When we begin this course is to try and understand the motivation as to why we want to move to a new architectural style, if we are all able to buy into the fact that SOA is going to give us something new, is going to give us something that current technologies do not fully address then I think we would have made a good beginning for the next five days. Without that buy in I think it's just going to be very hard for you to sit there and swallow whatever else is going to come beyond this you know he's just talking of XML he's talking of soap he's talking of this I don't even understand why this is useful I don't want that scenario so I think it's useful to spend the first part of this course especially the morning to understand the motivation so why SOA what is it going to buy us where have we come from what is it that SOA is changing in this scenario what is going to be new about it right so that's what we're going to first talk about and then we'll introduce since the course is also specifically going to focus on web services as an implementation platform for SOA we'll talk about what exactly web services are from an introductory perspective today morning and then certain XML technologies that underlie are at the heart of all the specifications that we are going to explain over the next three days and therefore we may want to get familiar with XML schemas specifically so many of you may have programmed using DTD's for XML but you know DTD's are a thing of the past now and it's being replaced with XML schemas so we won't discuss the details schedule right now we'll discuss it a little later but we'll start off with the motivation for why we think service oriented architectures would be useful what is it that they're going to bring to the table that doesn't exist today I think in order to understand that it would be good to get a historical perspective first of all of where are we coming from right and so that's going to be this part of the talk even before that let's understand what the challenges in enterprise computing are right so these are the standard challenges in enterprise computing that we see we want systems that are scalable you know if you take really large enterprises Johnson Johnson Boeing you know GM and Ford hundreds of thousands employees spread over literally hundreds of locations in the world this is scalability this is true scalability that we're talking about right or you're talking of websites or e-commerce sites can handle millions of users with thousands of concurrent users hitting this particular site it's a scalability is a concern the second thing is that in large enterprises it's very hard to pin down a particular standard to say everybody shall use Windows something or the other and mandate it at the CIO level and expect that to flow down is not very easy to do right there will be pockets which which have different requirements and therefore organically you will expect that certain heterogeneity is going to come into the environment right so diverse environments are going to exist some of the people may even a operating system level at every level at the from the operating system from the hardware onwards all the way up the application stack right the third challenge is in today's age everything has to go faster right I mean it is not not to be able to slow it down so what used to be an 18 month release cycle for software today has shrunk significantly people are pushing for three months or less cycles even though it may not be very practical but certainly the incremental mode of development or features can be quickly released is becoming the norm right for a while I think we ended up sitting and complaining a software engineer saying you know the quality of software is going to suffer if you do this if you keep pushing for faster releases and to get more features out and shorter amounts of time then you're going to end up with poorer software but I think one of the things that we would all realize by now is there's no point complaining about this because this is the way it's going to go right this is only going to get worse if anything in the future so I think time to market is going to be a continual issue that we have to deal with certainly costs are again an issue and cost can be looked at from two perspectives the cost of development you know what does it cost to actually put the software out initially and then more importantly now it turns out that the cost of development of the initial acquisition of software is turning out to be a smaller and a smaller part of the bigger picture right the bigger picture being if I have to run the software for the next 10 years the cost of operations and maintenance are far outstripping the cost of initially deploying the software onto a particular platform right so this O A and M as they call it this issue in enterprises has kind of overtaken this notion of the cost of development so those are some of the challenges in enterprise computing let's keep that in the back of our mind right so these to the first two slides are meant to give you idea of what is it that we want to keep in our focus and then look at what the evolution of software platforms has looked like right so enterprise applications themselves are typically made up of these components that you see here right so there is three components that we commonly know about the presentation logic of the UI is the way that people interact with this then there's the business logic which actually holds the code the business rules type of component the workflow may exist in there and so on and then there is the data access logic because every enterprise system revolves around a lot of data that is stored in typically in relational databases and then a component that we don't often talk about a component that we don't often see are these system services as I call them what are these system services things like security things like concurrency management connection pooling you know all of these things that we use quite a bit today right these are system services and they do not exist in the form that they exist today explicit being part of the infrastructure it was actually very embedded in the early days of software development and that slowly started changing and so we have these four components right so the UI the business logic the data access logic the data itself of course and I'm not explicitly mentioned that and the system services so over the next half an hour or so 20 minutes to half an hour let's take a look at how have software how have the software methodologies however the software systems evolved or the last 15-20 years because I think it's useful to do this in the perspective of it indicates a certain trend and the logical next step in the trend should really be what we should be seeking right so what happens next if we take a look at this trend what would be the next step and if we can answer that with the next step needs to have these features and those features are SOA for us right that's really what we should be looking at that's why this historical perspective I believe is useful so looking at this there are actually two axis along which evolution has proceeded right within software systems the first axis is that of you know how many changes can I make and how easily can I change the software platform in other words how how flexible is my application platform that I'm deploying it on right how much does it cost for me to make a change that is one axis of evolution and the second axis of evolution is where are these system services that we talked about where are they coming from are they embedded are they explicit is their infrastructure for it for this it is not something that is standardized right so those are some of the issues there so there are these two axis of evolution and I think it will become clear as to what I'm talking about if you actually take a look at the different incarnations or avatars that we have gone through right so these are some of the standard out are so we have seen the notion of single tier two tier n tier three tier is just a specific instantiation of that and even within three tier we had remote RPC for I mean remote procedure calls first and therefore the RPC based systems and then we move to more distributed object based systems and then we move to web based systems right finally we are at this notion of what I'm calling application servers that's the technology that is used today out there in the industry to build applications right initially there were proprietary application servers examples being tuxedo decom etc and then the things got standardized somewhere along the way so there was an open standards process that came into being and so that's where we stand and so we briefly discuss each one of these right you are probably familiar with this right so we'll go pretty fast here so single tier everything is monolithic right everything sits in one place I have to point to something but so everything sits in one place these are mainframe based applications right all of these three layers of business logic of presentation logic of data access logic and the database itself sat on the mainframe right and many of you might have even written applications for the mainframe here so it's a very centralized model and it is a very monolithic model so there are two aspects of it right there's no distribution involved here right everything sits in one place and they're typically dumb terminals that were accessing whatever applications around on the mainframe and it is also very monolithic so cobalt type applications maybe using kicks types of infrastructures out there so it is the obvious disadvantages of something like this would be what I mean you've studied single tier systems before right maintenance is hard there are two aspects to maintenance I would say it's hard and it's easy why right the management aspect of it I think if you take maintenance to include the management aspect of it management is much simpler in this scenario right because everything is centralized it's in one location things are not spread all over the place so even my deployment means I just have to redeploy to that one machine right so the management aspect of it is much simpler and so there is no client side management I have not actually spread the UI on several client machines so I don't have to redeploy to that so on so forth and clearly data is all sitting in one place data is not replicated so I don't have to worry about consistency issues if I change one copy of data I don't have to worry about the fact that another copy may go out of sync with this and so on right so those are the advantages of this kind of a model and the obvious cons one so making a change is going to be much harder that's the maintenance is harder kind of an issue and it's all it's all very intertwined in this kind of a scenario therefore making a change is expensive because somebody has to know the whole code well and the learning curve for that may be pretty high so every time somebody leaves the company you're in a whole lot of trouble right so that is the disadvantage of that then we move to two tier systems where we now had a little bit of distribution going on right we point some stuff out we said let the database sit separately right and then everything else was wrapped in what we call a thick client solution it was a fat client which had the business logic with had the UI which had date data access logic which was going and talking to the database right so we were able to split this thing out and the advantage of this was that it gave us the ability to move from database vendor product to vendor product right so we could since the database was separate we could essentially separate the database although it was not as simple as today where we have a standard interface to write to a database and no matter which database you're using that interface is going to work right what do we see JDBC whatever it wasn't quite so then but certainly this gives us the independence to replace the database engine itself there's still a lot of problems with this scenario right so the UI and the business logic was still very intertwined with each other and it was difficult making changes suddenly deployment was a nightmare because there were thick clients and if you had a thousand clients and these things were deployed there every time you made a change you have to update these thousand clients it was very tightly coupled to the data model because all the logic was sitting on the client side and every time I made a change in the schema of the data model then you know I would be in a lot trouble because it would break all the clients that were out there and I had to redeploy a change to that the other thing was scalability right every one of these clients required an independent connection to the database and the database engine you know can only support so many independent connections to it right you have to vertically scale the database engine there is no horizontal scalability that was affordable at the database side you can't because today there's a notion of database clusters are now coming into play but again that's that's the latest very latest in database software right so parallel databases if you will but that didn't exist at that point in time so you had to throw more and more iron at the database engine in order to support scalability which was not a very workable proposition right and finally the the final issue was that you would it for check all applications would be chatty by nature right so it would have to go to the database come back go to the database come back and if there's a network separating the two you would be in trouble so we said okay that's not going to work out as well so let's distribute things even further let's break things apart so that we can independently replace the different piece parts of it without affecting the others so we went to three tier I mean three tier what we did was we put the business logic in a middle tier which was then talking to the database the data access in the business logic sat in one tier and the UI or the presentation logic sat somewhere else right and there was RPC from the UI to the business logic and then there was SQL which are typically the databases with relational nature being accessed through SQL right the middle tier now had to handle all these notion all these notions of system services now started coming into play right because there was a middle tier now I had to handle concurrency there were thousands of clients hitting the middle tier right the database engine which was used to handle concurrency now is now that responsibility got transferred somewhere to the middle tier the database engine still does handle concurrency but then now there's also concurrency management of the middle tier that is required right all authentication may be done by the the middle tier the security because there's a network involved encryption now come needs to come into play so on and so forth right with this monolithic mainframe solution this was not an issue there's no network really involved right so these kind of issues come into play system services now have to be coded so what are the pros and cons of this right so here the notion was that I would completely insulate the client from the data model right so the MVC paradigm if you will right so I will insulate the client from the data model so if my schema changes my client itself doesn't have to change but however the business logic may change and therefore I will keep the clients completely safe from that perspective right so business logic can also flexibly change that was another advantage of this without affecting too many of the clients themselves so there was an interface specification as long as the clients were hitting that interface specification it didn't matter the implementation of the business logic could change along the road right now it so happened that once I created this middle tier it became a beast of its own right now it became quite complex to manage the middle tier and in those days there were no such things as app servers right therefore the complexity that was being introduced in the middle tier had to be handled by the developers who wrote the applications themselves right that was the very early versions of the three tier RPC based systems right and the client and the middle tier server were a little more coupled to each other because it was an RPC or a procedural model as opposed to an object oriented model and also the notion of being able to flexibly replace components being able to have clear abstractions of functionality which could be you know taken out and replaced with some other component did not exist in this right so that was the next natural evolution we moved to a remote object or a distributed objects in a year after that right so the business logic and the data were captured in nicely encapsulated entities called objects and these objects are components as they're called could essentially be pulled out and replaced with another equivalent object that satisfied the same interface specification but could do things differently whatever so now we had the notion remember what we started out with we said that evolution happened along two axes one was the axis of how much flexibility I got out of this system right clearly objects versus procedures there's a lot more flexibility there because you have these encapsulations that you can replace at will if you were there was a promise at least right not necessarily that it was realized fully but that was the promise right so this notion of reuse also could come into play where a single abstraction that was created could be advertised and reuse by many people right so that was the object oriented paradigm distributed objects examples here are rmi and decon right I'm going to distinguish between rmi and j2e because j2e is actually the next natural evolution along the rmi paradigm rmi came earlier and rmi simply gave you a way of remotely accessing java objects over a network right so and so there was some interface language we described these objects in the case of rmi the interface language was java itself there was there was no separate interface language okay so the pros here are it was it was better in the rpc model because from the coupling perspective and there was a lot more flexibility that was afforded there were all these data abstractions that were created abstractions could be reuse therefore the reuse levels went up right and there was the situation where you could pull out certain abstractions and replace it with other equivalent abstractions right but this notion of middle tier complexity did not go away you have an rmi application you still have to manage everything yourself it's not that somebody is going to manage connection pooling for you connection pooling is not a part of rmi right it is part of something that you have written because you find that to be useful I want to multiply database connections amongst multiple people who want to use the database connection right so that is the notion of connection pooling there then actually before we address that what happened was we were still with thick clients but then the browser became very popular right so we started saying wait a minute why don't we simply instead of having thick clients from the the client side and having heavy duty boxes machine species which have to be maintained operating systems upgraded every so often virus containment all these issues let me keep a thin client just so that it can run a browser that is my minimalist thin client probably boots off a network operating system somewhere so that it is not affected by viruses right and all it runs is a browser that's the only capability that I need of a client if I have this I will be able to deliver all my standard enterprise applications out of browser so that was the three tier or n tier the three is just a metaphor for how many of our tiers you want to have right but the client was just a browser so html was the standard thing and there was the browser was talking HTTP to the server and so even the UI component of it actually sat on the server this is your standard jsp kind of a model right so let's the UI component sits in the server is served out of a server but is simply displayed by a browser right so the pros was that the browser is ubiquitous it doesn't matter what operating system you have it doesn't matter what kind of client you have whether you have pc whether you have a thin client whether whatever you have whether you have linux whether you have windows you have a browser that's all is needed and the browser talks a standard to the back end which is to HTTP and it understands how to display html which is also a standard right so that is ubiquitous client types there was no client to manage unlike a thick client I didn't have to deploy software on the client side right any change I made to the UI was also deployed once on the server and you are done the next time the client reloaded that page he got the latest changes right department and sizing also play hero yeah so that complexity started load balancing and all those issues exactly so the in fact the one of the issues is the more we started pushing towards the server in the middle tier the complexity of the middle tier infrastructure services started going higher and higher right so now we had to manage all the issues that you brought up so we had to load balance we had to deal with security and and so on so that's exactly the point that is going to make which is that is still a con of this approach is that you don't have the complexity in the middle tier has not gone away so that's an issue that we have not saw so then we said that along the evolutionary path so this is the the summary of the evolution that has taken place up till this point right so we went from single tier to multi-tier we wanted to distribute things so and we wanted to insulate one layer from another layer right it's kind of a little software but on the horizontal level right so you're creating many horizontal layers and the layer on the leftmost hand will be insulated from the layer on the rightmost hand through intervening layers that are sitting in between so that was one thing that we did we moved from what is obviously very monolithic software to clear small abstractions that are working together these are object orientation is what we call it and this gave us a lot of flexibility and helped us improve our use which was the two important things and then we started moving more from thick clients you know application clients to more html based web based browser based front tanks so so far this has happened and this is again just a summary of going from single to multi-tier what was the difference right this is the two ends of the spectrum single to multi-tier and we've seen this already going from monolithic to going to be more object based what is the difference so monolithic there was a single file every time you made the smallest change to the application you have to recompile the entire application and put it out there that was a notion of monolithic software and in the case of object based or component based you have all these small small parts and you can simply recompile each part and dump it out there right so in fact in the case of Java now you can even recompile a class in the Java application is running and you can just deploy a class onto a running application so it will just reload the class and run with it right so you never have to even bring down the existing system okay so the outstanding issues however that we have not solved so far which is what our interest is in is that the middle tier complexity still was very high in fact it got worse and worse because middle tier was a beast that we created along the way it didn't exist earlier right so this started actually getting uncontrollable and a lot of the system services that were necessary people were inventing on an ad hoc basis how do I solve the concurrency control problem everybody was coming up with their own solution every application developer came up with his own solution how do I do connection pooling came up with his own solution etc and so this is obviously something that we didn't want so we said let's create a common server for this right these are problems that are commonly faced by every enterprise application so let's dump all this into some kind of infrastructure software that's what we're going to do right and we call this the app server the application server right on this was actually a the notion of a container right the container notion came along or it was called a container a little later but that's essentially what it was so it was that you know I had a container let me just solve so this actually looked like a bucket of a container and the container actually gave you a certain system services so these are the API that the the container afforded for the application programs to call so these are container API and into the container you drop application components or objects so this is what it looked like and this container was simply an abstraction for the different system services that were previously being duplicated by various people right so that was the notion and we had several containers then come up so there was the notion of corba which was one of the earliest forms of the container logic so we moved from the d-com rmi to j2e slash corba slash dot net kind of a notion so this is the container the container could obviously be either be proprietary or it could be it could be open standards based right so anything can be either proprietary or open standards same thing with the container so the the contract between the the container itself and the application components that resided within the container was well defined and that was defined either by the vendor of the software so Microsoft gave the software and it was dot net that you are buying then it you had a particular way of interacting with the dot net API or if it was j2e there was some way of interacting with it the API should quite well specify so some of the earliest ones were tuxedo also as a container so it was basically a transaction manager right there was kicks which was another transaction manager that was used here and so on the obvious problem of the solution is that is vendor locking right so suppose I go to Microsoft and I'm stuck with Microsoft once I start building my applications it doesn't interact very well with others I can build bridges from Microsoft solutions to other solutions but these bridges would be custom bridges that I would have to code in it doesn't come with a standard way of interacting with other applications so I could not have you know solutions that had tipco and tuxedo talking with the Microsoft dot net very easily it was not something that I could easily buy right so then we said we want an open standards based solution in fact the open standards based solution was one of the first things to come up right so if you how many of you remember corba in this space and even if you have worked with corba before this is one person so corba was this standard called the common object request broker architecture and this came out of a standard body called omg the same people who put uml out as a standard first create they weren't in charge of uml earlier so they started with this distributed object standard which is called corba which was nothing but an application server for distributed objects but their focus was a little different right their focus was actually inter language interoperability so that you could have clients written in say C++ talking to servers written in java or whatever other language and the common meeting point of this was some kind of an interface definition language a canonical representation of the interfaces that both the client and the server cycle don't understand right so that was the notion so it's the same the container and the component model that we discussed with the proprietary solution except that here that contract between the component in the container is an open standard right so anybody can implement such a container and if there was a standards compliant container obviously I can drop my objects or components into such a thing without having to worry about whether it's going to work correctly or not right it will is the expectation things right that's the notion of a standard and the other advantage of open standards based solutions obviously are that I can influence this particular standard right so with j2e or with web services today anybody can essentially go to the to the standardization committee and say I want a standard for this right so that is such a requirement and if everybody sees this requirement as being common one then the standardization process kicks off for that particular requirement right so here are some of the standards some people claim that j2e is a some proprietary solution it's not there is something called a java community process or jcp which allows anybody to float something called a jsr or a service request that will handle standardization of some particular java feature right anybody can become a member of the jcp it's a free membership from what I know maybe industries have to pay a little bit but the point is that it is open right so anybody else will be able to influence the standard as well right in advantage of course with java side is that there is portability of core because everything is java based and and so on but you don't have to stick to that that's just a happenstance so far this is the this kind of completes a historical look at where we stand today right this is roughly the scenario where we have this notion of application servers right there are open standards based container component contracts that are defined right and you can write enterprise applications in fact most enterprise applications written or written based on these kinds of standards and deploy and we have the system services have been well enough studied and we have solutions that are out there that address these problems of scalability address these problems of heterogeneity and to some extent if you use java the issue of portability is also solved for you right in fact one of the advantages of an open container is that it's things are portable right so if you have for example a cobra based application and today my cobra vendor is going to be somebody or even j2e for that for that matter suppose IBM is my j2e vendor right with web sphere then I can have a web sphere based solution IBM makes me mad for whatever reason nobody from IBM here right and so I can tell IBM you know get lost I don't want to deal with you I am in fact going to switch to web logic and they are also a j2e compliant container as a result of which I can take my application which was running on web sphere drop it into the j2e container and everything will work when I go from vendor to vendor that's one of the advantages right that's that's the aspect of portability that will exist for you all right so that's what have we not solved is then the question that comes up remember what we started out with what are the challenges in enterprise computing that's what we started out with these were three of the challenges but there were some more going forward right so what did we not solve you remember what the others were forgotten cost of maintenance yeah cost of deployment and ownership and maintenance was a major issue the middle tier logic is expensive but it has kind of solved some of the problem so we we have made it clear logic which is the application server logic that we have it has solved some problems to solve the scalability problem so you have enterprise applications deployed that have hundreds of thousands of users accessing it today so ebay for example runs on j2e right ebay is a huge company in terms of the number of people hitting it so all their back end enterprise applications are written using j2e so that issue of scalability heterogeneity etc has been sought right with the middle tier logic so one thing that we did not solve was the time to market issue we we kind of made things much more flexible than they were before but today what happens when you develop an application is that you have a component let's say that you're going to reuse a lot of stuff which is great right this is the best possible scenario is that you're reusing a lot of stuff so you bring the component in house right and now you have to write blue code or integration code for these components to work together right so for example let's say you have a standard enterprise solution it has billing it has auto management it has trouble ticketing this is stuff that you should be seeing in every enterprise right so you buy a billing solution of the shelf you buy a trouble ticketing solution of the shelf you buy some order management solution of the shelf inventory solution of the shelf but how are these things going to be made to work together is still an open issue right it's not true that everybody is going to be writing j2e application therefore you can get a billing j2e application of the inventory j2e application and so on right so you may have SAP you may have some the portal for billing etc etc you bring all these in house you have to still write code right which i call glue code or integration code you have to integrate these applications that involves so that's why if the whole brand of people who are called systems integrators right these are the people who sit and write integration code they design integration strategies for these things and it's all point to point integration right so every time i build a by a solution i will have to build bridges for this solution with whatever else i have in house already it's point to point integration right so it quickly in a large enterprise which may have hundreds of applications in fact there's a survey done at Boeing a couple of years ago where they found that they had something like 1700 enterprise applications deployed at various places within Boeing various sectors 1700 applications a lot of these were talking to each other through point to point interconnections that had been made just imagine what the picture is going to look like it's a nightmare to manage right so there are lines going from it's like a fully connected graph hardly something that we want right so we want a bus instead of a graph right where everybody can talk to a bus so the the notion that the point i'm trying to make is this time to market issue has still not been resolved because we are sitting and integrating stuff every time even though we have these nicely encapsulated components that we can reuse we still have to integrate right that's not going to come for free and that will affect time to market so that's i believe we have not solved the issue because of that right so i know you notice that i've kind of removed the cost of development aspect of it here because we have we've come a long way in server side component models today right we don't have to code a lot of the system services they come coded for us it's it will in fact it's pretty easy to write a j2e application right for purely from a functionality perspective it's not that hard to write one of these applications so the how are the cost of operation and maintenance still remains i have to deploy all these applications myself right which means i need to figure out all the hardware sizing requirements blah blah blah myself capacity management which is a huge issue if i if i'm going to scale um and i have to host all these things every time an upgrade of a database takes place i have to get the upgrades i have to install it i have to shut the whole thing down it's kind of a mess it's not that easy to deal with in fact most enterprises that you will talk to today should be reflecting this picture especially people who are out there and i see for example in vipro a couple people here this picture should be what you're seeing and if it's not then you should let's talk about it i mean because that's it's important for me to understand this as well right so this is an issue that's not solved above all there is something else that is going on that has changed the way we do business that current application architectures have not taken into account right remember we've talked about the notion of b2b earlier right so b2c and b2b you all heard of these terms business to business and business to consumer now business to consumer we've kind of solved this web based application we have it out there we have a web based content any consumer connected for more the internet great fantastic but business to business is not as simple to solve it's a it's a different proposition now you need to have machine to machine interaction which can understand what is going on i need to be able to call on some functionality that is sitting beyond my enterprise boundary there are different enterprise boundaries and now my business process is actually going to cut across these enterprise boundaries it no longer is my business process confined to my enterprise today right so the question is and if we are going to collaborate why are the internet has the have the solutions that we have today are they able to take advantage of the internet are they even able to work over the internet would be the next question that we had asked ourselves so i don't believe so and we will discuss why but this is these are some of the issues that are not yet been done right so it leads us to the next natural evolution of this notion of distributed object based app servers or component based app servers what is it going to look like it has to solve these problems right in a nutshell that is what so is right for for me that's what so is in a nutshell at least in the industry you may hear various terms about oh so is not a technology it is not a methodology it's some way cloud you know that's out there and you've got to be doing it how do i do it you know hire us and we'll help you solve the problem is the typical response that you get what we we're going to try to do here over the next five days is to kind of debunk that myth so to speak right it is something specific otherwise there's no point in talking about it except to make money which is okay nothing wrong with doing that but you shouldn't be making money and trying to scare people


We are hosting the Federal Bureau of Investigation's large vehicle bomb post-blast analysis course. It is a joint venture between us, the DOD, the United States Marine Corps, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If this was a real event, the people here today training would be the actual individuals responding to that potential type of event. Today, the students in the class are coming out and they're processing the crime scenes, collecting valuable evidence, identifying IED components, trying to determine what the charge was, approaching how big the charge was, and what the vehicles involved were. Camp Pendleton offers a great venue for the Southern California area. You need to have remote areas to conduct such operations because they are inherently dangerous. The normal explosive ranges that we have available to us are far too small, and we're usually limited to one-pound shots. On military bases, we've gone everywhere from a couple hundred pounds all the way up to 10,000 pounds. Southern California is very highly populated. Therefore, it has a robust first responder infrastructure. Whether that be San Diego County, LA County, Riverside, Orange County, we actually have representatives from all those counties. The majority of Southern California here today on site here conducting training. We branch out outside of the DOD and work with our civilian counterparts. When we're able to do that type of training, build those types of relationships, teach them what we know, and they can teach a little bit of what they know. The relationships build from there. You understand you have professional working relationships. Once you have that, and once you start to build trust with your other agencies, when it does come time for you to actually work together, it's that much more seamless.


Life is good all this month at Appalachian Wireless. Get the LG G5 for just one penny with sign up or renewal of a two-year service agreement. That's almost $100 off the regular price. Better service, bigger savings. That's today's Appalachian Wireless. And we're following some breaking news tonight out of Pike County after a two-day search for missing Elkhorn City man crews have located his ATV. EKB Shannon Deskins joins us now with the latest information. Shannon? Hey, Gary. We are live on scene right now at the top of Beaver Mountain just outside of Elkhorn City. Now, earlier today we brought you the story of a 53-year-old Richard Rainey who's been missing since Saturday. Family members say he left and was last seen about one o'clock Saturday afternoon on his ATV. That's the last time anyone saw him. Search crews have been out for the last two days. Actually earlier this afternoon they suspended searches. They felt like they had searched this area pretty well, but this was the last area they searched. And that ATV right before dark was located. So Mr. Rainey's ATV is located actually out this road behind me. Pike County Emergency Management Director Doug Tackett says we are about 15 minutes away for some search dogs actually coming on the scene. So hopefully, whether permitting, they will be able to locate him sometime tonight. So we promise to stay on scene for a while longer and bring you the latest information as far as the missing man from Elkhorn City. Again, just to let you know, this four-wheeler has been located, but he has not yet. So we'll bring you that information. Reporting from just outside Elkhorn City, I'm Shannon Descensure.


Hi guys and welcome back to my channel, it's Justine, thanks so much for tuning in for another video. In today's video I'm going to be doing a one and done, yes this is my first one and done on my channel, meaning I'm just going to use one product only. So for this one and done I'll be using the Talia Wajid Curly Curl Cream. The claims of this product states it gives extreme curl definition, no buildup or frizz, moisturizes and conditions your hair with shea butter and sage. This product is made for hair textures that are curly, kinky, wavy and coily. This product is also non-greasy, it revitalizes your curls while adding shine and moisture. The texture of this product is very creamy and it also holds your hair and styles in place and it smells really good. So I'm just going to be starting out on freshly washed hair, I've already did my hair, it's nice and clean and refreshed so it's probably dry right now because I've been walking around the house doing everything except for getting on camera and doing this one and done. So it's probably dry but I've got some warm water here. So for those that know what I'm talking about you've got to have warm water if you are working with low-prosty hair because it just opens up those hair cuticles and just allows the product to absorb easily into your hair strands. So going to go ahead and get started with this video so without further hesitation let's get started. This has got to be the best wash and go product my hair has ever come across. This is a low-prosty friendly product and that's what I like about it because I have low-prosty hair and some styling products just sit on my hair, they do not penetrate in my hair, absorb into my hair. This product definitely does, I mean the product claims are true. The product claims with this product are true so it's not greasy, it does eliminate the frizz. I don't really see frizz because I know how my hair looks when it's frizz because it looks like a dry frizz and I don't have that look. My hair is very shiny, it's very soft, it feels very conditioned and moisturized. So everything that the product claims says on here honestly I feel is true at least from my hair and my hair is just shiny, it's bouncy, it's hydrated and very conditioned and my curls are defined. I keep looking in this mirror, I'm sorry y'all, I keep looking at my hair because I can't really see it in the viewfinder here but my hair is extremely soft from this product. It's not heavy, it does not weigh my hair down, it's very lightweight even though it feels very thick and creamy, it is actually very lightweight. The one thing I would caution, I don't want to say caution but the one thing that I would advise when using this product is make sure that your hair is soaking wet because it's such a big product, sometimes it kind of will make your hair feel a little stiff but once you get more water in there it just makes the process of applying this product very smooth, very easy and you can easily get the product into your hair and your curls define. So just make sure that your hair is soaking wet like straight after washing out your conditioner or shampoo or whatever you're doing. Just go ahead and immediately start applying this product to your hair, otherwise you have to do like me and keep using the water bottle for each little section because my hair did dry out some because I was doing other stuff around the house. It definitely gives extreme curl definition like it says, I don't see any residue on my hair whatsoever, stuff goes on as a cream but it starts to dry very clear and as you're applying it to your hair it also, being that it's absorbed into your hair, it also just starts to clear as well. Yeah, just very moisturizing, this is a really great product, like I can't say enough about it. It's a really great wash and go if you want to do a one and done or a wash and go product that will give you the moisture, the definition, the conditioning and just the overall shine and softness of your hair, this is definitely it. What I'm also enjoying about this product in my hair is that my hair feels very lightweight, very airy and fluffy and I can do this and do that and it's just so lightweight. It's very, very lightweight and I can't stop doing this. The extreme softness of this product is unbelievable man, oh my goodness. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love it. Absolutely love it. Look at this big old curl back there. Yay, let's go to curls. Very well pleased and happy. This will be a staple in my house from here on out. This will definitely be in my favorite natural hair stash when I want to do a one and done or a quick wash and go. Once again, I thank you guys so much for watching this video. I hope you enjoyed it. If you did, please give it a thumbs up because it does help my channel. Don't forget to subscribe to my channel and also share my content, my videos across your social media and comment down below. It's Justine and I will see you guys on the next video. Bye guys. I'll see you guys several hours later and I just want to give you guys an update of how my hair turned out and the final results once it was finally and fully dry. So I will say that this product has absolutely no crunch. I was expecting a gel cast but there's no cast whatsoever on my hair, zero crunch. It's still very soft. It is very full now since it is dry because I have major shrinkage. But it actually didn't shrink as bad as I thought it would so I still have a little bit of elongation. But when my hair was wet, when it was damp, the product definitely elongated my hair more. But of course as it dried then you know kind of shrunk up. But not as bad as I had expected. It still has shine to it. It definitely has a lot of body to it. I wasn't expecting as much body as I have but it does. It's very full. My curls are still popping. It may not look like it on camera but on this camera it probably is not doing any justice at all. But my curls, definitely great curl definition with this product. My curls are still holding. Absolutely nothing bad to say about this product whatsoever. I just wanted to show you guys my final results of this product. I hope you guys like it. I love it. This will definitely be my go-to wash and go or one and done product. This product I don't need nothing else on my hair like this is all I need. It gives me everything and all will give me and whatever leave-ins I will put in my hair. It feels like all of that is in my hair already. So I don't need any extra. Just a little ish control. That's it. Pretty much. And yeah. On to go. Nothing else to say about the product. Other than I like it. So yay.


Hi, I'm Jean Bergman from the old north end of Burlington and for 20 years I was an assistant city attorney and senior assistant attorney for the city of Burlington, including being the attorney for the department of public works. And that's important because today we are here to talk trash solid waste collection and public ownership with Thomas Hannah, the research director of the democracy collaborative. And we're discussing this because Burlington is currently discussing moving away from our inefficient and costly fragmented system to a new consolidated system. And we're going to talk about the advantages of a public not for profit, democratically controlled system that also promotes the most union jobs with good wages and benefits, and also the largest reductions in fossil fuel emissions. So, welcome Thomas. Can you tell people a little bit about yourself in the democracy collaborative. Sure. And first of all, thank you so much Jean for having me it's a real pleasure to be speaking with you all today on a topic that's really really close to my heart. The democracy collaborative is an R&D lab for a more democratic and equitable economy. We've been around for about 20 years, although our roots go back much further really into the 1960s through a number of different institutions as well as the work of our co founder, Gar Alperovitz who some of your viewers may know about. This is Gus Spieth, also part of a he's a Vermonter right here. Yes, Gus is Gus is gussing Gar are the co chairs of our next system project which we might be able to talk about a little bit more but but yeah and Gus and Gar both have a lot of connections to Vermont so I'm sure a lot of people have have met or know about them. We're probably most well known I think for our community wealth building framework which is really about developing a new paradigm of local economic development that centers alternative models of ownership and control, rather than simply throwing billions of dollars in subsidies that like you know, large corporations like Amazon or Walmart and so on. And a good example of this is some of the work that we did in Cleveland Ohio where we helped develop a community controlled cooperative network called the evergreen cooperatives and evergreen has been really really successful over the years about 10 years old, and now has about five linked worker cooperatives with more than 300 worker owners and if anyone's interested in the work of the democracy collaborative in general or the evergreen cooperatives or so on, you can check out our website it's at democracy collaborative.org. And so as you mentioned I'm the research director here to the democracy collaborative and I've been research director for about the past five years or so. And I focus mostly on alternative models of ownership things like cooperatives publicly owned enterprises which we're going to talk a lot about today, social enterprises employee owned businesses and so on and so forth. And along with my colleagues from around the world I really tried to develop what a new model of public ownership something that we call democratic public ownership so rather than the sort of old top down democratic very managerial forms of public ownership that predominated in in the 20th century, the, you know, the state owned enterprise that many people are familiar with. We're really talking about different new 21st century models of public ownership that really combined some of the more democratic and participatory governance and management relationships, as you can find in cooperatives and common space enterprises, and combining those with the broad based ownership patterns that I think are really valuable parts of public ownership. So I mean, and I think you wrote a book called our Commonwealth the return of public ownership in the United States. So, yeah, a little bit. Thank you for plugging the book yeah that was a book I wrote a couple years ago and I think very relevant to the conversation today and so if people want to check that out it really covers the scope and scale of public ownership that many people don't really know about in the United States. So, I guess that leads to the first question why should anyone care if our trash is collected by the by the city and to say it in another way, why is it important that solid waste collection is run by the city and a not for profit democratic basis. Yeah, there are there are many reasons why I think that trash collection should be in public ownership but first and foremost is really about democratic control. So unlike a privately owned service, which has really only one overriding goal and that's to turn a profit. Unlike that publicly owned services can really be designed according to whatever a local population decides it wants to prioritize. For instance, many publicly owned enterprises around the world and around the United States prioritize lower costs for consumers. For example, I think a really good example of both of these, you know, the lower costs for consumers but also the revenue generation is the electricity sector, which I think people in Burlington are probably pretty familiar with, but in general publicly owned electric utilities have been proven by decades of research to have lower costs for electricity and return more of their revenues to cities than their counterparts the so called investor owned utilities. Beyond that some publicly owned services services really prioritize equitable access things like providing providing affordable internet access to disenfranchised or underserved populations or something that's particularly relevant today is not disconnecting people's water service, if they're having financial difficulties we've seen that a lot for the pandemic where it's been proven through research that publicly owned water utilities don't disconnect their customers at the same rate as privately owned utilities do. Some publicly owned utilities really prioritize environmental concerns things like establishing efforts to switch to renewable energy or to lower energy consumption so basically for me you know taking way services into public ownership would really give the people of Burlington a powerful social economic and environmental tool that they could then democratically decide how best to deploy to address their concerns. There are other reasons I think for public ownership that are worth briefly mentioning and I think the first is this concept of natural monopoly and, and there are certain sectors and geographic areas where for various reasons technical capital, environmental reasons, a single provider of a service is really preferable and more effective and efficient. And this is often seen as I said in the electricity sector the water sector and waste sector among many others and, and I think it's one of the reasons I gather that Burlington is considering its, its waste service but the problem really is though that when you have a natural monopoly, and you place it into private for profit hands, these natural monopolies become really engines for inequality, unaccountability and wealth extraction from local communities and even the free marketeers understand this and, and the most famous of the free marketers of all Milton Friedman, he actually once wrote that in the case of these large technical monopolies of vital services, quote, private unregulated monopoly isn't preferable and that public ownership actually might be more preferable and these were Milton Friedman's words. Milton Friedman said that public ownership of these natural monopolies is more preferable. Public ownership or public regulation for him of natural monopolies was preferable to private monopoly. And so yeah so even the free marketeers got it and I think that the second important reason for me really critical reason it's, it's about inequality, you know public ownership can really reduce economic and social inequality in various ways and I already mentioned a couple with regards to lowering cost for consumers and, and ensuring that shareholders and wealthy owners don't just enrich themselves off of, off of basic public services but there, there's another way as well. And this is that in general jobs in publicly owned services are more equitable in terms of race and gender. They have union protections on a more stable, and they provide quality healthcare retirement benefits and all of these are really key ingredients of reducing inequality that we've seen really explode in our country. Over the past 30 or 40 years and so just to reiterate for me though, I think all these things are important, but for me, the absolute most important thing about public ownership is that it's a really inherently flexible ownership form. And as I mentioned it's not constrained in the same ways as private ownership and can be deployed for whatever reason a community sees fit and there's this really great EF Schumacher quote that's I think really just worth really briefly reading Schumacher was an economist about the book small as beautiful I think people might be aware of him up there in Vermont but he said that private ownership of the means of production is severely limited in its freedom of choice objectives, because it's compelled to be profit seeking, and tends to take a narrow and selfish view of things public ownership gives complete freedom and choice of objectives, and can therefore be used for purposes that may be chosen. I think darn good.  So, so I'd like you to put it in a little bit more detailed context in a national and international context, and talk about the movement for public ownership that this here in Burlington is a part so we can understand if we're alone or we're actually not alone and not an outlier in this. Can you give us that overview. Yeah, definitely. And, you know, first and foremost, you know, there's obviously been a lot of pressure for privatization over the past 40 years, the sort of neoliberal period of privatization and marketization and liberalization but despite this pressure and despite this 40 year period, public ownership around the world remains really quite popular and and also quite popular here in the United States as we mentioned before I wrote a whole book about how popular and prevalent and ubiquitous public ownership is in the US and, and for instance, I, you know, 25 to 30% of all electricity in the US is supplied by publicly owned enterprises or cooperative utilities. And 85% of people in the US get their water from a publicly owned provider and that's, that's actually substantially higher than many places in the world like you know the UK for instance where they, they privatized a lot of their water and have pretty disastrous results for their, their water service. So I guess in solid waste in the United States with the department of public works it said that a significant section about 5050 a little bit less of the municipalities are doing their own solid waste collection I mean I have a relatives in Montana who is, and that's a public system so you know it's fairly standard in the waste collection system as well but I interrupted you go on please. Yeah, no, no problem I might talk a little bit about my personal experience with with waste in my community and in a little bit you know just to keep going we have a, you know we have a publicly owned national railroad which again is something that a lot of countries privatized that they don't have we have a publicly owned poster postal service which I know is under a lot of pressure and we have a guy in there right now who's trying to dismantle it but but you know it's a, it's a gem it's a, it's a gem of public ownership that you know generally works very well and, and we need to preserve and enhance it rather than dismantle it and privatize it I mean, you know a third of all land in the United States is publicly owned, you know several states especially it's like Western Republican states have these giant sovereign publicly owned wealth funds like Alaska, you know that basically has this multi billion dollar fund that pays out of basic income, a basic dividend to do every resident of the state of Alaska in Texas they have a giant publicly owned sovereign wealth fund that owns stocks, bonds, real estate, other, you know land, and they take a billion dollars or so out of this fund every year and give it to every public school district in the state of Texas to subsidize or underwrite their public schools and ensure that they, you know they can do new school facilities and they can get lower cost bonds and so on and so you know when you have people from Texas come to you and tell you that the Texas miracle is based on, on cutting taxes and, and, and you know not having income tax and all those things they don't also tell you that it's also based on socialism in Texas. Interesting. And what about reminip municipalization it's a long kind of complicated word to say, or re public ownership. Is there a movement on that as well. Exactly yeah yeah so reminicipalization as you said a very hard term to say but it's the process of really taking a service that has been privatized, or has always been you know considered in the purview of the private sector and bringing public hands, usually at the local level and, and recently the Transnational Institute which is a nonprofit organization based in Amsterdam that I have a lot of close connections with. They've identified around 1400 successful reminicipalization cases involving 2400 cities and 58 countries around the world and, and this is really just the tip of the iceberg there are large swaths of the world that this data has not yet been collected so you know we're talking probably, you know, tens of thousands of reminicipalization cases over the last 1015 years has really been this reversal we have this privatization era of the 80s and 90s. And there's really been a pushback, especially since the turn of the century, where lots of communities are have experienced the downside to privatization they've experienced the detriments, and they started to bring back public services into public hands and as of yesterday we've looked at the database, there are 85 cases in that database of reminicipalization in the waste sector alone. And a lot of these cases have been in Canada, actually, and in places like Winnipeg, Quebec City, Sherbrooke, St. John. So I think as Burlington moves forward on this process of reminicipalizing its waste services, there's some really great experiences to draw from around the world but also just over the border in Canada there's probably a lot of people there who have experienced with this process of that can assist Burlington and provide best practices and case studies and so on and so forth. And the US is really definitely very much a part of this global reminicipalization movement.  It's the fastest growing sector of public ownership in the United States and many communities, the ones that are not served by the private for-profit telecoms giants, they've been essentially establishing super fast broadband networks in some places like Georgia, Tennessee, they were the first community in the United States to have a one, I think it's a big connection, and then they've moved it up progressively they have some of the fastest internet in the country in this municipal network in in Chattanooga and because of this companies are trying to relocate there people are trying to relocate there it's a giant economic development engine. There's been around 70 water reminicipalizations in the United States in the past couple of decades and I mentioned that, you know, the majority of people in the United States get their water from a publicly owned provider but there has been some privatization there's been a lot of reversals of that recently as well. There have been new campaigns all over the country in the electricity sector to reminicipalize in conjunction with the climate change crisis and also the green energy transition crisis, you know, Chicago, there's a big effort in PG with PG&E in California because, you know, PG&E doesn't take care of their transmission lines and they start giant forest fires and there's some really great publicly owned utilities in California that are really good examples of how you can do electricity and water and other utilities in much more interesting ways so there's a big effort with PG&E as well. Public banks as well as a huge campaign. California has had a lot of success with public banking legislation there's now state level legislation in California that authorizes up to 10 local public banks to be created. And then there's activist campaigns in LA and San Francisco and other places to set up publicly owned banks and it's actually one of the most vibrant public banking movements in the world I go overseas and I talk in in Europe and places and people who work in public banking like how do you get people interested in public banks why is there such a vibrant activist movement about public banks in the United States and a lot of it has to do with climate change divestment standing rock was a big motivation of people, you know, really who are the funders of these pipelines who are the funders of climate changes the big banks that's the JP Morgan is the Wells Fargo's and and cruise funding that well you know all of our city deposits are in Wells Fargo and JP Morgan and so on so there's a very vibrant public banking movement here in the United States. So we've you've raised, you've raised a lot of things and we'll probably have to have you back because we've we had experience with a public cable company, and that an internet provider that didn't go so well but there are still people that are struggling for a cooperative program and so and and we have definitely looked at places like Montreal for the way they have been transforming their transportation system in relationship to protected bike lanes and have sent people up there so the idea that Quebec and other places in in Canada have been re municipalizing their solid waste is something that we'll have to to look at a little bit more closely so you know that'll that'll be good. Let's talk about the, the hot button items we would need to address in bringing a municipal solid waste system here cost and service and innovation because I know that Berlin Tony and want to know how will the city do it, you know, we are fairly idealistic but we're also pretty critical. We want to make sure that it's going to work we're going to make sure that we can afford it. And so, in looking at, if you can do some solid waste examples but if not other ways, how the public is performing their these functions in terms that are as good if not better than the public sector, in terms of cost and service and innovation and ecological stewardship that'd be really helpful. And I think I'll just start with a with a personal anecdote and I mentioned before that I that I live in a place I live in, I live in Virginia, and for many years in Virginia I lived in the county so I live just outside of the city limits of the local small city. And in the county our trash collection was privatized and there was a lot of restrictions on, on what you could pick up, or they would pick up and what you couldn't and anytime you'd have to be home renovations you'd have to load up your personal vehicle drive several miles away to the solid waste transfer station, you know pay a fee to dispose of the waste and, and all of that and then a few years ago I moved into the actual city limits where we have a publicly owned waste collection system a very integrated efficient. You know, very, very good system and they'll literally pick up anything that you put put on the curve you can demolish an entire bathroom in your house and put it on the curve and, and they'll come by and, and take that away and a lot of us in this community. We really joke that you know, one of the major perks of living in the city is our municipal trash collection it's a it's just a funny city city joke and it's a really effective system and I've seen the contrast between the privatized system and the new supply system firsthand but what city is that what what city is that. I live in the city of Fairfax, and I used to live in Fairfax County so I only moved I think like two miles but I moved over the city line and so it was a different system and it's a very, very much more effective and efficient system from a from a lay person's perspective for sure. More generally, a couple years ago. An organization called public services research unit reviewed all of the academic studies and other evidence around waste management, and they found that public waste management performed as well or better than private waste management this is you know, 27 or 28 academic you know cross country studies different different geographies and so on and, and then the report went on to provide a number of case studies from around the world from very specific places which show how some of these public, you know, publicly owned services have lower costs than privately owned competitors, some had better service quality than their privately owned competitors, some had significantly reduced waste generation in their community. I think the example there was wasn't maybe Sicily or sorry no sardinia, where they had transferred to municipal publicly owned system, and the community had decided to prioritize reducing the amount of waste that a community was producing, and they had decided to do that through this publicly owned system because if you think about it, you know, a privately owned company has no incentive to reduce the amount of waste that you're providing they actually probably have incentive to for you to produce more waste one would one would think. You know, some of the other examples in this from Germany and Austria were that publicly owned waste companies have much better working conditions better pay better benefits better union protections and so on and so forth and you know this report was about the waste sector in general and I'm happy to provide that and you can send that around to to your to your friends and people in the community but more generally than that, there's ample evidence that public ownership in general is as effective or efficient as private ownership, if not more so there's an entire entire chapter in my book that that you held up earlier which really tries to to demolish this myth of the supposed superiority of the private sector and some of the things that the neoliberals did very well for for 40 years, they really propagated this myth that the public doesn't do things well and that the private sector is better and that the public sector is inherently more inefficient. When you actually dive into the academic literature the empirical and the theoretical literature, there's no consensus amongst that. It's really about design. You know, there can be. I'm not going to deny that there are publicly owned enterprises that can be inefficient and there are publicly owned enterprises that can be bad I mean, you know you look at state owned oil companies and extraction of course, they are definitely publicly owned enterprises that are doing things and they're not good and that are corrupt and so on and so forth but they're definitely privately owned enterprises that are extremely corrupt, you know, talking about Enron or you know, talk about any of the massive scandals that we've had, you know, the entire financial crisis that almost brought down the world economy I mean the massive corruption and inefficiencies and effectiveness and in the private banking sector so it's really not about public or private it's about design. It's about intentionality. I mean, and of course they don't have the democratic process those private companies to hold them to account. Let me move to, I think, the last basic question, which is that we really shouldn't minimize the effort to stand up a new public enterprise in Burlington. And we would have to do it in a way that expands on the good work of the existing recycling program, but we'll need voter approval for borrowing authority and a buy in from an administration that so far is is reluctant. The bureaucracy and more conservative politicians have looked at the steps that we're going to need to stand up a municipal system as negatives, but I'm the question I've got is aren't they things like going to the voters are going and getting surveys and really speaking to people aren't they really things that we should embrace in the spirit of building a Democrat democratic control and ownership over an essential public service service and you know our effort to fight climate change. Yeah, definitely. Well, as I mentioned before, you know, there are thousands of examples of remunicipalizations from around the world and here in the US so Burlington. Let me just say this 100% definitely Burlington can do this if it decides that it wants to do this and we sometimes characterize remunicipalizations as being either pragmatic or political and this really kind of academic jargon but pragmatic remunicipalizations are those that are driven mostly by considerations around cost or service quality. They're sort of led by city officials and they can be relatively quick and uncontroversial and remunicipalizations can happen very quickly, you know a contract comes up or, or, you know, city council decides they want to do something it can happen very quickly. So pragmatic remunicipalizations probably make up the bulk of their remunicipalizations around the world, but there's another group these political remunicipalizations and these are the ones that are driven by community groups by activists, they're concerned both with quality and cost issues but also with questions about challenging corporate power and, and challenging the sort of supremacy of private ownership of public goods and, and these, these political remunicipalizations that can be more controversial. They can take a little bit longer. But whether or not remunicipalization is pragmatic or political it really has to do with the commitment of the community the commitment of the elected officials and also the sort of resistance or lack there are private enterprises that are that are being displaced and, and one of the recent big political remunicipalizations was in Boulder, Colorado. And there the community and the city council really engaged in this long term remunicipalization fight with regards to their electric utility and, and despite the voters approving multiple referendums on remunicipalization in order to really advance the city's clean energy goals. The, the giant energy corporation Excel they they fought it tooth and nail it at really every turn and it took 10 years and after about 10 years voters eventually agreed to a deal with Excel that kind of pause the remunicipalization effort. And, and, you know, it paused the effort but it also won really significant victories and concessions from the companies with regards to clean energy commitments and so on but the lesson for me from Boulder is that even if a remunicipalization effort isn't ultimately successful. It can, and it is a really empowering social process that brings the community together to really start to discuss these really incredibly important economics social and environment environmental issues really begin to chart a path forward in a, in a democratic way in a collective way and, and it really is the antithesis to the remus a politicized remunicipalization campaign is really the antithesis I think to the sort of disempowerment of the neoliberal era the atomization of neoliberal era. I mean Margaret Thatcher that British Prime Minister when the sort of architects and new levels and once I had this phrase, she said there's no such thing as a society. And by this she she meant that like we really should be acting as individuals and looking at ourselves and no one else and this really individualization was really a fundamental underpinning of the neoliberal area era this this sort of idea that public forms of ownership and control were inherently bad or flawed and that economic and political power should really be wielded by like a small group of elites in society and we've seen the devastating effects of this ideology over 40 years on our society. You know, inequality has exploded in our country we've been unable to get rid of poverty, you know, racial inequality and economic inequality has been stagnant since the 1960s it's, it's really incredible, how little progress we've made over the past 40 years, economically and I think COVID also proves it as well right like COVID has proved to us the sort of detriment of this go it alone ideology whether or not it's each community in the United States is going to go it alone, or each individual family is going to go it alone, or the United States as a country is going to go it alone you just can't go it alone in a global pandemic, and the crisis that are facing us in the future. Global economic crisis climate change these are global in nature and they're really going to require a collective democratic response. And this is what public ownership is it flexes that those muscles it flexes those democratic muscles, a community is going to need, and our society is going to deal with the challenges I had. Wow. We're definitely going to have to have you to come back and and expand on these the whole question of its relationship to empowerment of black and brown communities here is is also important. You know, the idea that public ownership of this solid waste district will be good for those communities and is really important, as well as that study, but it looks like we are running out of time Thomas. This has been great, helpful and interesting. I understand that our city council will be deciding on consolidation in September, and we'll need to get a lot of people to weigh in on that. To prove then the question will be whether a public system or private system, and the specifics of that system will come into to the four, and it's likely that there will be a vote that may not bifurcate those but you know that that's the democratic system that will be playing and so I hope that we can have a chance to chat again and that those resources that you talked about can be brought to bear on this like that solid waste study. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anything else that you'd like to add and you get a chance to plug your book again and the democracy collaborative to because you know after all why not. Well, no I thank you so much for for having me and I wish you and the people of Burlington, all success in this effort and just I just want everyone to know that you're definitely not alone in this there are communities across the world who are who are being municipalizing or thinking about public ownership or thinking about taking on corporate power and there's a whole network and a movement and organizations and people standing by ready to help so just let us know how we can be most helpful and and we'll be there. I will do that. Thanks very much, and have a great rest of the of the day. Thanks for being here with us. Thank you.