards. The bus companies will send you by the letter. You get a hire lawyer, go to see the doctor, sue. Then there's a judge, a jury, witnesses, and an insurance company. Before you know it, the 50 people, they're making a living from you, Tom. Anyway, I'm supposed to go to the bus company today, but the Pasquale is telling me no go. Wait here till he's coming with a lawyer. I don't know what the kind of fellow he is, but I think he must be something like me, very shy. Because in the Pasquale he's a resident, I may hear people talk about him and they call him a shy step. Well anyway, anyway, Mama Mia, I'ma think there's a lot of trouble to go through to get back a $10 dollar doctorate bill from the bus company when he needs to come to Pasquale with his lawyer. Luigi, well, how's it feeling, you Tom? Bad? That's good. Come on, here's just a little sprain of Pasquale. What do you know?  Prescott at Sir Luigi Bosco, fellow who was a run-over by a bus. Mr. Prescott, I wasn't a run-over. Quiet. Hello, Mr. Prescott. Uh-uh, don't shake hands with a fractured thumb. Mr. Bosco, it's a wonder to me how you could stand up under that excruciating pain that must be racking your body. Isn't that so bad, Mr. Prescott? Luigi, I'm gonna break your neck.  I'm sorry, Prescott. Ah, that's quite all right, Mr. Bosco. I know how you feel. You've been through a terrible experience and you don't want to talk about it. Now, now, Mr. Bosco, how much money do you think you deserve for this dreadful experience you've been through because of the callous negligence of a public carrier? Nobody was a carry me. I was on a bus. Luigi, in a plain of words, tell the man how much money you want. Well, if you think I should have a money, $10 is for the Dr. Biller, will it be enough? $10, Luigi, Mr. Prescott, is he gonna walk right out on you? You gotta ask him for bigger money. $25? So, Mr. Bosco, the mental anguish, the pain in suffering you've been through cannot be paid for in dollars and cents. Then a matter with the drop of the case. Luigi, talk like that is un-American.  However, Mr. Bosco, since your misfortune must be measured in terms of money, I would place the value in the thousands. Thousands? Sure, Luigi. Look at that a swirl in the thumb. You realize how expensive is it gonna be for you? Say you go bowling. You can't put that thumb in a regular ball.  Amazing. But, Mr. Prescott, I'm gonna never go bowling. You should. It's a very healthy exercise. Mr. Bosco, Mr. Pascuali has brought up a rather obscure case. But I can see where the loss of the use of a man's thumb would ruin his life. If, um, he were about to embark on a career as a concert pianist. Huh? Who's a concert pianist? You. Me. Oh, you lucky puppy. Yeah, but I was never played the piano. Luigi, when you was a half of that accident on the bus, I was about to send over a teacher. Now, you'll have to give up those concerts in the Hollywood Bowl. That's easily $10, $15,000. $15,000. Then there's the cancellation of your triumph at return tour of the Middle West. $10,000. $10,000. And forfeiting that $5,000 concert at Carnegie Hall. Of course, not to mention the loss of your friendship with Tuscanini, which cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Then remember we dropped the cash.  Then of course your command performance before the king and queen is through. Naturally, you can't take any of the money out of that country, but you could have come out with $3,000 worth of cashmere sweaters. That's a lot of cash. But now you would have swung over to Paris. Luigi, my fellow pooper. Well, Luigi, what's with you and the thumb? Sure, sir, I don't know what's happening. All I know is I've got a piano in my bedroom and I'm a store and a bus to company for $100,000. Luigi, nobody's thumb is worth $100,000 unless maybe if he's a butcher. Now tell me, what's this with the piano? Well, a pasquale is a bring a lawyer.  And that's who I am. I've got a piano in my bedroom. Luigi, are you forshimmelt? Luigi, do you know you are committing perjury? For that, when you got to court, they can take away from you the citizen papers. But I might not forgot the citizen papers. Then they take away any papers they catch you with, the Chicago Times. But I shall still you know me. The last thing I'm going to do is tell a lie. Yeah. But a pasquale is a tell me I'm a got to. Otherwise the bus to company is a send me to jail. Look at this letter, the bus to company is a send me. Let me see that. Here, there, here.  This means they want to settle with you. You go down there right now.  Sure, sir. Maybe you're right. I'm going to go right there now. You think I'm going to get into trouble? Of course not. And don't be so worried. Sheer up, Luigi. Be like me. I smile. My room. Mr. Fenton, this is Mr. Vasco. Luigi Vasco, you have his file on your desk. Thank you, Mr. Young Lady. Mr. Fenton, I was a, I was a walking all over your bigger bus to building, but I wasn't able to find the Euclain's office department. I would have come at two hours as soon, but you see I... He says it's quite plain, Mr. Vasco. Sit down. Thank you. Here's your letter. And like you say, I should have come here and I'm bringing my thumb. Where is it? Right here under my left hand. Not your thumb, the letter. I see your thumb. You've got about three yards of bandages on it. Splints and a brace. Your doctor didn't do that, did he? No, wasn't my lawyer. Listen, Mr. Fenton, I'm going to want to make a trouble. Well, good. Cigar? Oh, no, no, no, thank you. I'm going to have a smoke. Once, a long time ago in Italy, my uncle Pietro, he's a, he's a give-his-a-goat, the cigar of the smoke. And the port of goat, he's a getter so dizzy, he's a give-a-two quarts of milk without the hit and the pale. Now, Mr. Vasco, let's get down to cases. I received your lawyer's letter this morning. One hundred thousand dollars. That's preposterous.  Mr. Fenton, please, please. I'm be happy to go home and of course... Oh, so that's your attitude. You're willing, now, you're not willing to discuss with me. You think you'd, uh, you'd do better by bringing this case to trial. Let me tell you, our bus company has a 39-year record of public service equal to none. And the courts know that. I'm gonna know that, too, Mr. Fenton. I think you got a very nice bus. My favorite of the color is the yellow with the green. Is it? Oh, sarcastic, eh? I suppose you have some suggestions on how to improve our service. Oh, no. Well, maybe one. You know how your driver is always a yellow. Step up to the rear of the bus. Well, I think you should make it to the rear of the bus. Twice as big as the front there. So then the driver can have the whole front there for himself. Oh, so that's what you're getting at. As your lawyer's letter states, you intend to prove that our driver used loud, coarse, and abusive language? Well, Mr. Basko, that has never happened in our buses, and I'll prove it to you right now. Oh, please, Mr. Fenton. My secretary, Miss Burton, has sent for the driver involved in your accident. Miss Burton, is our driver outside? Good. Send him in. Ah, come in, Mr. Heatherington. Uh, Mr. Basko, is this the bus driver? Yes, sir, that's a him. Heatherington, Mr. Basko says that you use coarse and abusive language with him. Is this true? Mr. Fenton, far be it from me to impugn the gentleman's integrity, but it has constantly been a source of infinite satisfaction to me to convey my passengers to their destinations with the utmost safety, security, and dispatch. Huh? There, Mr. Basko, you have the truth from our driver's own mouth. I think essentially yesterday he's a change of his amount. Heatherington, do you remember this passenger? Indubitably. In a hobbitably? Indubitably. He boarded my bus at approximately 8 p.m. What makes you remember this passenger? Well, when I opened the door, he entered and shouted at me, good evening, sir. Oh, I must shout just a minute, Mr. Basko. He then handed me 10 pennies, throwing my coin changer completely off balance. Go on. He then threw himself upon the floor, causing the bus to swerve, thereby endangering the lives of my passengers. Mama, if I'm to have a hundred thousand dollars, I'ma give it to you. In that case, Mr. Basko, will you sign this paper, releasing us from all pain? All right, sir. I'ma looking for Luigi Basko. Oh, there you are.  I want to talk to you. But we were discussing. I'ma discuss it with him at first outside, and then we come back. So Schultz is no better than me, huh? You could down the bus a company yourself, huh? Well, what's happened? Oh, Basko, he's terrible. They bring in this a bus driver. All of a sudden, he's a talker like Ronaldo Coleman. He's approved. I must start the accident. They say I should sign a release of paper. Sign a release? Luigi, you know what that's a mean when an immigrant is assigned a release. What? Once you sign the paper, you'll release yourself from the United States, so you're never going to come back. Mama, Basko, what am I going to do? Well, my lawyer's very angry with you, but I think I can still get him back on your case. But this time, I'ma no helping you for money or for friendship. This time, it's for something that's bigger than a boat of us. I know it's Russia. That's all right. You hit the nail right on her head. I'ma call her right now. Russia, Russia, Russia. Come here, my little butterfly. Rosa, say hello to Luigi. Hello, Russia. Rosa, Luigi's thinking of marrying you and going on a honeymoon. What do you say to that? Luigi, give me your face. All right, Luigi. Now we call up the lawyer to come right down and I've got a money for the phone booth. You got a necklace, Luigi? I know. All I'm gonna got is a quarter. Papa, I got five pennies. Good. Luigi, take these five pennies and go inside and ask that claims a fella for a nickel. All right. Excuse me, Mr. Fontana, you got a nickel for five pennies? No, I'm sorry. Perhaps Mr. Heatherington has. Mr. Busy, drive it. You got a nickel for five pennies? Pennies, pennies, pennies! What? Nobody's ever got a nickel, a dime, or a quarter. Control yourself, Mr. Heatherington. Step to the rear in a bud! Mama, man, now he's talking with his own amount. Please, you give me a nickel.  No, Mr. Basko, please, that won't be necessary. I'll sign a $50 check to you this instant if you'll close the case. Please, I'm just doing a stay in America. Mr. Basko, you'll have no trouble. You'll just take this money and make me happy. All right, then. Well, Luigi, what's the keepin'?  No, Basko, the case is a closer. Now I'ma go home. Wait, Luigi, what about Rosa? Goodbye, Basko, I like it. The driver is saying, step to the rear with the U-Bus. And so, Mama Mia, I'ma never thought after so much trouble, everything is gonna come out so fine. What's the company's gonna give me $50? From this, I'ma give a Pascuali as a lawyer $25 if I'm talkin' it to me. $10 at the Pascuali is a $35. $10 a rental over the piano is a $45. $2 for the bandage, which makes a $47, which leaves me nothing. Well, I'ma got $3, but I'ma count that to like nothing. Because tomorrow, when I'ma go to school, I'ma take in a taxi. Good night to Mama Mia. And Mama Mia, you take care of yourself for when you cross in the street. You'll never kind of tell her where the dozer goes. The 11th son, Luigi Basko, the limo guy. The Howard production, and is written by Mac Benhoff and Lou Dermond and directed by Mac Benhoff. J. Carol Nash is starred as Luigi Basko with Alameda's Pascuali, Hans Connery-Schultz, Mary Shippers-Miss Balding and Jody Gilbert as Rosa. Music is under the direction of Lynn Murray. Bob Stephenson speaking. For stories on the merry side of marriage, follow the adventures of the young couple in Young Love every Monday night on most of these same CBS stations. Be sure to hear Young Love tomorrow night. And now stay tuned for the latest madcap adventures of your favorite teenager, Carlos Archer, who follows immediately on most of these same CBS stations. This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System.


Now, the Griffith Lecture, as you've heard, was established in 2003 and is designed to establish public awareness and community engagement on a social justice or public policy issue. And you will not be surprised to know that this is the issue that I wish to concentrate on this evening concerns women's equality. I spent most of my adult life arguing for women to have the same rights and entitlements as men and have documented both the progress towards that goal as well as the extent to which this has not yet happened. I've mostly focused on women's economic and political status, believing firmly that if we have economic self-sufficiency and the political ability to achieve necessary changes, then we can deal with most other things that life throws at us. But tonight, I want to discuss a very different aspect of women's equality. It is less tangible than the economic and political principles that I usually espouse, but I believe that it is just as essential. Women's integrity, including their sexual integrity, is not as easy to quantify or even to describe. But as events in recent weeks have shown us, this is a concept we need to come to terms with. It has to do with our well-being, but it may also well involve our very survival. Let me explain why I have come to this realisation. One morning a few weeks ago, I woke up feeling strangely disoriented. I was unsettled and restless. I was unable to concentrate on my work. I don't think I did any work at all that day. It was an unfamiliar feeling. It's highly unusual for me to be so incapacitated. I did not at first know what was wrong. But I quickly realised that the reason I was feeling this way was that I was completely and utterly overwhelmed by rage. It was an unfamiliar feeling. I know what it's like to be upset. I'm no stranger to anger. But I was not accustomed to being engulfed by this all-consuming and for a time immobilising emotion that I would define as a tent on the Richter scale of anger, and which I recognised as pure rage. Now, why was I feeling this way? Well, you might understand when I say that the day that I'm talking about was Friday, the 28th of September, less than four weeks ago, and that it was the day after both Dr Christine Blaisey-Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh had given their testimonies before the US Senate Judiciary Committee. This hearing to determine whether Kavanaugh would be confirmed as suitable to ascend to the US Supreme Court attracted global coverage, including here in Australia, so I'm sure you're familiar with what happened. But to briefly recap, the Senate Committee had reconvened on Thursday, the 27th of September, in order to hear testimony from Blaisey-Ford, who alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh many years before when they were both in high school. Kavanaugh, who had already submitted to questioning from the committee two weeks earlier, returned to contest Blaisey-Ford's allegations and to try to save his nomination. Kavanaugh's demeanour during the second hearing was shockingly aggressive, whereas previously he had been biddable and courteous. Now he snarled and yelled and exhibited behaviour that was simply extraordinary from someone who was seeking to demonstrate he possessed the qualifications, including the temperament, to assume a lifelong position on America's highest court. We soon learnt that Kavanaugh's anger was totally infected. He had been coached by the White House Council to exhibit a grieved fury that his path to glory could be even temporarily blindsided by accusations of sexual misconduct from his distant past, and it had worked. As the New York Times commented, his fire and fury performance, saying to the senators on the committee, you have replaced advising consent with search and destroy, suddenly turned the tables. His anger and aggression swept away the empathy that many had felt towards Dr Ford after her heartfelt testimony. Even Donald Trump had said later that day that he found her a compelling and credible witness. Yet her painful story was totally buried by the avalanche of anger unleashed by Kavanaugh. Many of us watching him had found it utterly plausible that a man capable of that kind of aggression could attack a girl, but that consideration was not taken into account. I realised there were three reasons for the feelings of rage that consumed me the next day. First, I was thunderstruck at the sheer sense of entitlement exhibited by that man. I cannot recall ever seeing such a performance at a Senate hearing from the person who was meant to be the supplicant. Brett Kavanaugh's entire demeanour exuded not just confidence, but the kind of prerogative conferred by privilege. His words reinforced this. I went to Yale, he said. Yale! How dare anyone question his suitability for the Supreme Court, especially not a senator. Second, I was totally gobsmacked at the arrogance and sheer rudeness that Kavanaugh exhibited towards Senator Amy Klobucker, who's a Democrat from Minnesota, who asked him if he had ever blacked out while drinking. I don't know, have you? Was Kavanaugh's gone full reply? Could you answer the question, judge Kavanaugh, sorry, Klobucker shot back at him? He did not answer. It was a stunning display of contempt towards the senator, one of the people empowered to deny him the nomination. The naked aggression towards her was astonishing, and I do not think it was irrelevant that it was directed towards a female senator. The third reason for my rage was that I understood for the first time that day that the Trump administration was prepared to sacrifice its majority in the House of Representatives in order to ensure it controlled the Supreme Court for at least a generation. And a major reason for wanting to control, for wanting this control, was so they could end American women's access to abortion. The future of legal abortion, including the Roe v Wade decision of 1973, was what was at stake here. That had been clear from the questions directed towards Kavanaugh by senators, both in the public hearings and in their private meetings with him. It has been front and center of the issue of the mostly women's groups that have been leading the opposition to Kavanaugh's confirmation. Women have been politically energized in the U.S. ever since the election of Donald Trump. This was evident in the million-plus women who marched on the day after his inauguration in 2017. And it has continued to be evident since in the large numbers of women who have put themselves forward for public office. A record 529 women offered themselves for election to Congress in 2018. This is a considerable increase on the 338 women who offered themselves in 2016, the previous record breaking year. After the primaries, 262 women candidates remain. 262 women now running for office in the election, which is less than two weeks away. 239 of them are running for the House of Representatives and 52 for the Senate. Of these 262, 202 are Democrats and 60 are Republicans. There are many reasons for this mobilization, but defending women's right to choose is among the top reasons. Most of those women running for office in the midterm elections, among the Democrats at least, and of course, among many of the men too, have made preservation of abortion rights a key issue. Of the top five issues mentioned by candidates running in 2018, abortion rights ranked number four for women compared with number five for men. These women are running to save women's reproductive freedom. They know, as do we all, that without this freedom, women are indeed handmaids, unable to control their destiny. Women have seen their rights to abortion progressively whittled away by state laws restricting access. 45 of America's 50 states have at least some restrictions on women's access to abortion, and an increasing number have legislated to make the provision of abortion almost impossible by placing restrictions on how clinics operate. Many of these laws have been challenged in the courts, and many have been declared unconstitutional, often because of Roe v Wade guaranteeing women a constitutional right to abortion. It is now likely that some of these laws will find their way to the Supreme Court in the hope of having them upheld. It is more than possible that abortion in America could be severely restricted, if not banned, outright in many states, even if Roe v Wade remains technically in place. So my realisation of the ruthless calculation by the Republican Party and the Trump administration that winning control of the Supreme Court would more than compensate for losing control of the House of Representatives was like a body blow. These men, and I use the word advisedly, since it has been almost exclusively men who are responsible for this political calculus, have subordinated democracy. They have an effect said, it doesn't matter what laws you pass in Congress because we have the Supreme Court that can overturn them. This is an extraordinary expression of contempt towards democratic processes, but it is a particular expression of hostility towards women. And when you realise this, Kavanaugh's conduct, his display of entitlement, his contempt towards the female senator, takes on quite a sinister aspect. He is not even bothering to hide what is going on here. No sugarcoating required. This was a naked display of misogyny. It's no exaggeration to say that the world of the Handmaid's Tale, something we once saw as a dystopian fiction, is now a distinct possibility in modern America. Justice Queensland has, congratulations, at long last, voted to decriminalise abortion. Well done, all of you, thank you so much. Just as you have done this, removing it from the Crimes Act, the United States appears set to outlaw women from having ready access to abortion and hence their reproductive freedom. The Conservatives in the US have now achieved their long sought-after goal of gaining control of the Supreme Court. They will likely retain this control for many decades to come. Brett Kavanaugh is 53 years old, while Neil Gorsuch, Trump's previous appointee, confirmed in 2017, is just 51. There is no mandatory retirement age for judges in the US. My lassitude that day was instructive because while anger can be energising, rage has the opposite effect. My rage was I realised an expression of impotence. The previous day's hearings had shown me that despite more than 40 years of feminism, despite the progress we seem to have made, despite our many victories and our reasons for justifiable pride, we women are in fact still utterly powerless in the face of a torrent of raw male power. And that was probably the worst part of the day because I was forced to confront the fragility of our achievements and to ask myself whether it was futile to even continue the fight. I'm usually optimistic, even in the face of adversity, so this too was an unfamiliar feeling. Why was this rage so debilitating, so disempowering? Unlike anger, which is currently seen as energising and even liberating, rage seems to enfeeble us. Or is this just the case with women? In my new book Unfettered and Alive, I have a chapter called The Getting of Anger. The literary minded among you will recognise the allusion to The Getting of Wisdom by Henry Handel Richardson, one of the great coming-of-age books in the Australian canon. I use that title because I wanted to show how my anger developed in much the same way as Richardson shows how young Laura Rambotham loses her innocence in the brutal setting of boarding school. In my chapter, I set out a series of personal and political circumstances which in the mid-1990s produced in me an anger that I saw as justifiable and productive. It was meant to spur me and those I could persuade to resist what I described in the chapter. It was energising, it was good. My anger was prompted by two sets of circumstances. Politically, I was outraged by how the newly elected government of John Howard in 1996 began to systematically abolish or reverse so many of the reforms for women that had been enacted by the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments. From abolishing agencies such as the Women's Bureau, which had been established by the Menzies government to monitor women's employment and especially equal pay, to cutting the guts out of the Human Rights Commission and curtailing the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act, to changing taxation, welfare and other policies to the detriment of working mothers, the Howard government seemed intent on reversing virtually all of the gains women had achieved in the previous three decades. In my chapter, I outlined this in some detail and I make what I argue are the critical connections between Howard's white picket fence view of women's place, his support for Pauline Hansen and his welcoming, in a speech that changed Australian history, of the lifting of what he called the Paul of censorship that enabled Hansen to express vile racist views about aborigines or migrants and just 20 years later, allowed people to subject the country's first female prime minister to horrendous sexualized and pornographic abuse of a kind that had not previously been seen in our political discourse. This was the political source of my anger. The personal source was something that occurred in 1995 when I was editor of Good Weekend magazine. In June that year, I learned from a friend who was also in the media, albeit at another news organization, that there was widespread gossip in the industry that I had been or was about to be the subject of a sexual harassment complaint by a man who worked for me. I was at first mystified because I had no idea what behavior on my part could possibly be construed as meriting such a complaint. Then I learned it was supposed to have taken place at Good Weekend's Christmas party more than six months earlier. Now, Christmas party, as I'm sure many of you know, is legendary in the sexual harassment lexicon. I learned from a lawyer friend because people will believe that anything can and does happen at office Christmas parties and that normally well-behaved people can turn into depraved monsters once they've had a few drinks under the mistletoe. So this particular detail gave the story plausibility and encouraged its wide dissemination. So much so that by the time my friend rang me, I was apparently the only person in the media who did not know about it. Once I heard about it, I demanded the company confront the man who was apparently going to make this complaint to ascertain what it was I was supposed to have done. I needed information, I believed, if I was going to be able to contest this absurd claim. When confronted by Fairfax, our employer, the man involved said he had no plans to make a complaint and that there was no grounds on which to make the complaint. It was all BS in other words. But the rumor mill had already done its damage. It was in the media, it was seen in the media and it ran as a story for almost three months. The union became involved and there was industrial action against me, not just by the Good Weekend staff, but company-wide with all Fairfax journalists stopping work at one stage to protest my management style. Even after it was made clear that there was no complaint going to be made against me, there was continuous lurid speculation and gossip about what it was I was supposed to have done and people believed it. That was hurtful. But the way it escalated into a full-blown industrial dispute and became an excuse for all kinds of damaging things to be said about me soon made it apparent, to me at least, that this was a calculated and orchestrated attack. It meant you discredit me and drive me out of my job. My attackers apparently thought that the spread of rumor that I was going to be charged with sexual harassment would be the perfect way to derail and disempower a feminist occupying a high-profile position. And I have to admit, it was pretty good. Not only was I a feminist and thus automatically guilty of gross hypocrisy, if it could be established that I had sexually molested a man who worked for me, but also in a delicious twist, I'd actually had a hand in strengthening the sexual harassment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act when I worked for Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1992. I'd really be hoist with the batard I had helped bring into being, exquisite. And although perhaps it didn't go to plan in as much as no complaint was ever laid, nor was there any conduct on my part that could have justified it, my reputation suffered, as they say, mud sticks. There must be something to it, people would of course say. These things don't just come from nowhere. Then I learnt there was another complaint, a real one this time, from some of my staff at the magazine. I was informed that I had a problem with male staff. I was told that I could not get along with men. I had no empathy I was told. And this was because I did not have children. I now found myself in a very familiar situation. I'd written a whole book about it some 20 years earlier. In Australia, women were, and perhaps still are, either at Madonna's or Hawes, or as I'd put it with my book title, Damned Hawes or God's Police. And here was I learning that in the eyes of some of my staff, this is in the media, the so-called left-wing Fairfax in the sophisticated city of Sydney, since I was not a mother, I must be a sexual predator. I guess if I hadn't been the boss, I would have been accused of screwing my way to the top. So how did I react to all of this? I became angry. I was angry to have been put through this ordeal of rumours and gossip. I was angry that I and my partnership role were forced to endure constant speculation and innuendo about my relationship, about my behaviour and our relationship. But most of all, I was angry that my performance in the job was being reduced to these sexual categories. I was not accused of being incompetent or lazy or tyrannical or any of the other performance failures that might be levelled against a boss. Instead, I was being called to account because of my sex, my gender, because I did not, in the eyes of some, measure up to what a woman should be. And this judgement was based on assumptions, I would say prejudices, about not just how a woman should behave, but about what a woman actually is. We still judge women by their maternal status. If a woman is not a mother, and especially if she's deliberately barren, to quote the disgusting phrase, former Senator Bill Heffernan used to describe then Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, then she is fair game for all kinds of sexual slander. It seemed to me that if we can reduce the woman to her sexual being, we can disregard everything else about her. We can judge her and condemn her and not take her seriously. We can say she's bad at her job as a magazine editor. We can say she's no good at being a prime minister. We can discount her testimony against a man who says she tried to rape her.  A woman has every right as do men to be a sexual being in addition to whatever else she is or does.  These thoughts from my book and from my life were swirling around in my consciousness while I watched the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was prepared to be angry. I knew the likelihood of this man being confirmed, this man becoming the one to tip the balance on the Supreme Court away from its former pro-choice majority to denying women the right to choose. I knew all that and I was angry about it. What I was not prepared for was that it would bring forth in me a rage that I had never known was there.  I did not and do not think I suffered long-term damage from the many sexual assaults I endured as a teenager.  Sometimes you weren't even on a date.  He wouldn't take no for an answer was the way we girls used to put it when we shared our stories. This was normal. This was what happened. This was just life. Before feminism gave us the tools to understand the power involved in relations between women and men and how so often that power was abused by men. He took advantage of me was how we'd put it. 20 years later, because of feminism, 15-year-old Christine Blaisey Ford had the language she described what happened to her.   These were not seen as reasons to deny him appointment to the most prestigious judicial post the United States has to offer, and that enraged me. And then it got worse. Just days afterwards, when I'd calmed down, forced myself to understand, even if I did not accept the new given, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, as unbelievable as that is, publicly mocked and ridiculed Christine Blaisey Ford at one of his political rallies. Initially, he had described her testimony as credible. Now, he said to a jeering crowd in Mississippi, I had one beer. Well, do you think it was? Nope, it was one beer. Oh, good. How did you get home? I don't remember. How did you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember. How many years ago was it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I probably saw this on television. Do many of you see this on television? The way in which he did it, it was very reminiscent of the way that he mocked that disabled reporter. He used his body language to reinforce what he was saying. But after he'd said that, he then said that because of Dr. Ford's allegations, it's a really scary time to be a man. He did. Women are Jezebel's is what he effectively said. All women are potentially liars intent on destroying the reputations of good men. Against all evidence, the numbers of false accusations of sexual assault remain low. The president of the United States gave credence to the idea that men are victims and women are predators. Sound familiar? In an interview with 60 Minutes on 15th of October, just two weeks later, Trump justified this attack on Blasey Ford by saying, if I had not made that speech, we would not have won. Meaning that it was pivotal to having Kavanaugh confirmed. As was the White House preventing the FBI from interviewing Kavanaugh when doing its report on Ford's allegations. They knew that Kavanaugh could not withstand an investigation into that incident. So the White House counsel instructed the FBI not to interview Kavanaugh or Ford, reportedly arguing, according to the New York Times, that doing so could imperil Kavanaugh's nomination. So it is crystal clear that the woman, Christine Blasey Ford, had to be discredited, sacrificed would be another way of putting it, so that the man, Brett Kavanaugh, could win. A man's life could have been ruined, Trump also said. What he did not say was that a woman's life was ruined. Christine Blasey Ford said she felt it was her civic duty when she first learned that Brett Kavanaugh was on a short list for consideration for the Supreme Court to make it known what he had done to her when they were both teenagers. She initially tried to remain out of the public eye, but her name was leaked and her life changed forever. She received death threats. She has had to leave her home. Her husband and children are living separately from her. Life will never be the same for her again. Donald Trump's response to questions from Leslie Stahl, the 60 minutes reporter about the damage done to Ford, it doesn't matter, he said, we won. Which brings me to the final part of my remarks this evening. Me too. Over the past year, since the initial allegations of sexual harassment and grave charges of rape and other forms of sexual assault were made publicly by famous named Hollywood actors against Harvey, against movie producer Harvey Weinstein, more than 100 prominent American men have lost their jobs as a result of proven accusations of sexual harassment. They range from the celebrated, an actor, Kevan Spacey, chief conductor of the Metropolitan Opera, James Levine, architect Richard Meyer, to just give a few examples, to many huge names in the media, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Garrison Keeler, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, just to name the most famous, to dozens of men in acting, in publishing, in politics, in sport, in business and in countless other occupations. So is there a different narrative at work here? Does this contradict my argument about women and sexual agency?  Is justice finally being done, if not on the Supreme Court, at least in all these other instances? I wish I could give a resoundingly positive answer, but I can't, because already there is a backlash. The Me Too hashtag now has its male counterpart, him too. As described by Wired Magazine, the hashtag and its associated memes are Me Too's first major inversion popularised during Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation.  The hashtag identifies accused men as victims, using the same power in numbers technique that made Me Too a force to recast the movement as a widespread feminist witch hunt, forcing men to walk on eggshells. And in case anyone here is not familiar with this, all-lives-matter hashtag was created as a response and a rejoinder principally by police and their families to black lives matter. The hashtag created to draw attention to the large numbers of police killings of unarmed black men in the United States.  Sound familiar? Will it work?  So see what's happening here?  The tables are turned, the predator is now the victim. This is a stunning tactic. It's an attempt to change the narrative from one that describes the sense of entitlement that some men feel to lay their hands or other body parts on women who work for them and which attacks this behaviour to one that portrays that man as a victim. Now these men are saying they can't be in the same room as the woman, they can't take a meeting with a woman unless she accuses him of sexual harassment. Women would not be able to work in anything other than subservient roles if this rule were to be widely enforced. There's scant evidence to support the notion of men as victims here. Even when, as has happened, one of the female accusers of Harvey Weinstein has herself been accused by a man of sexual harassment, this does not invalidate her initial complaint. Nor if the complaint against her is found to be valid, does it invalidate the thousands, if not millions, of stories that women have told since the launch of this movement in October 2017. The power of Me Too is that it is a simple statement of empathy that was recognised and responded to by women around the world because it resonated with their own experiences. Some people have criticised the origins of Me Too saying that the experiences of a privileged group of Hollywood stars, all of them white, have no bearing on the lives of the majority of women. Interestingly, the majority of women disagreed. I would argue that it was precisely because of the celebrity of these women and that in our celebrity culture, we pay perhaps undue regard to the utterances of such people that their stories were listened to and believed. But more than that, their stories resonated with women whose lives were very different because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether the sleazebag who was threatening you with your job if you won't come across is a Hollywood legend or a restaurant supervisor or a factory floor manager or the editor of your newspaper, the behaviour is the same and women know it. But this does not mean that Me Too won't be discredited, that it won't run out of steam and lose its energy. Terana Burke, the African-American woman who first came up with the phrase Me Too in 2006, long before it was a hashtag, long before we'd heard of hashtags, has warned that the very term could lose its meaning if it is diluted and becomes a catch-all phrase and quoting her, she said, we have to help people understand the gravity behind the words and that it's not just to be used as, oh, look who got Me Too'd now, ha-ha, like a punchline. Similarly, we need to understand in order to combat the forces that stand in the way of women being able to press Me Too complaints. Here in Australia, the media has become reluctant to report claims, scared off by our country's ridiculously stringent defamation laws. I am puzzled by the media's reticence here. Editors used to pride themselves on figuring out how to skirt around defamation laws in order to publish stories they need to be accurate. I don't know why they're not doing so now. I intend to do my best to learn more about this while I'm here. It is simply not credible that sexual harassment does not exist in Australia. We were the first country in the world to legislate against it in the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. In the more than 30 years since, thousands of complaints have been made under the legislation, and those who have had cases found in their favour are receiving average payments of around $100,000. I think that the current national inquiry by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, which was prompted by Me Too, will reveal the extent of sexual harassment in Australia. But what we are lacking are the stories of individuals and the consequences for the guilty men that we have seen in the US. Now, let me conclude by, I've got 12 seconds, let me conclude by alerting you to something. In the past three, in the past year, in the past year, three unexpected terms have entered the American political discourse. Misogyny, patriarchy, and fascism. I say these terms are unexpected because while each of them might be in use by certain groups, I mean, women have certainly been talking about misogyny for quite some time, in Australia ever since Julia Gillard revived the term to describe the way she was being treated by Tony Abbott, they've not been in widespread general use. That appears to be changing, and that is not good news. The context for the change in language is a discernible change in American politics, one where the word fascism no longer seems old-fashioned or exaggerated. And as some of those who are warning us about the rise of fascism in America are pointing out, essential to fascism is patriarchy. A fascist society depends for much of its authority on the notion of male, not just superiority, but of male dominance. And for him to be dominant, there must be the dominated. And under fascism, there are several designated groups selected for this treatment, foremost among them are non-white people and all women. I'm unable to develop this thesis tonight, would take an entire lecture of its own, but let me just say that the racism and misogyny exhibited by the president of the United States is neither random nor accidental. It is central to his politics, and it is terrifying how much support he has for these sentiments. We saw a good sample of it in the way he treated Christine Blaisey Ford. We have a foretaste in what he has in mind for the women of America in the Supreme Court he has assembled that will remove women's right to abortion. His personal behaviour towards individual women, it deserves an entire chapter in the history of the Me Too movement. Now, those of us who don't just disagree with him, but are actually terrified of what he's attempting will have to do a lot more than become enraged. I learnt from that day back in September that raging about this is a luxury we can't afford. This is not a time for impotent emotions, this is a time for determined actions. We need the power and the energy and the focus that comes with anger. That is the only way we can save ourselves. Thank you.


In this video I want to talk about a process that we can use in order to inform a selection of rolling element bearings for a particular application. So in this process we're going to make use of two tables from the juvenile textbook and table 14.1 is a table that gives some example bearing specifications for a given set of bearings. Now of course these are just more I would consider them example tables. If we were looking at at you know making an actual selection we'd probably use a supplier catalog for a particular bearing supplier. Table 14.2 gives example rated load capacities for bearings and these are at a life of nine times 10 to the seventh cycles and assuming 90 reliability. So it's kind of important to keep those things in mind as we make use of these example tables that the textbook provides. So the the important thing to consider when it comes to using these tables and making the selection. I mentioned that table 14.2 assumes a desired life of nine times 10 to the seventh or I think as the book lists it 90 times 10 to the sixth. So this table 14.2 assumes a bearing life of 90 times 10 to the sixth cycles which is also nine times 10 to the seventh and you'll probably see me write it that way and it assumes 90 reliability. However that's just one particular life rating that we could potentially use in our design. So we might need to adjust that to to account for what we actually want for our our rated life. So two equations that we're going to make use of to do this are one an equation that looks like that or equivalently I can rearrange this equation and present it a different way as this. Now in these two equations the variable C is the rated load capacity while C required C sub required is the required load capacity. Oops f sub r is the radial load for the application of the bearing and l is the life at the load f sub r and l sub r I've already mentioned is nine times 10 to the seventh specifically when we're talking about using table 14.2. Now of course if we're using a different source of data, a different catalog, different table, that l sub r could be different. So this is something to keep in mind that this is just for this particular table that we're talking about. I also said that this assumption for the two equations and for that table is for 90% reliability and we can make an adjustment to that. We can adjust our reliability by modifying these equations with a reliability factor case of r and I end up with something like that where I've factored in this case of r value which is again a reliability factor. We can read this reliability factor from the textbook so that's one correction we could make. We could also make a correction for shock loading so if we expect there to be a suddenly applied load to the bearing we might need to make a correction for that in which case we can introduce an application factor so this application factor would be multiplied by f sub r for any shock that we might see and that again comes from a table that we can read from the textbook. So these equations are also making assumption about the type of loading that we would that we would be carrying and in them you only see this radial load that we've described. Now the problem is that many times bearings are expected to also carry some thrust load when we when we would submit them to a particular application. So we can make some adjustment to account for thrust loading.  So the same equations can then be used but now using an equivalent load and the equations vary depending on what type of bearing we're talking about but I'm just going to show the equations for radial ball bearings the textbook provides equations for other types of bearings so if we look at the ratio of the thrust load to the radial load we can make some corrections. So if it's less than if that ratio is less than 0.35 then we don't really need to make any correction we can just say that the equivalent is equal to the radial load it's not enough of an impact for that to matter. From 0.35 to 10 we make a correction by the following equation and finally if f sub t over fr is greater than 10 so we have high thrust loads then we use the equation 1.176 times f sub t for the equivalent load and just to be complete then this of course results in our equations now being of the form kr l sub r c over fe ka 3.33 as well as so these two equations now have been corrected a couple times I've taken into account this reliability factor kr this application factor ka as well as this equivalent load which allows us to account for thrust uh thrust loading so this set of equations would be the key ones uh which kind of account for all of these things we can then use these uh in order to calculate a a expected life under a given loading for a given bearing uh and that's this first equation the second equation allows us to take a uh an expected life and come up with a load requirement that that would accomplish that so kind of two different ways to look at the same problem another useful thing provided by the book is table 14.4 gives some guidance as to uh what the appropriate life specification for a bearing should be under given different given conditions so depending on how precise things need to be um how long we expect it to last how much service uh time it's expected to have how much what that design life should be so anywhere from you know 100 hours of design life up to 200 000 hours of design life as examples which we could then convert to um a number of cycles based on how fast uh how fast the thing is spinning so i'll go ahead and and stop there thanks


Hi guys, it's Sandy and I wanted to share a little IGTV video over here on YouTube because I still had the footage and I was amazed at the amount of feedback I got. So let's go do this quick. On Instagram TV I post little quickie videos and this one I thought I would post here because I also got enough feedback that people wanted to know what all the supplies were and I thought everybody knew what these things were. First we have the Misti which is good for stamping. You can re-stamp the same image in the same place and just use different inks on it. For this one I used Distress Inks and I just kind of tapped it around the outside edge. I cleaned it off and added some different color of ink so I get two colors on it and voila you can take a brush and put some water on it and blend them. You may need to rinse your brush a little bit so you end up putting clean water down and not mushing color around. These are not water colors. They're Distress Oxides so they kind of make a little mud at times but if you're careful and just put some water down and let the color move on its own you can often keep a nice clean sort of a look. And then I did the same thing with the heart. These are both from the High 5 stamp set not a new one from Ellen Hudson. It's been around a while but it is a really nice one and hopefully you can do this with other simple stamps that you have as well. So I stamped with two different reds and then just took some water and a brush and painted those. I am using one of my fancy brushes so please don't worry about that brush. It's like a $200 brush so yeah it was just what I was doing real quick for a quickie card for Instagram and then I wanted to add a little bit more detail onto the card so I put a little shadow underneath the heart so the heart is just waving hello. I debated putting arms on the heart and then I decided that would be a doofy thing to do so there you go. And then I took these new dies that are coming out March 8th or if it's past March 8th when you're watching this then they're already out nesting dies from Ellen Hudson. And then putting all of this onto some dimensional adhesive sticking it on a card base then I've got a nice square. These dies make frames so you can make little frames you can do all kinds of really cool nesting things. They come in all different sorts of shapes so yes, awesomeness makes me happy and I just offset mine and used a little bit of the Gina K blue to stick them on and then I used glossy accents. I did not know that people didn't know what glossy accents is. It's an adhesive or it also just makes things shiny. Takes a little while to dry so I usually leave it out overnight but usually within an hour or two you can kind of maybe sort of touch it but the longer you leave it the less you'll make a fingerprint in it. Supplies are all listed in the doobly-doo record fast clean and simple card. I will see you again very soon. Have an awesome day. Talk to you later. Bye.


in the CUBE studios in Palo Alto and Boston. It's theCUBE, covering IBM Think. Brought to you by IBM. Hi everybody, welcome back to theCUBE's coverage, wall-to-wall coverage of the IBM Think 2020 digital event experience. My name is Dave Vellante, we've been going really all week and focusing on the impact of the pandemic, how IBM is responding, how customers are likely to respond. I'm really excited, Luke Niazzi is here, he's the global managing director of consumer industries at IBM. Luke, good to see you. Nice to see you, Dave, and nice to be on the call. I mean, if I think about consumer, all the assumptions that we made about consumer behavior, they're really up in the air right now. I wonder if you could share with us what your current thinking is. I mean, the consumer has powered this global economy years. What are you thinking about the consumer right now and the consumer behavior? Well, obviously, it's a massive shift in terms of the immediacy. Let me just backtrack a little bit, Dave, and give you a bit of context. We did some research at the beginning of the year that we launched the National Retail Federation, and we surveyed over 19,000 people globally, and that survey showed that there were two big shifts that were occurring. First of all, there was a shift in the purpose-driven consumer of the 19,000 people that we surveyed. Of 40% of them said that they were making decisions that were purpose-driven, compared to 41% that make decisions that were convenient, and that's people who care about sustainability and aware products are coming from them. And the other big thing that we saw was shopping in micro moments, increased digital shopping kind of anytime, anywhere. Now, of course, with the pandemic, we are seeing an acceleration and a fastening of those activities. First of all, beyond the immediate move to panic buying that occurred, we've seen a big, big shift in online buying, and we think later on, going to drive also a reinforcement of this move to more sustainable products and services.  You need something that might not be available. As a consumer, you're making a lot of trade-offs. Okay, well, I'll go for alcohol-based hand sanitizer, as opposed to just conventional hand sanitizer as an example. Oh, well, I'll make some trade-offs in tissue paper, et cetera, et cetera, and maybe there's some boredom buying. I don't know if you've seen that. People are shut in, but so all kinds of daily changes, weekly changes. So how do you see this exiting? How do you see consumer behavior changing as we exit this pandemic in waves? And we're not even sure how we're going to exit. Well, let me kind of break it down in terms of what's been going on right now. So, of course, we saw this massive waves of a shift to look for sanitary products, a shift for groceries. Then we've seen a kind of a different shift about how can I keep my kids entertained while they're at home and kind of more discretionary choices being much lower. So when you kind of looked at that in terms of actual impact on business, we've seen groceries say in the US up by about 27%. We've seen a move on digital in the US, about 3% of the global of the US population shifts about buys online, that shifted to 43% during this period. And of course, we think that these are things that are going to sustain. What it's done is it's accelerated the type of purchases that people are doing in a digital context. And we think that that is going to continue for quite some time because of course, the data on the pandemic looks like it's going to continue for many months and in ways. So we've seen the shift to digital and initially people are kind of looking for things anywhere but it's going to be combined with a kind of a new type of delivery model. There's much more kind of buy online pickup in center, distribution center pickup at the car park, whether that's your groceries or whether that's health related product. So it's going to change the delivery models. It also means of course that stores are going to change a great, great deal at the moment grocery stores all have social distancing with the protection of the store associates being a key element of that. You're going to see not the same amount of people in those stores going forward and a different configuration and application of technology also in store to keep monitoring both the safety of the employees and the safety of the customers but also to make sure that occupancy levels are appropriate, et cetera. So big shifts to digital, the big shifts to different types of delivery models, big shifts to kind of safety related technology. Of course, what we're also seeing, and this is the difficult piece, which is if you have discretionary spread, fashion, apparel, luxury, the drop in those volumes are very, very significant. So what's going on right now? I mean, Luke, I've actually been quite impressed with some providers that have pivoted very quickly to things like curbside pickup and have really responded quite fast to that. At the same time, I've seen others where, I mean, it's clear that they really didn't have the infrastructure or the processes. They're asking, hey, how did we do? Do you mind taking a quick survey because they need to iterate? How can IBM help those that really weren't that prepared and it sort of bandated together some solutions, get to the point post pandemic before this thing ends, where they really need to be? What are you guys doing with clients? Yeah, so first and foremost, as the pandemic hit, we focused very much on resiliency, making sure that our clients could operate as robustly as possible. And in fact, 95% of our services are being delivered digitally and remotely right. What then happened was, how do I deal with these massive core volumes that are occurring in my call centers? Where, by the way, I have less staff because some people are having to keep themselves safe and socially distance. And so we deployed immediately beyond our resiliency solutions to call center chatbots that are helping our clients both prioritize and screen calls. One of our major retail clients in the US said, I thought that the Watson chatbot technologies were going to be helpful. They weren't just helpful, they saved us. And so that kind of thing's occurring in the immediate sense. The next piece, of course, you then start to see is that clients have realized that both their digital channels and their fulfillment models have not been able to keep up. Nobody has been able to keep up with the demand that's occurred, not even Amazon's been able to keep up. And what was a 24, 48 hour delivery slot, those sorts of slots have gone out the window. So we are going to see a next wave of reinvesting in enhancing digital channels. And we will leverage both our services business as well as our cloud technologies to support that. And then underpinning that, you're also seeing a need to rebalance the supply chain because of course, where products can come from have changed, where things can be sourced is now having to move much more from a global supply chain to a global local supply chain. And we're having to balance supply with more local providers. And so there's a demand supply balancing to be done. That means that clients are kind of think about the practicalities of that, but they're investing in next generation technologies to support that for IBM, that things like our IBM Sterling portfolio, but it's also the application of our supply chain AI to this massive demand supply kind of imbalancing. And we've been helping certain clients look at that and move stock at the most appropriate locations. We've been doing that to help our clients kind of rethink that there's a supply chain. So we're going to see a lot of that. We kind of thought of the intelligence supply chain and we're going to see investment in the intelligence supply chain, just like we see this investment of pairing in the change in the commerce engines. Last thing to say is track and trace is going to be hugely important, track and trace of all products and where they come from, where they were handled and of course, track and trace of people. And so technologies like blockchain and what we do with food trust are also going to be a really important element to that. Yeah, another really key piece of digital. I mean, the Cube, we go to physical events and we've been saying that this, we're just not going to go back to 2019. The people are going to learn through this experience that there's really some additional value that they can create through digital. You think about consumer, that's a much, much more complex environment. Talk about tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of types of products. You mentioned chatbots, the entire experience that we talked about, like curbside pickup, lead times, people managing demand with lead times, you can only or limiting the volume. You mentioned supply chain, track and trace, blockchain. So a whole new set of digital assumptions are going to emerge or are emerging. I don't want to make it sound like there's a, there's some kind of binary beginning and end to this thing. This is going to be a slow, but yet fast iteration of constant iteration and continuous improvement, isn't it? Yeah, it is. One of my clients in Europe actually, we were talking earlier this week, and they said, look, as difficult the environment is right now, and of course we've been focused on our current operations and fulfilling our customers as best we can. It's actually bringing us to a whole new window about to rethink the priorities of our investments and how we look at that going forward. And he's almost saying, well, I'm going to have to go to a zero-based budgeting approach. And against that, we're going to see a much greater investment in commerce, regardless of what your model is, whether you are digital first or physical first, you're going to see a much greater focus on kind of dealing with the capacity and the variability that we've experienced because organizations weren't geared up for that. And you're going to see then the investment in the intelligence and the supply chain to support that backed up with trust and traceability. And back to the points that I started at the beginning of this discussion, it means that the trends that we saw and we assessed actually are going to be almost perpetuated because we think this move to sustainable and more local sourcing, more balanced sourcing will continue to be a big factor. And we think that this kind of idea of shopping in the micro moment, but shopping in a much more digital way is here to stay. Of course, the consequence of that is it's going to have quite a big impact on the physical environments. And unfortunately, there are going to be casualties in this for certain sectors that are not going to be able to sustain the big shift in the model. So I have a physical down for the immediate and probably mid and maybe even long term, digital up. One of your areas of expertise is agribusiness. We've talked about, you know, Sumer in general. I wonder if you could share with us what you're seeing there. I'm inferring more local sourcing, which obviously has some impacts on what's available at different times a year, potentially on pricing. Thoughts on agribusiness and how they're responding. Yeah, well, it's fascinating. If you take it into two terms, first of all, of course, agriculture has been impacted right now by not so much for the professional farming, which has a large scale mechanization, but for a lot of farming in large parts of Asia or parts of Latin America or parts of Africa and even parts of Europe. There's a lot of transitionary labor that occurs in order to be able to harvest the crops. And so that's a really difficult immediate problem. We've seen, you know, people volunteering in certain countries like here in the UK, where I live, either people volunteering who can't work in their current job to say, how can I help the harvest? And that's kind of an immediate thing that's needed right now. But the broader topic and the work that my teams do is that actually the application of digital technologies and science through agriculture is behind what occurs in other industries. And there's such a great opportunity by leveraging digital technology to be more effective in actually getting the most out of farming land without over farming the land. And so we're working quite a lot on digital agronomics, applying traceability truly from farmed ore and starting to bring together data sources that were not in the same place to be able to help build effectively an aggregate cloud type capability for the benefit of farmers. And across those things, we're going to see farmers empowered with more information and more insight. So simple things like the weather channel application that we have from our weather company. We're deploying that to millions of farmers in Africa and Asia. And on top of that, we're being able to plan for the deployment of other related information. So how to farm, but also we could start to look at how to provide safety related information, et cetera to those farmers. So we are going to see through effective use of technology increase appropriate digitization of farming processes. And it'll be at a very practical level that I can put onto my phone a bit. So definitely this is a big thing. And of course, as you know, the traceability that we do with our food trust and it isn't just about safety. It can talk about how food was produced, how far it traveled, what conditions was it handled in, what is it CO2 footprint. And so that traceability engine can actually accelerate also the sustainability agenda that I referred to earlier. Well, Luke, I mean, as we're discussing the moment by moment, the assumptions are changing. You know, the narrative this weekend, of course, at least in the U.S. was, hey, we've got to just now get out there. And many are saying this, not all, but just affect mass immunity that it's really going to be the only way. Vaccines aren't coming anytime soon. Young people will go out, retail environment. Of course, you're still going to have social distancing. People that are compromised or older aren't going to go out. So clearly volumes are going to be down, it's a very fluid situation. So business resiliency and flexibility is critical here. And it sounds like you're helping organizations really build that into their operating model. That is critical. Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, for some of the grand categories that I haven't talked about so much, you know, what you're seeing in things like apparel, fashion and luxury is a move to try to drive that engagement to you, to the customer in a much more digital sense. So how do I interact with the brand? How do I experience the brand? How can I go all the way through to my purchase digitally when I don't have the ability to get stores? So this digital transformation agenda will affect pretty much all major segments. Obviously the food supply chain, the healthcare supply chain is the focus right now, but we will see increasing digitization and the need to rebalance the in-store experience, even for the fashion apparel and luxury segments. And so there will be a lot of transformation to be done, while of course having to deal with the cost balancing that needs to occur in these industries as they effectively shift more towards digital. Yeah, you're right. I mean, the cost structure may dramatically change, yet at the same time, it may be critical for maintaining or even gaining market share. So a lot of potential disruption. Luke, I'll give you the final word, your thoughts. Bring us home, please. Well, first of all, people's well-being and safety is our paramount focus and that's what we've been looking at from the outset. But I think people could be positive that there is a lot of opportunity and we can deliver the things that they need in a safe way, in a secure way, in a digital way, that is able to cope with the environments that we see today and may prevail. And it's about bringing that intelligence and innovation into both the commerce and the digital channels and into the supply chains all the way through to the track and trace, which is what we focus on. Well, Luke, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. It's great to have you with your insights. I mean, IBM very clearly has its hands in a lot of these different industries and it's great to have your industry expertise sharing with our audience. I really appreciate your time. Take care. Thank you. All right, thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Vellante for our continuous coverage of IBM Think Digital Event Experience 2020. You're watching theCUBE right back, right after this short break.