The beach, because that's when you're gonna go on the beach tour here, and it has to be a sunny day.


I'm so delighted to welcome all of you to Stanford and to the Stanford Global Energy Forum. Over the next two days, industry leaders, policy makers, scientists, energy experts, and problem solvers from across sectors and around the world will come together to discuss the forces that are shaping global energy systems and the implications of these dynamics over the coming decades. Over 20 years now, Stanford has established a very powerful ecosystem to tackle energy transition problems. Our industry members are critical to us. For the ground transportation, is that a done deal? That's lithium-ion batteries. Is that a done deal? I think if you just look at the trends, some countries in Europe where nearly all vehicles sold, if not all vehicles sold, are electric. Even California where I think over 10% vehicles sold, were electric. It seems like it's a done deal to me, I guess. It is a false narrative that we have to choose between combating global climate change, affordability, or American energy security. The United States of America is a superpower with abundant natural resources and the hardest workers in the world. So I believe that we should be leading the world through innovation, not elimination. This piece of legislation, these two we've done, bipartisan infrastructure, and the inflation reduction, it gives the world hope that America will still be the innovative and creators that's needed to save the planet as we have it. This forum has rejuvenated my passion for energy I've come to find. I think it's good to hear the bigger picture and to be like, oh yeah, I'm glad I chose this feel. I am looking forward to making even more connections. I'm getting people to invest in the business as we're growing and hopefully doing this again next year. I think it's fantastic. We have been waiting for this for four years. The last time was in 2018 to convene a gathering of global thought leaders and we'll also identify what the challenges are. This is not going to be easy. This is going to be hard work to transition the world towards a cleaner economy. So yeah, that's what we're here for. I now think of energy security as somewhat broader than just do I have reliable supply to do the things that I need to do for my economy and for my my my citizens. I think of it also as can I also in a secure way protect the environment. Crisis creates opportunity and in Ukraine, as you can imagine, this is not some abstract thing down the road. They're literally having to think how do we get to next spring using what we call alternative forms of energy and and they're they're doing really creative things. Is there anything that gives you hope? You see some hopeful signs that we can take with us? Well, I'm a huge optimist. I believe that we can solve these kinds of problems. Provider, we can keep our own democracy functioning. That's a that we don't have the clocks at 20 seconds. We don't have time to tackle that. That's what worries me the most. Every day when I see our students, this is the most public minded generation I've taught and they do want to change the world. They're in a little they're in a hurry and we have to say sometimes okay, you have to kind of know something before you can change the world. But this it's it's not as if people don't care and it's not as if the next generation doesn't care. And so that makes me tremendously optimistic too. Why do any of the brilliant young scientists, engineers, business people that come out of this institution? Why should they come to or want to work at ExxonMobil? I think, you know, we are going to play a leadership role here. I think if you're interested in moving the needle on a world scale, there are very few companies who can contribute to that. I wouldn't suggest that we can do it on our own, but I do think that we have the history, the relationships, the technology, the capabilities to actually make a meaningful contribution in this space. You know, we need to start stop arguing about which, you know, what's right and what's wrong or you know, what's left what's right. I just think the reality is we need to get aligned on solving the problem, which is reducing emissions. But I think what really stands out is there's just, and a lot of the speakers have talked about it, is just increased momentum. Things are really starting to happen and I think a lot more hope than I think in the past. The addition of Stanford's involvement in climate change, particularly around the technological innovation, along with the cross-section of leadership and decision makers, has been really great for this conference.


It's pretty wild that in the span of 16 years, there's been four different versions of Spider-Man on the big screen. Let's hurry up and get on with this feud before the fifth one takes shape. First to don the suit in the theater, but does that make him the best? Yes. Yes, it does. According to some, I think he did a great job, but I'm also fond of pretty much every incarnation so far. Toby's a very likable down-on-his-luck Peter that spoke to a lot of moviegoers. His Spider-Man looked fantastic, too, in a suit some still consider to be the greatest.  And frankly, it's because his hair was beautiful. He had a luscious mane growing on the top of his head that I'd dare anyone to hate. You don't make enemies with hair like that. He did quip and joke around as the webcrawler, which was a big step up for those that missed that from Raimi's interpretation. Tom Holland was the first high schooler who actually looked the age, probably because he wasn't pushing 30 like the previous two. Tom knocks it out of the park as both a sympathetic Peter Parker and a sillier Spider-Man. Into the Spider-Verse is not content on giving us one Spider-Man. Now, they give us a potpourri of options, with the main two focuses being on a burnt-out, heartbroken Peter Parker and the newcomer Miles Morales. He's the son of a cop who can't decide which side of the tracks he wants to be on, often preferring to hang out with his cool uncle over his own father. Jake Johnson's Parker, along with Miles, have truly compelling stories that both managed to end in satisfying ways. Eventually, more crazy versions of characters pop up, such as Spider-Gwen, Spider-Ham, Spider-Man Noir, and Penny Parker. A heavy set of new characters can be tough for one movie to juggle. Spider-Verse does it with such ease, you would think this was the third or fourth film in the series. The first two entries spend a solid amount of time focusing on Peter's love interests, M. J. and Gwen Stacy, played by Kirsten Dunst and Emma Stone. Director Raimi treats this in an almost soap-operish way, whereas Mark Webb tries to convey the awkward interactions of high school love. And in this regard, I think both pale in comparison to Spider-Man Homecoming and Into the Spider-Verse. And you can take my word for it, as I have my finger on the pulse of what teenagers like these days. Flossing. Fortnite. We have different friends, aunt Mays, father figures, and so on to help separate these four pictures. One big win from the Raimi version is, of course, J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. A character so perfect, the other three movies didn't even bother topping it. Unless you count the Into the Spider-Verse end credits. Which I don't, that's cheating. The Spider-Man movie is nothing without a good adversary to take down. Willem DeFoe goes full-blown Power Rangers villain in the first outing. The suit is cheap and silly looking, like my Hatchimal collection, yet I can't help but enjoy the craziness the Sam Raimi world brings. I wish I could say the same about Amazing Spider-Man's antagonist, Dr. Kurt Connors, aka The Lizard. He felt underdeveloped, also, like my Hatchimal collection. On a positive side of things, he felt threatening, like a real danger to Spider-Man. Homecoming's villain also happens to still be the best Batman you heard me. And there's a few smaller characters like Shocker thrown in for good measure. Who doesn't love a good Shocker, right, ladies and guys? Keaton's character, Vulture, gets a great backstory early on, providing the audience with a real motivation for his actions. Into the Spider-Verse has a lot of villains to counter our heroes. Characters like Dr. Octopus, Scorpion, and so on are present, but never outshadow the main foe, Kingpin. Much like Homecoming, he's driven by something more compelling. And we'll talk a little bit more about that in round two. Coming up now. When Spider-Man swung into the theaters in 2002, it was unlike anything an audience has ever seen before. The sheer scope and production of Raimi's picture was on another level. Full disclosure, I'm not a Spider-Man comic book reader, so if you base your movie preference on which one's closest to the source material, I mean, that's not what this is. From what I could gather, though, 2002 gets a lot of the essentials right. An origin story of a socially awkward teen getting bit by a radioactive spider, which gives him super strength, spider sense, and in this film's case, organic webbing. Then you have those touchstone moments like Uncle Ben's death, treated with a lot of respect. The revenge angle spinning into a savior for the city made sense. The film was obviously a rousing success, and two more were made in the franchise. Amazing Spider-Man wasn't as fortunate, only getting a two-movie run. I'm not gonna knock the flick, I've done it in the past. I'm just gonna say this one's not for me. Mark Webb showcased a bit darker angle of the web slinger in terms of style. Much like Batman, the action segments mostly took place at night. Andrew Garfield would lighten some of these moments up with a joke or two, but the picture felt more somber all around. It also felt very familiar story-wise, and we retread a lot of those same beats. Homecoming opted to bypass it altogether. Civil War introduced us to our new Peter Parker with a small amount of backstory. This allowed homecoming to jump right into the good stuff. That said, I wouldn't have minded a bit more connection with this version of the character, even if it's just told through like a two or three minute flashback scene, or him visiting Uncle Ben's grave. Just something to really understand and get in his mindset, why he wants to be a hero, why he's out there fighting every day. Since this is the first Sony Marvel hybrid, we get to see some Avengers here and there. Tony Stark plays mentor or dad as Peter attempts to keep the streets clean. This becomes a problem when he gets a bit in over his head and has to fight the vulture one-on-one, save Tony Stark's invisible plane for being hijacked. Miles has his own set of obstacles to overcome, mainly keeping his father from finding out he's the new vigilante in town, taking the mantle from the previously beloved Spider-Man. It's basically the plot of the Santa Claus, except for good. Joking. Tim Allen is a national treasure. Miles learns the kingpin has found a way to peek into the multiverse. The kingpin also learns something too. With great power comes great responsibility. His science experiment has consequences. Worlds collide. Power Man 5000 style. Bringing in all sorts of wacky new stuff. Different flavors of both villains and superheroes. Now our reg tag group must band together to stop the kingpin and return each member home. I'm always amazed when a seemingly complicated story can be told so easily. Here's the deal, I don't hate any of these four movies. And I think it's anybody's game, really. Outside of The Amazing Spider-Man. I asked the Patreon and YouTube community which they preferred, they had thoughts. Here's a few of them now. Supporter Jason Thomas says, It has to be homecoming. One of the best on-screen Spider-Man portrayals and Michael Keaton. What more do you need? Please note, I have not yet seen Spider-Verse so I cannot judge it. No, you can't! Your opinion is invalid. Thank you for supporting the channel, Jason. Yakov Kropostman picked the first Spider-Man for inspirational reasons. Stating, it came out at a time that I was bullied at school and I was in a deep depression. That movie gave me hope and made me smile for the first time in months. Hey bud, you'll always have a friend in me. Person's name I had a hard time pronouncing. Honestly though, movies are awesome, aren't they? Liam Macky goes with Into the Spider-Verse. Ramey's Spider-Man 2 is still the best Spider-Man movie ever with homecoming being my least favorite. Feeling to me like it was directed by a conveyor belt. Ouch! And he didn't even mention Amazing Spider-Man so I'm not sure which is worse in that scenario. Over in the YouTube community, we have the Republic of Bridger saying Into the Spider-Verse is great. I love it. I think it's great. But homecoming is better. Wow, I did not see that twist coming. That's like M. Night Shyamalan's latest when he said that glass was gonna be great. Lastly, we have Alexander McCarty picking old reliable, Spider-Man. The best superhero origin movie, only rivaled by Iron Man, but since that one has a weak villain, Spider-Man wins out. Let these movies be a lesson to those stating you can't tell the same movie four times for different ways. I'm not sure anybody's ever said that in their life ever, but let that be a lesson regardless. We have four very different looking films. Sam Raimi's world is colorful, vibrant, full of zany characters and the action is well framed with wonderfully fluid camera work that moves around the city with ease. Danny Elfman's theme song is in the League of its own, adding to the pageantry that is, Spider-Man. The Amazing Spider-Man looks slick, highly polished and has some of the best looking nighttime fights around. I can't, however, say the same about the music, which feels flat throughout the picture. There is no high flying web swinging, no dramatic slow motion American flag shots to be had, no Chad Kroger belting from the top of his lungs, a hero can save us. There is a fun creative intro shot via the smartphone of Peter as he's walking around his daily routine. That was nice, that was different and everything else feels pretty much kind of generic. The soundtrack's a mix of upbeat pop music blended with a spin on the original classic theme. The Into the Spider-Verse team spent a year trying to establish a look for the film and topped out at 142 animators to wrap it all up. So much to take in from the blending of art styles to the fact that they are being animated at different speeds. It's a love letter to comics in every sense of the word, from the explosive color palette to the way everything jumps off the screen. Daniel Pemberton gives Elfman a run for his money. This is me running with my fingers. Providing a modern score that's synth heavy and has a soul to it all. The action is as frantic as the visuals, begging for multiple viewings. The wild shots of color and motion blur could turn off a few people if I need to find things to complain about here. That would be it. This was not an easy decision for me to come to. There were multiple nights where I'd lie awake in bed wondering to myself why I still have a YouTube show. And on a rare instance, I thought about the feud as well. As much as I love and respect the Ramie original into the Spider-Verse is just perfect. And since my opinion isn't the only one that matters, even though it matters the most, I pulled the YouTube community. Here's where we landed on things. In last, with an embarrassing amount of votes is the amazing Spider-Man with only 4%. In second to last is homecoming with 25% of the take. In second place. I said this in a weird way. Get ready. Spider-Man. 31% of the vote leaving the winner into the Spider-Verse with 40%. I never thought I'd see the day when I could say this, but we are in full agreement with this ranking. Thank you for watching. Feel free to join the Adam Does Movies community and take part in future episodes. After all, this is more than just reviews. This is Movie Feuds. And a new season is underway.


The proposed three-legged quasi-Z source inverter, QZSI, is a novel solution to reduce the input side ripple of single-phase inverters used in renewable energy applications. It employs a quasi-PR control method to inject specific frequency harmonics into the input current, which effectively eliminates the drawbacks of passive filtering strategies, such as high-value impedance networks, low-power density, and weak system stability. Simulations show that the addition of the third bridge leg under full load conditions reduces the input side inductor current ripple by 72.86%, the second harmonic ripple by 4.5%, and the fourth harmonic ripple by 2.1%. Additionally, the DC bus voltage ripple is reduced by 90.76%, and the total harmonic distortion of the output voltage and current are both below 1%. This article was authored by Chuanyu Zhong, Chuanchu Chao, Weichi Chen, and others.


This third and final video segment of chip seal application shows some of the problems and pitfalls that may occur during the operation. It's based on a presentation developed by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Improper equipment maintenance or operation causes most chip sealing problems. A major failure in any key piece of equipment would usually halt the entire process. The most serious problems are likely to occur at the asphalt storage facility. Overheated flues, a half filled booster pump, or return lines containing oil pockets can cause explosions resulting in severe damage and injury. Premature opening of the valve during distributor loading can produce an unexpected surge of hot oil, creating a big mess and maybe severe burns. A full distributor tank does not eliminate all danger when firing the burners. Faulty plumbing is likely to give the operator a surprise. Telltale vapors, drips, and frost build-ups all indicate leaks in the propane burner systems. A poorly maintained spray bar with a heavy build-up of cured binder usually leads to partially clogged nozzles and, consequently, an irregular fan pattern. Improper nozzle settings may compound the problem and result in a seriously uneven binder application. If a distributor in this condition is used on the job, several problems will occur with the binder. First, when a clogged spray bar applies binder under normal pressure, the oil flow will be insufficient and the fan profile will be poor. If, on the other hand, the pressure is increased beyond the recommended 206 kPa to compensate for the restricted flow, the high pressure can cause emulsion oil to break upon impact with the road surface, separating the water from the asphalt and ruining the qualities of the binder. The higher pressure also makes the oil spatter excessively, propelling droplets over the entire width of the adjacent lane, where tires of oncoming traffic will pick it up. But the most serious consequence of this problem is when the oil spatters onto a freshly chipped lane where it lies free to be picked up and tracked by tires. Another cause of surface oil is grass and debris that stick to binder-coated distributor parts and then drop into the spray path to be covered by oil. This debris often protrudes through the surface after the chip application. The worst spray bar problem is revealed by this trail of binder. A serious leak in the distributor's plumbing with the bar under pressure leaves a thick pool of oil on the pavement. When the binder is applied, this concentration of oil will not be apparent. But when the chipper covers the pool with aggregate, the problem rises to the surface as the first wheel passes over it. The chips are pressed down and the oil seeps through. Subsequent tires and rolling equipment pick it up and track it. A problem not related to equipment maintenance arises when the wind distorts the spray fans. Gusts of wind and extreme cases can totally interrupt the uniformity of the binder coat. So be careful in windy weather and watch out for drafts caused by big trucks. This line of puddles left by a leaking spray bar is typical of the many distributor-related problems that can profoundly affect job quality. Since most serious problems of chip sealing involve the binder oil in some way, it stands to reason that a well-maintained and operated distributor can keep these problems to a minimum. The chip spreader, like all the other equipment, should be checked each morning for operational readiness and safety. But even then, problems can still occur. If one of the gate's jams in a closed position, it shuts off a small portion of the chip fall, as is clearly shown by the opening in the chip fall in a corresponding strip of exposed binder on the surface. If a vehicle tire gets into the oil, the problem is seriously compounded. A gate can also jam in an open position, spelling excess chips onto the roadway. While this problem does not threaten the job quality, it must be corrected before the operation continues. Another chipping problem occurs when the dump truck bed is raised to transfer aggregate into the chipper's hopper. If the volume control guards are worn or missing, the aggregate will spill over the sides and accumulate in little piles on the surface. This same overflow can happen when the chipper is in motion, although here the spill is less apparent since the chips are dispersed along the roadway. The aggregate lost over a period of time can be considerable. Also, these little chip piles can cause trouble for the trucks and rollers. Big spills, on the other hand, can happen if the chipper and dump truck disengage during spreading. While this machine's hitch is designed to prevent disengagement, many chippers have a simple hook that doesn't completely surround the steel rod connection of the truck. Should the chipper operator fail to verify the connection, the entire load could be dumped when the chipper pulls away. Disengagement can also occur when the machines are in motion, by raising the truck bed too high or running over chip piles. In either case, if the rear of the truck is lifted high enough to clear the chipper hitch, the load ends up on the roadway. The chip fall should be continuously monitored, not only for excessive chips, but for thin spots. If the road coverage is poor, it's likely that the spreader box or screens have become clogged with sand or debris. Here's a safety point. Operators of heavy equipment aren't normally required to wear a safety vest because the equipment is more visible to drivers than is the vest. But it's hazardous for the operator to dismount his machinery and set foot on the roadway. Improper equipment operation is responsible for many problems, nearly all related to the fresh binder. A careless broom operator may do more harm than good when trying to clean the road shoulder too near to the distributor, especially if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction. The broom operator may also contaminate the fresh chips by rolling his tires in the oil and getting the broom too deep into the binder strip. This throws oil-covered rocks back onto the chipped surface to be picked up and thrown by vehicle tires. Every effort should be made to avoid contact with the exposed binder strip, especially when driving onto the freshly chipped surface. The consequences will speak for themselves. Finally, tire contact with the freshly chipped surface must always be handled with care. Any twisting, spinning, or sliding of the tires will roll the chips over and expose the oil. Often both the rock and the oil are removed, requiring difficult manual repairs. Once you've developed an eye for problems that can happen during chip seal application, the clues are generally easy to spot. Sometimes we may be our own worst enemy because the first wheels to touch the freshly chipped surface are those of our own equipment. The key to a successful chip seal job lies in proper procedure, crew awareness, and attention to detail. For more information and help with your chip seal operations, contact your state's Technology Transfer Center.


An attorney for Minnesota State Senator Dan Shown says Shown plans to resign in the wake of accusations of sexual misconduct. Paul Rogoshevsky tells the Star Tribune that Shown plans to resign at a news conference on Wednesday. Rogoshevsky says that Shown, a Democrat from St. Paul Park, doesn't feel he can be effective anymore. The 42-year-old Shown was accused by a Democratic candidate for office of grabbing her buttocks in 2015. Another candidate who is now a fellow Democrat lawmaker said he sent her a string of suggestive texts and a Senate employee said he texted her a picture of male genitalia. Shown denied the lawmaker's allegations saying they were false or taken out of context. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland news, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


So today's session is about what's new with sign up and sign in on the web. Are you enjoying Google I.O. so far? We only have a few hours left for the rest of Google I.O. But I'm pretty sure we'll be excited to learn new things from this session. OK, so I need to have this clicker. So let me start with this question. For you, what makes good sign up and sign in? We consider there are three principles. First, good security. Sign in is the most important gatekeeper for a website to protect users' information from abusive behaviors and attackers. Building a website with a vulnerable sign in mechanism means giving attackers a chance to abuse your website. And in the worst case, it critically damages your business. So building your website with first class security is quite important. But that doesn't mean that you can sacrifice user experience. In many cases, adding better security creates more obstacles and brings more friction for your users to enter your website. Thinking about users' user-first web experience, you should make sure logging into your website is as seamless as possible while having good security. And finally, good sign up and sign in are often overlooked as a critical part of user flow. Developers tend to be more excited about new ideas and innovative features, and pay less attention to make their sign up and sign in secure and low friction. That's why it's important that building them is easy enough and low cost. With that in mind, today we'll cover three topics. One type sign up and auto sign in. Recapture v3 and web authentication. Let's get started. Implementing sign up and sign in securely using user name and password is challenging. I'm not saying that it's technically impossible, but the user's safety heavily relies on how they create their own passwords. Their passwords could be weak, forgotten, reused, or stolen. Balash is going to explain more about these challenges later in this session. But this is why we've been recommending Identity Federation for many years. Identity Federation is a way for users to sign up or sign in using an account hosted on the third party website, which is called Identity Provider. Identity Federation is usually built upon standards called such as OpenID Connect or OAuth. With Identity Federation, users do not need to create additional passwords. You can delegate security challenges to an Identity Provider. And you can receive profile information from that Identity Provider. And as many of you know, Google is one of such Identity Providers. You can already take advantage of Google Sign in Bottom to enable Identity Federation on your website. And at Google IEO last year, I briefly talked about a JavaScript library that makes sign up easier. And at Chrome Dev Summit last year, we've officially announced it as one-tap sign up and auto-sign in. It's a new user experience for Identity Federation with Google that allows users to sign up with just one-tap. We have a number of partners already on board or implementing with this library, and they're producing amazing results. Let me briefly talk about a few of them. Redfin, a real estate company in the US, saw an 80% increase in sign ups after implementing one-tap sign up. Also, over 40% of these new users return to their website more than five times after signing up. Trevago is one of the world's leading hotel search engines operating in 55 countries. It gained 50% more new sign ups with twice as many sign-in users after implementing this library. Sixth Lab Club, Letras, and Parco, popular music sites in Brazil for chords, lyrics, and songs, got 43 times more users signing up after integrating one-tap sign up. This is not a typo. I said 43 times, which means 4,300% more users. That's an incredible number. And user engagement, such as favoriting artists, creating playlists, or commenting, liking chords, has also increased almost 50% per user. This is impressive. So here's how it works. The user opens the sign up page, selects one of the Google accounts, and they're signed up. It's just that. It takes less than 10 seconds. The animation on the slide might be too quick to catch up what's going on, but it's actually that easy. One-tap sign up is revolutionary, because on top of those benefits that I have briefly mentioned earlier in this session for identity federation in general, it's completely partial less and requires only one-tap for users to sign up. No email verification is required. Think about it. You have to open up email client, find the right email, and clicking a link in that email. It's kind of a hassle. You can completely eliminate that step from the user. It's a big deal. And third, it works across all modern browsers. Using this API is quite simple. Start with loading this JavaScript library. Once it's loaded, show a sign up layout by calling this method. Google your order hint, and it will show an account chooser. You need to create a client ID at Google Developer Console in advance. Note that since this is a powerful API, we are reviewing sites that are making use of this library. Once a user taps on one of the accounts, the promise will resolve, and you will receive a result that contains an ID token. Use the ID token to verify the user's identity on your server. If you already have a Google sign in back end, you can reuse it. Once the ID token is verified, extract the user's profile information and establish a new session. And the user is signed up. As a bonus, when the user session expires or the user lands on your website from a different device, you can let the user sign back in automatically to perform auto sign in. Just call Google your order retrieve to obtain the user's ID token. Then you can use the ID token to let the user sign back in and resume the session. By the way, you might have heard about the API called the Credential Management API. It's an open web API to handle credentials using JavaScript. The OneTap library actually uses this credential management API behind the scenes if the browser supports it, and there is a sort password for the website. If you want to retrieve an existing password, add Google yellow ID and password. It will give you a username and password instead of an ID token, so you can use that information to authenticate the user. When a user clicks the sign that button, the user probably wants to keep signed out. In that case, call Google yellow.disable auto sign in. That way, Google yellow.retrieve will stop returning ID token until the user explicitly signs back in. So that's the OneTap sign up. Let me recap. OneTap sign up is secure because it's Google's identity federation. It provides a great user experience for user to sign up with just OneTap and auto sign in. It's easy to implement with simple APIs. To learn more about OneTap sign up, please visit developers.google.com. identity, and you'll find more detailed documentation. OK, so far I've been talking about identity federation, but I guess that many of you might be interested in some solutions about when you are using password, username and password. Earlier in this session, I talked about challenges with passwords. What can you do if an attacker already knows your user's password and tries to hijack account? And in many cases, account hijacking is done by bots. This means if you could filter out bots, the number of account hijacks should decrease. And that's what Recapture does. Six years ago, it asked users to read a distorted text like this, but we knew we could do better. We then developed Recapture V2, where users can simply type a checkbox to verify.  And if Recapture is still uncertain, it asks an additional challenge, like select all images with a street sign. This is an example question many bots cannot answer easily. And we are protecting over 2 million websites every week from spam and abuse. But bots evolve also. The attacks against Recapture over the last few years, last several years, have evolved from brute force or random guest bots to smarter and even AI-based bots. They began to bring machine learning solutions and abusive humans to try to break these challenges and attack websites. But we want to stop bots, whether or not they can find the street signs in a set of images. Today, we are announcing Public Beta of Recapture V3. This new version comes with three new things at a high level. First, it requires no interactive challenges. Two, it scores traffic with the adaptive risk analysis engine. And third, it breaks down your traffic by action. Let me walk you through each one. In V3, Recapture detects whether an interaction with a website is abusive without even a single tap. This means you can keep your website safe without interrupting any users. And instead of simple yes or no answer, it will give you a score which ranges from 0 to 1.0. The score is calculated by the Recapture Adaptive Risk Analysis Engine and the signals from interactions with your website. Based on the score, you can define your own threshold to determine whether you should do further verification on the request. Let's say you get a login request with a barely low score of 0.2. In that case, for example, you can request an additional authentication factor such as email verification. Or send an email to an admin to ask for moderation. Or sort of search requests from bots as a protection from scraping to use Recapture. First, load the DevAscript library. When the user submits a form, request a Recapture token. And finally, submit the form along with the obtained token. One nice thing about V3 is that it enables you to put it into almost all parts of your website, not only to sign up page, but also many other places. For example, from home page to reading posts, logins, adding comments, and searches. Wherever your website has potentially risky actions, you can protect with Recapture. To do so, you can define a tag for each action. Actions will also become a signal into the adaptive risk analysis engine. As a result, you can treat scores differently depending on the actions. Also, you can see the traffic breakdown and score distribution per action in the Recapture admin console. So that's Recapture V3. Let me recap. Recapture V3 makes your website more secure by stopping bots. It doesn't require user gesture by eliminating challenges, so there's zero friction. It gives you the flexibility as to how you want to treat suspicious traffic. To learn more about Recapture V3, please visit d.co-recapturev3io. OK, I've been talking about two large features from Google. But I'd like to make a transition to talk about OpenWeb API, the Credential Management API. I briefly talked about it earlier in this session. As I said, one top sign up contains the Credential Management API. But it focuses on identity federation with Google. If you choose to use other identity options, such as username and password, you should use Credential Management API. We have already covered this topic at Google I.O. last year. So let me quickly recap. It's an OpenWeb API that allows you to handle credentials using JavaScript. With this API, you can enable things like auto-sign in or sign in with browser's native account chooser. It can handle two different types of credentials, password credential and federated credential. And now, we have a new type of credential being added to this API, which is called Public Key Credential. With that, let me invite Balash to talk about web authentication. Thank you, Eiji. Hi, everyone. I'm Balash. I'm a software engineer on the Chrome Web Identity Team. And Eiji already mentioned that passwords create a number of issues. I would like to talk a little bit more about two of them in particular. The first one is password reuse, when your users are using the same password on multiple different websites. And the second one is phishing, when attackers trick your users into entering their credentials into fake websites. Historically, these issues have been really hard for developers to address, because they both have to do with your users being only human. So suppose one of your users, let's call her Jane Doe, has accounts on 50 different websites. What do you think? On how many other websites is Jane using the same password that she is using on your site? To answer that question, we've calculated some statistics client side among Chrome password manager users. And if Jane is anything like them, she will be reusing that password on 10 different websites. That's 20% of all her accounts. What does that mean? It means that if Jane's password is compromised on any one of those 10 websites, it's compromised on all of them, including yours. So how often does this happen? According to another study, during a period of just one year, data breach is exposed a total of 1.9 billion user names and passwords. So this means that even if you have implemented all the password management best practices, for instance, you serve your login page and preferably your entire website over HTTPS. You never store or log plain text passwords. You always hash passwords. And maybe you do even more. You are still not done. So suppose you are using two-factor authentication. To log in, Jane has to enter her password plus an OTP, a one-time password, for instance, a signature number that she receives to her phone. Surely Jane is safe now, right? Well, unfortunately, OTPs are phished just as easily as passwords. Let me show you what happens. As soon as Jane enters her password into the phishing page, the attacker connects to the real website and initiates a login flow using the freshly stolen password. The real website asks the attacker for the OTP. The attacker, in turn, asks Jane. In the meantime, the six-digit number is sent over SMS to Jane's phone. Jane is under the impression that she's logging into the real website so she expects that she gets asked for the one-time password. So as soon as it arrives, she enters it into the phishing page. The attacker then simply forwards the OTP to the real website, and with that, they just gain access to Jane's account. Similar attacks are possible if Jane is using time-based OTPs generated by an app on her phone or a hardware token, or if to sign in, Jane has to confirm that login attempt on her mobile device. The problem is that in all of these cases, we rely on Jane, a human, to recognize when she's not on the real website but on a phishing page. Remember the study from before? It also estimates that around 12.4 million users fell victim to phishing during the same one-year period. This is why last year at I.O., we recommended using security keys instead. Many of you are familiar with the U2F Universal Second Factor security keys that look like this. Some of you may even be using them for two-factor verification already. The main advantage of security keys over OTPs is that they cannot be fooled by phishing. Security keys talk directly to the browser. They can easily verify that the URL of the page that Jane is visiting is the legitimate URL and not a slightly different URL corresponding to a phishing site. So this removes the human error factor. It is no longer Jane's burden to verify the URL. But if security keys are so awesome, how come we aren't all using them on every website already today? Unfortunately, a key piece of the puzzle had been missing. Previously, there hadn't been a good way to access security keys on the web. Some of you are already familiar with the U2F JavaScript API, which was a great first step, but it also had a number of limitations. For instance, it wasn't available across all browsers. And this is why I'm super excited about the Web Authentication API, which is a brand new web platform API that provides a standardized way for using strong authentication on the web. The new API is coming to major browsers and will be available on both mobile and desktop platforms. And in fact, I'm delighted to announce that you can already try out the initial feature set with the latest Chrome beta. So let's see what makes this API so great. First, it's backwards compatible with existing U2F security keys. The very same key that you registered through the U2F API can now be used through the Web Authentication API. That means that you can migrate your site from U2F to Web Authent without any user-visible changes. But Web Authent is much more than just a new API. Web Authent also enables authenticators that come in a wide variety of form factors, much more exciting than USB hardware tokens. So if hardware tokens are not your cup of tea, don't fall asleep just yet. Web Authent also brings many new features that enable exciting new use cases. The single most important feature is probably that authenticators can now perform user verification. This means that the authenticator can locally verify the user. If Jane drops her authenticator on the street, you cannot just pick it up and use it. It only responds to Jane. User verification can take many forms. It can be done using biometrics, such as a fingerprint scan, or an easy-to-remember PIN code. And we are not only talking about external hardware tokens. With Web Authent, the built-in fingerprint reader in your notebook or phone can also become a user-verifying authenticator. Regardless of form factor, what makes user-verifying authenticators so interesting is that they do not need to be combined with passwords to implement two-factor authentication. There is already something that you have and something that you are. So you get great security. And you also get a great user experience. You no longer have to type your password, which is especially frustrating on mobile devices. So let me show you what I'm talking about. Can we switch to the demo device, please? Suppose that I'm browsing the web and I find something I want to buy. I have with me here a Pixel 2 phone with a fingerprint sensor. So suppose I have this camera cleaning clip that's really nice, that's a really good deal for just $0.10. So I add it to my cart, then I go to check out. And then I choose to complete my checkout with PayPal. I get redirected to PayPal. And because PayPal supports the Web Authentication API, I can easily verify my identity using just my fingerprint. Sorry. Select the credit card, shipping address. Then I get redirected back to the merchant. And there, my order is confirmed. So I didn't have to type a password, and it was still secure. And it was so much better user experience. Back to the slides, please. So how does that all work? First, let's take a look at how authenticators work in the first place. All Web Authenticators use public key cryptography. There is a one-time setup flow during which the user registers an authenticator with an account. During registration, the authenticator generates a new public-private key pair. The private key is stored locally and cannot be extracted from the authenticator. The public key is sent to the server. Then every time the user wants to authenticate, they have to prove to the website that they possess the private key. This is done through a challenge response-based protocol. The web server sends a challenge to the authenticator, which in turn uses the private key to provide a cryptographic signature for this challenge. The signature is sent to the web server, which verifies it against the public key and the challenge. With user verifying authenticators, releasing this signature is also gated on successful user verification, such as a fingerprint scan. So your fingerprint never leaves the device. It's only used to locally unlock the authenticator. Now, let me walk you through the one-time setup flow in more detail. You did not see this in the demo because I already did this last week. There are three important participants in this flow. The authenticator itself, the web application running in the browser, and the web server. Suppose that it is once again Jane, who is now setting up the fingerprint reader in her phone as an authenticator. To kick off the registration flow, the server first generates a challenge, a large random number that will be only used for the registration process and thrown away later. The server stores a challenge in association with the user account and transmits it along with user information to the web app running in the browser. The web app then calls the Web Authentication API. This is what it looks like in code. As Ajay mentioned, Web Authent extends the Credential Management API so it's available under navigator.credentials. To create a new public key credential, you call Create with the public key option. You specify the challenge you receive from the server, user information that will be displayed on the authenticator if it has a display, and the crypto algorithms that you wish to use. In addition to these parameters that we just specified, the browser also extracts the authoritative domain name of the calling web application. Then all this information is sent to the authenticator, which asks for user consent. This is required so that malicious websites cannot use the API to track the user. This protects the user's privacy. Once user consent is given, the authenticator generates a new public private key pair. It stores the private key internally, along with the credential ID, user information, and importantly, the domain name this credential belongs to. Then the API call is resolved with the public key credential, which contains the unique identifier, the public key, and the signature calculated over the challenge, the domain name, the public key, the credential ID, and some other parameters. The web app then forwards these values to the server. There, you need to validate the signature. And as a last step, if the signature checks out, the server has to store the credential ID and the public key in association with the user account. And don't forget to invalidate the challenge. It's only valid for one transaction. This concludes the registration flow. And remember, you only have to do this once. Now let's take a closer look at how Jane can use the authenticator to log in without the password the next time. The starting state here is that the authenticator already has a private key, and the server has a corresponding public key in association with Jane's account. Remember that authentication is performed using a challenge-response-based protocol, where Jane calculates a cryptographic signature to prove possession of the private key. So once again, the flow starts with the server generating a challenge, a large random number which is used to prevent replay attacks. Then, the server transmits the credential ID and the challenge to the web application, which in turn calls the web authentication API. Again, to create a cryptographic signature, you need to call navigator credentials.get with the public key option. You specify the challenge that you received from the server, the credential for which you want to get a cryptographic signature, and here you see that we also ask the authenticator to locally verify the user. In addition to these parameters that we just specified, once again, the browser extracts the authoritative domain name of the calling web application and sends all this information to the authenticator. The authenticator looks up information stored for this credential ID. Next, and this is very important, the authenticator checks that the domain name of the calling website matches the one that was provided at the time the credential was created. This is what makes these authenticators resistant to phishing. If Jane is on the phishing page with a slightly different URL, the authenticator will notice the discrepancy. So next, if it is, indeed, through a website, the authenticator performs local verification using the fingerprint reader. If the fingerprint checks out, the authenticator uses the private key to generate a cryptographic signature over the domain name and the challenge. The API call is then resolved with the signature, which is sent to the server. There, once again, it is verified that it corresponds to the challenge and the public key. And if it does, then the server will consider Jane's authentication successful. And the last step, again, don't forget to invalidate the challenge. This concludes the authentication flow. But if you have dealt with a large user base, you know that you cannot just replace your identity management overnight. What's also great about WebALTEN is that it enables you to adopt it one step at a time. You can use more and more of the API to get more and more of the security and usability benefits. First, you can use it as a drop-in replacement for the U2F API for second-factor authentication. Then, with minimal changes, you can implement passwordless reauthentication before sensitive operations, such as making a purchase. For instance, this can be done using the fingerprint reader built into a phone or a mobile device. And finally, once your users warm up to the idea of signing in using a fingerprint or a hardware token, you might even consider making it their primary login mechanism. To summarize, we talked about the Web Authentication API, which provides strong authentication on the web using public key cryptography. It brings new features and form factors that enable a passwordless login experience, making it very easy for your users to sign into your site securely. And it all comes in the form of a simple-to-use, standardized, open web platform API, which is available across all platforms and browsers. With that, let me hand it back to Eiji to wrap it up. OK. Thank you, Bas. So we've been working through three new exciting features to the web. One top sign up and auto-sign in for ultimately low friction signing up and signing in. Recapture v3 for zero friction bot prevention and Web Authentication for stronger authentication with Open Standard API. I have just tweeted with hashtag IO18, but we have published an article about it. By now, you should have understood what makes good sign up and good sign name. Great security, great user experience, and great developer experience. If you have any questions, please visit us, the web sandbox, which is right next door. And finally, we'd love your feedback on our session today at google.com.io.schedule. With that, we hope you enjoyed our talk. Thank you very much.


Thank you. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, ambassadors, and ladies and gentlemen, it's a great honor to have this opportunity to address this session of the Organization of American States. I confess to a feeling of great pride at being here today, for this is no ordinary diplomatic event, but what must be the largest assemblage of ambassadors from democratic countries in the history of the hemisphere? As we gather here today, the hopes and dreams that built this hall and formed this organization have never been so near fulfillment. The work of our forefathers honored in the Hall of Heroes has never been so close to completion. We come together as the representatives not of one country, nor of a single continent, but of a hemisphere dedicated to the cause of human freedom and democratic government. This last decade has witnessed the triumph of freedom in the Americas. Ten years ago, the great majority of people in Latin America lived under oppression. Today, 90 percent know the freedom and dignity of democratic government. The story of that democratic transformation is one of the proudest chapters in human history. Many here in this room today have been a part of it. It's a story of courage, statesmanship, perseverance, of heroism, and yes, sometimes martyrdom. It is the story of men such as Victor Paes Estensoro fighting terrorists, drug traffickers, and sheer poverty to keep Bolivia free. It is the story of Raul Alfonsi, raising Argentina from defeat and dictatorship to a new democracy. It is the story of Jose Napoleon Duarte, detained, tortured, and exiled after winning El Salvador's presidency in 1972. He had the courage to return home, face down his tortures, and prevail. It is the story of all the valiant statesmen of Central and South America who struggled to establish and maintain democracy in their countries. It is also the story of common people, such as the woman in El Salvador, wounded by guerrilla fire on the way to vote. She stood in line at the polls for hours, but would not leave to have her wounds treated until after she had voted. And the grandmother, who had been warned by the communists that if she voted, she would be killed when she returned from the polls. You can kill me, was her defiant answer.  Well, that's the voice of the Americas, the proud voice of the descendants of Simone Bolivar, who demand freedom as their birthright. The veil has been torn asunder, Bolivar once wrote. We have already seen the light, and it is not our desire to be thrust back into the darkness. Yes, the Americas have come far into the light of liberty, and we have no intention of falling back into the shadows of oppression and tyranny. But for all the heroism and perseverance, our journey is not yet complete. Today, we're called upon to face one of the most serious challenges that has ever confronted our hemisphere. It will demand from all our nations the same statesmanship, the same courage, and the absolute commitment to freedom that has brought us so far. I'm talking about the efforts of the democratic nations of Central, South, and North America to bring Nicaragua into the embrace of freedom, to sever its ties from an expansionist colonial force, and to secure for the people of Nicaragua the fulfillment of the promises of democracy and human rights that were made to the OAS in 1979. We are now at a critical juncture. The Guatemala Peace Accord and Historic Agreement signed by the five Central American presidents on August 7th contains many of the elements necessary to bring both lasting peace and enduring democracy to the region. The Accord calls on all parties to end the fighting and insist on true democracy and human rights in Nicaragua, including freedom of the press, freedom of worship, the right of free political association, and full free and fair elections. The Accord makes clear democracy is the bottom line. There can be no compromise on that point, but while there's reason for hope, there is also reason for great caution. President Arias has stated that it is only with true democracy in Nicaragua that peace will survive. If democracy doesn't take hold in Nicaragua, he said, the armed struggle will continue and if the Sandinistas, he has said, it is true they are Marxists. It is true if they consolidate themselves, they are going to try to export the revolution to undermine Costa Rica, to try to create subversion in this country. We share President Arias' hope and aspirations, but also his skepticism of the communist Sandinistas, a skepticism born of a long record of Sandinista deceit and broken promises. I think skeptics may be excused if they ask, just where will Daniel Ortega be on November 7th, the day the Accord goes into effect. We cannot forget that there already exists a negotiated settlement with the Sandinistas that predates the Guatemala plan, the settlement of 1979 in which this organization, in an unprecedented action, removed recognition from a sitting government, the government of Anastasia Samoza, and helped bring the Sandinistas to power. As part of that settlement, the Sandinistas agreed to implement genuine democracy with free elections and full civil liberties. Each nation here, as a member of the Organization of American States, is a party to that negotiated settlement. We know now that the Sandinistas never intended to carry out those promises. Just a few months later, the Sandinistas met in secret and drafted what has come to be known as the 72-hour document in which they spelled out their plans for building another Cuba in Nicaragua. And even as the United States was sending the new Nicaraguan government millions of dollars in aid, more aid than any other nation, the Sandinistas were busy smuggling arms to the Communist guerrillas in El Salvador. But although the Sandinistas have reneged on their commitment to that negotiated settlement, this organization must not. Those promises of democracy and peace were promises we made as well, promises to the people of Nicaragua that their hopes for freedom would not be disappointed. We gave our word of honor, and we can't walk away from it. Those promises still form the absolute base of any negotiated settlement with the Sandinista Communists, full, free, and fair elections, and the open society that alone can make them possible, including full human rights and expulsion of all Soviet and Cuban forces. These must be the bedrock conditions upon which any further agreement with the Sandinistas is built. This is why as we press on toward negotiations, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to bring true democracy to Nicaragua and clear-eyed and realistic about who and what the Sandinistas are. In response to the Guatemala Accord, the Sandinistas have taken a few initial steps toward compliance. But these welcome steps are only a beginning. La Prensa and Radio Catolica have been allowed to reopen. But the other independent papers remain closed. The dozen other radio stations are still not allowed to broadcast. Recently, the Social Christian Party held its 30th anniversary celebration in Managua. In a demonstration of the internal opposition to the Sandinistas, some 4,000 people attended the rally. The Sandinistas allowed the rally to take place. It immediately detained 18 of the Social Christian Party members on trumped-up charges. The former president of Venezuela, Luis Herrera Campines, who was there as a special guest, called the arrest a blatant act of political harassment. The Sandinistas must learn that democracy doesn't mean allowing a rally to take place and then arresting those who take part. It means hundreds of such rallies free from harassment, either with a secret police or by what the Sandinistas call the divine mobs. Democracy doesn't mean opening one newspaper and one radio station, but opening them all. Democracy doesn't mean releasing a few political prisoners, but all 10,000 of them, some of whom have been imprisoned for as long as eight years. Democracy doesn't mean selectively granting temporary freedoms in order to placate world opinion, but permanent, across-the-board human rights guaranteed by a constitution and protected by the checks and balances of democratic government. Ultimately, and this is the most important lesson of all, democracy means returning power to the hands of the people. The Sandinistas have to understand that they do not have the option of being dictators. Their only option is to lead a political party and serve for limited terms of office if chosen by the people in free and fair elections. What happens in this next month will be crucial, and it will be the responsibility of all of us in the OAS to insist that the Sandinistas give peace a chance by truly opening up their society. More than anyone, the members of the OAS have a particular responsibility to take the lead in verification of the Guatemala agreements. We cannot be satisfied with facades of freedom erected to fool international opinion and then quickly dismantled when the pressure is off. We must insist on real democracy in Nicaragua, not for a week, not for a month or a year, but for always. All we're asking for is true democracy. Anyone who demands anything less is not serving the cause of peace in Nicaragua. And let me just say, there are no new demands here. It is all spelled out in the Guatemala Accord and the Wright-Reagan peace plan. Tell me, how can you have democracy when thousands are arrested for political reasons? How can you have a democracy when individuals who displease the Sandinistas are punished by withholding the ration cards that allow them to buy food and other necessities? How can you have democracy with a secret police force commanded by dedicated Leninists that keeps tabs on every citizen through the so-called block committees? How can you have democracy when the entire society is being militarized with the military under the control of one political party and its Cuban and Soviet advisers?   Is it sincere to talk about democracy, but ignore the specific markers by which we can tell if democracy truly exists? I don't think so. And that's why the march toward peace in Central America must be a march, step by step, perhaps, but still relentless toward democratic freedom. Along with democratic reforms, the Guatemala Accord calls for national reconciliation in Nicaragua through a negotiated ceasefire and a full amnesty. Just this week, President Duarte has called for a spirit of national reconciliation in his country, urging all Salvadorans to, in his words, forgive all those whose acts or those acts that have touched our hearts with pain. Despite the violence done to him and his family by the guerrillas, he has begun negotiations with them. President Cerezo of Guatemala, too, has responded the call for reconciliation, and his government will soon be meeting with the guerrillas there. They've done so because they want the Guatemala Accord to work. If the Sandinista truly want the Accord to work, isn't it time they sat down and negotiated with the Nicaraguan freedom fighters? I'd like to take a moment now to address myself to the ladies and gentlemen of the press as the process of national reconciliation moves forward. Your profession bears a special responsibility to see that the terms of the peace process are fully carried out and democracy finds a permanent home in Nicaragua. Sometimes in the past, the media has been criticized for having a double standard. As the story unfolds, in Nicaragua, there can be no double standard, only one single and absolute standard, democracy. You must keep watch on the progress of democracy in Nicaragua. Train all your investigatory abilities, all your skepticism on the Sandinista government. Demand full disclosure. See that they live up to their promises. This could be one of journalism's finest hours when, with the truth, you help set a people free. As I said, the Guatemala Accord is a positive movement in the continuing effort, begun with the OAS negotiated settlement in 1979 to bring democracy and peace to Nicaragua. But although the Accord is a step in the right direction, it does not address U.S. security concerns in the region, the growing Soviet Cuban presence that seeks to establish a Soviet beachhead on the American mainland, and the rapid destabilizing growth of the Sandinista armed forces that threatens Nicaragua's democratic neighbors. However, these security concerns are addressed in the Right Regan peace plan. The first paragraphs of that plan state in no uncertain terms that there be no Soviet, Cuban, or communist block bases in Nicaragua and that Nicaragua pose no threat to its neighbor countries, nor provide a staging ground for subversion in this hemisphere. In other words, the Soviet block and Cuban forces must leave. We will not tolerate communist colonialism on the American mainland. Freedom in Nicaragua, liberation from all tyrants, domestic and foreign. That is the commitment of the United States, a bipartisan consensus on the conditions that will satisfy U.S. security interests. And let me add, those security interests are shared by every democratic nation in the hemisphere. From the first Congress of American States convened by Simone Bolivar and the Treaty of Perpetual Union League and Confederation, the peoples of the American Hemisphere have insisted on the sovereignty and independence of member states against foreign imperialism. Today, there are only two colonial dictatorships in the Americas. Of one, John Kennedy said over 20 years ago, forces beyond the hemisphere have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American Republicans. Today, these same forces, these same forces grip Nicaragua, but there is an anti-colonial struggle that has arisen and that can throw off the imperialist yoke. The fact is that there's only one reason why the communist subversion of the Central American democracies has been, for the moment, blocked. There's only one reason why the democratic process envisioned in the Guatemala plan still has a hope for success, and that is the brave Nicaraguan freedom fighters who are battling and dying to bring freedom and justice to their homeland. Most are young men, barely in their 20s, only children when the Samosa regime was toppled. They have heard of the promises of 1979 of freedom, human rights, but they've known only tyranny, the steadily growing stranglehold of the new dictators on their society. They have seen their freedoms choked off one by one, their farms confiscated, their priests harassed. They have seen arbitrary arrests, beatings, and official murder become the order of the day. They've seen other young Nicaraguans drafted to serve under Soviet and Cuban so-called advisors, pawns in their war to impose a foreign tyranny on the American mainland. Yes, these Nicaraguans have known only tyranny. They have seen one dictator fall, only to be replaced by nine commandanties who are far worse. And they have rebelled. Their hearts demand freedom. In the spirit of the American freedom fighters of earlier centuries, they are fighting for liberty. They are fighting for independence. There are now well over 15,000 Nicaraguan freedom fighters, three times the number that overthrew Samosa, operating throughout the entire length of Nicaragua. They would not have survived without the friendship and help of the Nicaraguan people. For seven years now, the freedom fighters have prevented the consolidation of totalitarian power in Nicaragua. And now the billions of dollars in Soviet block military aid pouring into Nicaragua have been aimed primarily at defeating the freedom fighters so that later they may attack the surrounding democracies. All of us in public life should remember it as the freedom fighters, most of them poor farmers fighting against overwhelming odds in the jungles of Nicaragua. It is their blood and courage that have stemmed the tide of communist expansion in Central America. Without the freedom fighters, the Sandinistas never would have signed the Guatemala Accord. And there would be no pressure on the Sandinistas to reform. Their totalitarian grip on Nicaragua would only grow tighter. And with all dissent quashed at home, the Sandinistas would soon turn their attention to their neighbors. The huge Sandinista military machine equipped and staffed by Cubans and Soviet block advisers would spread its shadow across all of Central America. Their proven subversion of the surrounding democracies only temporarily slowed would continue apace. In fact, even now in the middle of the peace process, with all world opinion focused on the Sandinistas, they still continue to supply weapons to the communist guerrillas in El Salvador. We will not just shrug our shoulders and watch tens of thousands of brave men and their families turned into refugees. No, we want to see that nation reconciled. We want to see the freedom fighters able to go home to live in peace and freedom in Nicaragua. The Congress of the United States has made a moral commitment to these men. It cannot just walk away. I've made a personal commitment to them, and I will not walk away. They are fighting in the jungles of Nicaragua not only for their own freedom, but for your freedom and mine. And I make a solemn vow. As long as there is breath in this body, I will speak and work, strive, and struggle for the cause of the Nicaraguan freedom fighters. But continuing aid to the democratic resistance is not only a moral obligation. It is the essential guarantee that the Sandinistas will live up to the democratic conditions of the Guatemala Accord, and that the democratic countries of the Americas will be safe from Sandinista subversion. We must ask, would the Sandinistas have signed the Accord if it weren't for the freedom fighters? If the United States Congress had voted against aid to the freedom fighters last year, would we be talking about democratic reforms in Nicaragua today? The answer is clearly no. For these reasons, I will request and fight for a $270 million package of renewed military and humanitarian assistance for the freedom fighters that will be spread over an 18-month period. The renewed assistance will continue until the Sandinistas, negotiating with the freedom fighters, conclude an agreement for a ceasefire, and full democracy is established in Nicaragua. Once a ceasefire is fully in effect, only that support necessary to maintain the freedom fighters as a viable force will be delivered. Then we and they will be watching to see how genuine the democratic reforms in Nicaragua are. The best indicator will be when the freedom fighters are allowed to contest power politically without retribution rather than through force of arms. As that happens, our support levels to the resistance forces will decrease proportionately. And the assistance money will then be redirected to strengthening the democratic process underway in Nicaragua. In the next crucial months, the free nations of the Americas will have to be ever-vigilant. We will have to be steadfast in our insistence that democracy is the only guarantee of peace. But the Americas would not have come this far without the courage, perseverance, and commitment to freedom that I spoke of earlier. I have no doubt that freedom will prevail. Jose Martí, the great Cuban apostle of freedom, once said, there are two sides in this world. On one side are those who hate liberty because they want it solely for themselves. On the other are those who love liberty for one and all. Liberty for one and all. That might be the motto of this organization. During the laying of the cornerstone of this building, the Brazilian statesman Joaquim Nabucco talked of the special destiny of the American hemisphere and the unique purpose of the OAS. It seems evident that a decree of providence made the Western shore of the Atlantic appear late in history as the chosen land for a great renewal of mankind. That is the solemn trust of this organization to keep watch over this chosen land, to keep it secure from alien powers and colonial despotisms so that man may renew himself here in freedom. That is why in 1979, this organization and many of the American states individually reached out to the Nicaraguan people and pledged to them true freedom and full human rights. Now we must simply hold to that promise, just as we hold to our love of liberty, not for the few. But as Jose Martí said, liberty for one and for all. Thank you all very much. God bless you all. Thank you, Mr. President, of the U.S. Distinguished competition, standing up to say goodbye with a round of applause to the President of the United States of America, and to his illustrious and committive and to remain in his place until our distinguished guests, accompanied by the Secretary of State.


It's June the 8th, 2022. It's Wednesday, 11 o'clock. That could mean only one thing. Time for American Issues, Take One. The title of the show today is the January 6 House hearings finally revealed. In Thursday by 1 o'clock, a polite time, or there about 1 o'clock, we are probably going to see some fairly dramatic findings that the House Select Committee will report on. Probably the biggest information in news that we will see about what happened to the capital, the attack on the capital, who was behind the attack on the capital. We will see this information roll out. And that'll be as big as it was, or probably bigger, than the Watergate hearings that took place back in 1973. And with me to discuss this pending hearing is our good friend Chuck Crumpton, mediator. Chuck, welcome. Thanks, Jim. Always a pleasure. It's not always easy to discuss something that hasn't happened. But here we are today, doing exactly that. But we can come to some conclusions and actually some accurate predictions before the hearings actually take place. My first question is, we've been getting dribs and drabble of information now for 17 months. And I guess the question is, did the GOP make a wise decision not to go with a commission, a bipartisan commission? My understanding of commissions, you don't leak any information at all until the report is ready to be produced. Versus what took place now is obviously the House Select Committee to investigate and report their findings. But as you know, it's been coming out for the last 17 months in dribs and drabs. Was it wise for the GOP not to decide to use a commission versus this House Select Committee? That's a great question, Jim. And I think I stepped back from the question to say, was it really a decision or was it just a continued strategy? My personal sense from the information that's been made available to all of us up to now is this is a strategy that has been set and has been hardening and expanding since the Reagan year to become more and more divisive, less concerned for bipartisan, balanced, fact-finding, problem-solving approaches, and to move away from dialogue to combative monologues. So whether it's the Republican Party, Mitch McConnell, McCarthy, funny, he should have that name, huh? Yeah. Funny. Or Fox, which doesn't deserve a second syllable. It's just Fox. It's just Fox. Good point. The French spelled it more correctly, which is F-A-U-X. Meaning Fuguezi in Italian. Well, what are we going to expect? What do you expect to hear? Will it be kind of long and drawn out like the Watergate hearings? Or do you think they're going to acknowledge that the attention span of the American public is that of a nap? And so are we going to see an explosion of information that maybe we are not aware of or have not heard of yet and have that all laid out on the first day, or maybe the day one and day two of the hearings? Or what do you expect before coming when these hearings begin? It's also a great question. And it follows, actually, very appropriately from the first one, because if what's really going on is a strategic war for control of the narrative, particularly through media, including and maybe even mostly social media, then the only choice left to the Democratic Party is to try and win that war, not to try and make it into a deliberative balance bipartisan dialogue. That's not going to happen. It hasn't happened here for at least five years. But don't the Democrats fall for that trap each and every time. The GOP waves the banner of bipartisanship and cooperation. And naively, the Democrats go, oh, OK, great idea. We'd like to do that. And then every time it's Lucy pulling the football out from Charlie Brown just before he boots it. I think we're that question point. It was an editorial more than a question. No, but it's very focused. If you look at the tone, the tenor, the spirit behind the way that the GOP conducts its strategic war for control of the narrative as contrasted with the traditional Democratic presentation approach, I think rather than saying one's right, one's stronger, the difference in styles reflects what each one thinks is going to work best for it. And it's got to be disappointing to people who were traditionally highly respected conservatives, Eisenhower Republicans, or even people after that. I don't think anybody could point to situations where Bob Dole, as strong and aggressive or Republican as he was, ever resorted to the kinds of tactics that we're seeing now. And so one of the questions for the Democrats is, OK, do you lower yourself to that level and try and win that war in the muck, whether it's Quagmire, Quicksand, or whatever? Or do you try and take a high road? And unfortunately, there seem to be elements of both. Yeah, there are those who would argue, and I probably would include myself as one of them, that probably the most naive statement was when Michelle Obama stated, when they go low, we go high. Because you're not going to win by going high every time with the Republicans. You just don't win. And if you want to win, then perhaps you need to meet them somewhere on an equal plane and equal field of battle. Before we move past that, because that's a really important insight, Tim. And so the question is, if you're going to go high, who is your target audience? If your target audience is, for lack of a better word, the undecided, the independence, the people who are not rigidly right wing or progressive left wing, but those who may be still making decisions, still weighing information, if that's your target, then going high takes on a much different tone than if you're doing the Bernie Sanders thing and going for the farther left progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And when you think about it, if that's the margin that they need for swing states or prevention of Republican control of not only offices, but of election processes themselves and the people who run those election processes, then you have to balance and fit your going high to the values of the people in that undecided group. And neither party has done that. It's more important for the Democrats to do it because that's the only group they're going to get. They're not going to change the minds of the Fox followers. They're not going to change the minds of people like McConnell or McCarthy or others. There are a lot of, and my friends are many of them. My friends are GOP conservatives. And I will say that they supported Trump in past elections. Yet they do value the ideals of our democracy and our free and fair elections. They do value the rule of law. And I guess my question is, I wonder if they're going to pay attention to these select hearing committee meetings that's going to air shortly on Thursday. And they hired a news media individual that's going to shape how these hearings are presented. I guess the question is, who do you think the audience is and how they're going to craft the message for these hearings starting Thursday? Such a great question. For those who are sports fans, let's take NFL football as an example or even college. For people who really know that sport, when they watch the game, the one they're listening to is not the play-by-play announcer, but the late John Madden, the color commentator, the one who tells you, OK, here's what's really going on. Here's what they're really thinking about. Here's what their strategy is. Here's why that didn't work, but here's how they're probably going to adjust. That really tells you how the game is being played, what the strategy is, and what's going on that's affecting the momentum and therefore the outcome of the game. So for me, I wouldn't pick a media expert. I'd pick a couple of the best trial lawyers I could find. People who are really, really good with juries, who really know how to connect with juries, what hits home with them, what brings true for them. And I think one of the things that these hearings are going to show us is that is it media focus to either try and win this round or to set some kind of persuasion base for the 2022 campaign and 2024 campaigns, or is it to do what the best of trial lawyers would do, get focus groups out there before the hearings, get experienced trial lawyers in the consult and say, OK, how do we present this in the way that is going to be the most persuasive, the most credible? And sustainably so. You know, I'm wondering if they looked at the Mueller report and the attempt to explain the Mueller report before the American public and acknowledge that that was a disaster. And maybe that's why they're saying, OK, how do we synthesize all this information, all our findings, all the texts, all the in-person witnesses, and synthesize that best for the American jury? You have to wonder if that's your approach. But you're right. It'd be nice to get the best of the legal minds to look at what's taking place and lay it out as if it were a case before a judge. But I don't think the American public can absorb that. One, they don't have the patience. They don't have the attention span. And two, as you previously suggested, they've already made up their minds. Well, a lot of them have. But what's going to make the difference in November this year and in November 2024 is the ones who may have not. And so if you get the people who are focused on how do you gather and present information, the most credibly, the most persuasively, in ways that are going to last and withstand the attacks of false witnesses? Because that's what really good trial lawyers do. They anticipate the false information. Did they defuse it? And then they overcome it with information that rings true to people because the sincerity, the detail, the specifics, the credibility all fit together in ways that connect with people's experience. If the House leadership that's presenting this could put this together in a way that really tells a convincing, credible story of how this was all put together, what it was intended, what's still going on, and what that means for our choices in our leadership and in the consequences on our daily lives, that's the real task here. And seeing how this is presented is going to tell us whether the people who are doing it understand that and understand it's important and how to do it. All righty, thanks. Chuck, the DOJ just charged four individuals. One was the leader of the Proud Boys. They discharged them with a conspiracy to commit sedition. Not an easy charge. Not one that you see handed out very often. Maybe since 1969, when seemingly people were fighting against the government. Does it surprise you that, A, the DOJ actually charged the Proud Boys? And two, will they be listening to these hearings? Will they be gathering facts? Will they be taking notes and trying to dot their eyes, cross their T's on their investigation that we really don't know much about? Well, I mean, first of all, everybody at the DOJ already has a day job. So the likelihood that they're going to put that aside and devote a substantial number of important people to follow these hearings in detail, it raises some doubts. Really? There may be people on it, but there will be more likely to be people who will be reporters. They gather the information. They'll digest it. They'll summarize it. They'll present it in briefings to their leadership. But what the DOJ waits for normally is until they get information presented directly from that House committee for consideration for possible prosecution. They're probably not going to act that. As far as the Proud Boys are concerned, well, you've got hundreds of people arrested. Whether it's going to make a difference to a lot of people that they've managed to pick four Proud Boy leaders and charge them with sedition, which is an extremely serious charge. Yes, the burden of proof is difficult, but this is not a criminal trial. This is a presentation in a public forum. Correct. That is correct. What about Merritt Garland's proclamation that he will take this investigation no matter how high it goes up? Should we take Merritt Garland and the attorney general of this country at his word? Do you think that is still the case? There's no reason to believe that he is dissembling or that he's exaggerating, but he's also been challenged or inaction on a lot of this stuff. It's been a year and a half, and while there are charges, there isn't anything really coherent and cohesive or comprehensive that would set a precedent and establish a pattern that would discourage something like this from happening again. And one of the reasons that 40% of the people out there are still saying no, the election was stolen, although there's no proof of that. And 61 courts were convinced of the contrary. Right. We have news media that's reporting that the select comedian will have some surprise witnesses. One was a videographer who documented meetings between the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. And then we have another DC officer that's going to testify. Don't we know, I mean, just what you said is we know the Proud Boys. We know there were certain paramilitary groups that were organizing and with the intent of invading the Capitol. We know that. Isn't the appetite really looking forward to see who in Congress was involved in this planning? To what degree was Eastman, Trump's attorney, and Trump? To what degree were they involved with direct planning and direction of the January 6th capital invasion? Isn't that the appetite that really we're looking for or many Americans are looking for versus the expected finger pointing at the Proud Boys and groups like that? That's a great point, and that is the crux of the matter. Can they connect these splinter groups as violent and as far right as they are to acting with and for with the expectation of support from the leadership of an entire political party? You know, the question also, in my mind, is to what degree during the hearings will Fox and Friends, I won't even call it Fox News anymore. I just can't, Fox Editorial, Fox Entertainment, to what degree are they going to try to distract their viewership away from this hearings? We know they're not going to broadcast it, which is, I think, incredible that something of this magnitude and importance is not going to be broadcasted. To what degree or what strategies do you think they may employ as a form of distraction? It's the same one they've always employed. If you're combating for control of the narrative, you're going to present anything that will attract the attention of your base and get enough coverage in the media to also get out into the public arena. You don't have to win that control of the narrative. You just have to not lose it. Do you think it's incumbent upon the Democrats to point out that glaring fact that there is an effort to distract and omit the importance of the hearings? Do you think Democrats have failed yet once again not to point that out in glaring terms? I think that's a really good point, because if you've got a lawyer on cross-examination, he's going to take a witness and he's going to ask them questions. What about this? What about this counter-argument? What about this counter-information? And let the witness provide information that's going to dispel and discredit those false claims. So yeah, if you're going to be effective in an information presentation, if you're going to tell a story to try and gain credibility and persuasiveness, you have to also rebut the information that is presented. But you do it by truthful information presentation that comes together so well and so convincing that the claims to the contrary just don't fly with intelligent people. You can't try to convince the people who are not going to change their minds, whether that's 40% give or take or more or less. Forget that. Focus on that 10%, 15%, 20% that may actually still be taking in information, that still may be weighing information, that still may be forming opinions and decisions. That's a good point. And I know attorneys know this, and I know those who write speeches for public address, they know that it's so much harder to try to persuade someone away from a belief versus a value or an attitude. You can shape an attitude. You can shape a value, but beliefs, once they're set in concrete, good luck. And I think our politics now have really entered into the realm of beliefs versus the politics of values or attitudes. Well, that's an important point, Tim, because if you look at the Republican-talking and strategy, what's most absent from those is the values on which this country was founded and which have so far enabled it to move in very halting steps forward and backward to and from democracy, not to it, but at least in many ways in that direction. And they're moving very, very concertedly away from it toward a minority control, away from popular control. Yeah, I mean, excellent point, Chuck. And I think to further point that out is look at the 2020 GOP platform. There wasn't one. Look at what Mitch McConnell said about the 2024. There won't be one. I mean, so if you don't need a platform, all you need to do is have faith and belief in Donald Trump and that's good enough. I mean, it's a really amazing how we've come down to this point in our politics that policies be damned, they're not important. Only the personality that's leading their party is the important aspect. You know, Tim, that points towards something that hasn't been picked up by media or pretty much anyone. And that is what's missing from this picture is a truly charismatic leader of conscience and character. We have not had one for quite some time. And until such a person or group appears on the scene, this battle can be fought at that very low divisive destructive level. Well, when we haven't seen a charismatic leader like Donald Trump in decades, maybe since FDR or John Kennedy, but certainly he uses his skill set in his rhetoric and I'll say propaganda, not for the best purposes of this nation, for the slow erosion of democracy and to autocracy. And that's the soul of which we're fighting for. And maybe that's the importance of these hearings is to put a spotlight on that, which is a fundamental building block of our government and the principles of our government, a free and fair election. So let me, again, I pontificate a bit. So let me get to, do you expect anything new or earth shattering, you know, a Perry Mason moment to occur on the first day of the hearings? I think what we're looking at on the first day is how are they going to approach this? Who do they really see as their audience? Who are they trying to reach? Who are they trying to convince and persuade? If that is independence, people whose decisions have not yet been made, that's a very different kind of presentation. That's a trial lawyer's presentation. And if it is a trial lawyer's presentation, will it captivate the attention and the interest of the American public? If it were really done that way, I think it would have the best chance possible of achieving that. I don't expect that to happen. And that's disappointing. Yeah, we're almost out of time. That is the high road. Yeah, we're almost out of time. But my last question is this, to what degree will it be a ripple effect that impacts the midterms coming up here in November? Any findings from this hearing that's going to actually either discourage people from turning out to vote or encourage people to turn out to vote? Well, the actions that discourage and encourage people to vote are actually happening more at the state level now than at the national level. The Republicans have made sure at the national level to prevent that kind of protection of our election system from happening. And they have enough sway and enough for the state legislatures to be able to erode that seriously. That's the problem. These hearings will not change that. Good point, excellent point. I want to thank you for being a guest on this show. I'd like to ask you for your last thought or comment about the hearing and let it fly. I would love to see these hearings identify people of character, conscience, and courage who resisted the attempt to undermine and overthrow our electoral process, the choice of the people. If those stories can be told, there may be some room for thought. Alrighty, thank you very much, Chuck. I'd like to thank Chuck Grumpton for joining us. I'm going to conclude with a very mini little editorial and that is, for those who watch Fox News, please enlighten yourself. Turn on another station, watch what's going on, watch the detail that's being presented, and give a hoot about your democracy, not just your party. And with that, I'll say thank you for joining us on American Issues, take one. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. Won't you please join us next Wednesday at 11 o'clock and we'll see you then. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.