Well, thank you all very much. I'm sorry on this 20th anniversary that we haven't been able to have our usual White House reception, but the schedule did get a little cluttered up there with China, and now coming up Europe for the summit conference, but I did want to come by and at least drop in here and greet you and welcome you, and to say that I hope that as White House fellows that you will, whenever it occurs to you, ask questions, and if you get some very interesting answers, I'd like to hear them. As I remember, a young fellow in a situation, something like Eurone, when I was Governor of California, and it was assigned to a department where they were, really they had storage files of official documents of a certain kind, and not a file case where it was used in the daily work and you looked in for this file or that file. These were storage files, and he was struck by the fact that there's the employees as you saw them putting these files in the filing cabinets that they had double, fold them over double, and it didn't take a genius to figure out that if you've got to double them to get them in, you've cut the file cabinet's capacity in half. So he said, why? Well, they said these forms don't fit the filing cabinet. Well, he said, why are the forms that, well, they said they've always been this way, and that was the accepted answer. Except that he got on the phone and called the state printer and got a number of the phone and just ordered that henceforth the forms be of a different size. And that year we bought 4,200 fewer file cabinets. So if you come to some questions like that, as I say, I'd like to hear them. I know that I've only got a minute or two and that I'm interrupting your regular session here, but if I could just take this one or two minutes here and not say welcome to you again, but have you ever thought sometime that said to yourself, boy, if I had a chance, would I ask him? Well, go ahead. Yes. President, what are the implications of the Soviet cancellation of the Olympics?  I was just reading the other day a kind of a scholarly document that was written in April of 1980. And in there you should have heard the assault that was being made on the previous administration that relations with the Soviets were the lowest point they had ever been, and that was in April of 1984 years ago. I do think that part of this is election year. You're not going to do anything that's going to help in this year. They are the ones, however, who have walked away from the tables with regard to the negotiations. We have actually tried to meet some of their demands to prove that we could be flexible in those disarmament negotiations and did no good. Well, one thing we're not going to do, we're not going to roll over and give in to some demand, which we're not in agreement, simply to buy them back to the table because from then on I know all they had to do was take the toys and go home and we'd give in to bring them back. So when they're ready to come back to those tables, that's fine. I think very possibly there's a part that this is revenge for 1980. And again, as I say in an election year, it's helpful. I think it is disgraceful. You know, we hear so much about old men in government sending young men out to die in wars. Well, those old men in the Politburo are not only sending their young men out to die in Afghanistan and have been for four years or longer, but now they won't even let the young men and women engage in athletic contests in a contest that for 2,000 years or more has been known as born in an effort to bring peace. The Greek city states, which were always at war, the Olympics were created to try and bring peace between them. And they took it so seriously that in those days, if a war was going on in Olympic year, they postponed the war in order to go to the games. And as I said the other day, I wish we could be that civilized.  Well, I don't know just where. Well, you mentioned the Screen Actors Guild. I was president of the Screen Actors Guild at a time that literally a strike was forced upon us. We had never struck before in the motion picture industry and a very prominent head of a studio at that particular time told me that while he had been one that resisted the organizing of actors, thought it was a terrible thing for the industry. He had come to realize that the Screen Actors Guild was the most constructive force for good in the picture business. So I really mean it when I say a strike was forced on us. Well, I found out, leading that strike, that I could get up in front of the mass membership meetings of the Screen Actors Guild and I realized that they would more or less take my direction. And I found myself losing sleep because I said, how do I know that I'm saying the right things? Who am I to be responsible for 14,000 actors' lives and careers? And I finally figured out the only way I could sleep was that I would make every decision as nearly as I could on the basis of what I thought was morally right or wrong. And live with it. So when I became governor, after that experience with a lot more responsibilities, I told my cabinet that in discussing any issue, I never wanted to hear the political ramifications. I only wanted to hear the discussion as to whether it was right or wrong for the people. And I have told a cabinet here at this level in Washington the same thing. And I think that has to be. I think the day that you begin counting the votes in an election, I had to say, well, should I do this or shouldn't I do that because of the votes? And I know some people justify decisions on a basis by saying, well, I can only continue to do good for the people if I'm still here. I don't buy that. I think the day that you start basing a decision on counting the votes, that is the day that you begin counting the votes. That is the day that you begin compromising and are no longer making decisions on the right basis. So I've stuck with it all this time because I found I sleep better. Mr. President, are you happy with the Federal Reserve and its conduct of monetary policy? Well, I know that the press seems to want to create feuds whenever they can. I've criticized them right now because last month they have a bracket of two lines that are supposed to roughly parallel, as they see it, the increase in productivity and therefore the need for the increase in money. And they try to keep the money supply within those two, the upper line and the lower line. Well, last month, and maybe this is what's happened to the interest rates, although I suspect a little selfishness in the part of the banks, too, there is no excuse. For the interest rates being at the level they are. The interest rates went up because of inflation. Obviously, if you're lending money and your money, while it is lent out, is going to lose value through inflation, then you've got to get enough interest to not only get a return on your money, but to also make sure that you get back the same amount of purchasing power you loaned. Well, now with interest rates down to where they are, where they've been below 4% for the last two years, and they're still holding that figure, there's no reason for this increase. But I do have to say, fairly in March, they got the money supply below their bottom line, not within their bracket, which, of course, lost supply and demand, restricted the amount. I do have to say on their behalf, however, their tools are very clumsy. This can happen sometimes not by a decision of theirs to lower the money to that level. It is an inaccurate system that they have, and I sometimes wonder how and why we created a totally independent, literally private organization to regulate this. I grew up in an era where the money supply was regulated with the fact that it was based on the value of gold and silver, and how much of it you had. And somehow we didn't seem to have. Would you believe it that interest rates were just sort of taken for granted at about 3% in those days? And so it is possible that this was an inadvertent dip, but I think it is also part of what has caused this recent flow of increases, and I hope they'll get back up there in the framework. Mr. President, I grew up in Latin America. I want to compliment you on your speech last week. I'm curious about something. You're going to have to speak up a little bit. I'm curious about something on your Latin American policy. To what do you attribute the difficulty in convincing the American people that there is a difference between Vietnam and what we are facing in Central America? What other factors do you think you're going to have to do to prove the American people there is a big difference? Well, of course, there is no relationship between the two at all. One was 10,000 miles away. And I think our connection in that one was because we were participants in the Geneva Pact where when France gave up, French Indochina as a colony, which was Vietnam, that we felt a responsibility when they divided and created two countries out of it. If you will recall, South Vietnam and the United States did not sign the accords in Geneva when that decision was made. But today, we're talking about here in our own hemisphere, we're talking about some countries that for the last 400 years have known what we scathingly referred to as banana republic revolutions. And those revolutions pretty generally just changed one set of rulers for another set of rulers. But several years ago, before we got here, El Salvador overthrew a military dictatorship. And for the first time in 400 years set out to create a government within the democratic bounds that we recognize as proper. And they have made great progress down there. And we have been helpful. But what happened was suddenly guerrilla forces trained in Cuba, many of them trained in Nicaragua nearby later, but aided and supported by the Cubans and by the Soviet Union, by the communist bloc. In fact, the first weapons provided to those guerrillas, when we captured some we identified, they were American weapons. They were the weapons that we had left in Vietnam. And the communists in Vietnam delivered them to the guerrillas in El Salvador. Well, the Monroe Doctrine is not popular because under that Monroe Doctrine, many of our Latin American friends saw us as unnecessarily interfered. And to this day, even the best of our friends do not want us to go back to a day where we land the Marines to settle an issue of this kind. But they do want us to help them. El Salvador has said repeatedly to us, we do not want your manpower, but we do have to have your help in training in weapons and now in the economy so that they can implement the social reforms and the economic reforms to create democracy at more than a government level in the actual economic and social structure. What has happened with us is that we've been so held down in the amount of aid that the Congress has given us to provide them with that help, that it's almost as if they're just giving them enough to stay alive and stave off defeat, but not enough to end the situation and go forward with the democracy they're trying to create. In other words, as one Democratic congressman said to me the other day, he said that we're giving the patient blood transfusions a half a pint at a time and this is what we're doing, slowly letting them bleed to death. Now, we do have a stake there as my speech last night, I won't ask you if you heard it or not. We had some visuals about the importance of that area, that the capital of El Salvador is closer to Houston, Texas than Houston, Texas is to Washington, D.C. But more than that, we now have great colonies of refugees from those Central American countries that are coming up here and many of them illegally crossing our borders because technically they cannot claim refugee status, but we can understand their situation. Now, Nicaragua had had for more than a score of years a dictator named Somoza and finally all the Democratic elements of Nicaragua got together and staged a revolution and one of the elements in that revolution were the Sandinistas who have been aligned with the Communists for years and years and as I pointed out last night had actually joined the PLO in declaring war on Israel several years ago. When the revolution was successful and we did nothing to prop up Somoza, the revolution combination asked the Organization of American States for a declaration of help and support and the Organization of American States went to Somoza and asked him to step down to avoid further bloodshed in the revolution. And he said, if it will end the fighting and avoid that, yes, and he, the dictator, stepped down. And then the Sandinistas did what Castro did in his own revolution. Suddenly those other Democratic elements that were his partners in fighting the revolution were some of them imprisoned, some were exiled, some had to leave as fugitives. The Sandinistas took over. They had given the Organization of American States written promises as to free elections, free labor unions, freedom of press, all the things we recognize in our Constitution that this was what they were rebelling for. They had never kept one of the promises they made to the Organization of American States. I referred last night in this speech to their humiliation of Catholic priests and their attack on the Catholic Church as they had attacked the Jews. Today there are very few Jews left in Nicaragua. They have had to flee the country because of persecution. But I didn't say in the year, I didn't say insanely, I'll see to you, they went so far in their humiliation of Catholic priests that one bishop was forced to parade through the capital of Managua, down the middle of the street, heard down the street. The Mosquito Indians who even under Samosa had been allowed to live with their own culture, their own religion, lived their own lives the way they wanted to. They moved in on them instantly. They burned their villages. I have a letter from an American medical missionary. He and his wife have been in Central America for 30 years. She's a registered nurse. He's a doctor. And they told me that in one camp in Nicaragua, they're treating mosquito refugees that have crossed into Honduras right now. In one camp, one concentration camp, they have 12,000 Mosquito Indians herded in to a facility that was built to house 800. And they have no medical care for them in Nicaragua at all. So I think every moral consideration insists that we should do what we're doing in providing them help to win freedom for themselves. And maybe this is a long-winded answer and I know I'm going to have to leave now. But let me just say that to many, the great immorality in Vietnam, once we made a decision, the First Division of Forces, we were involved only with military men and civilian clothes carrying no arms who were sent over to help this newly created country have a military for its own protection. The country that had been named North Vietnam did have a military. They were the forces that had been fighting against the Japanese occupation in World War II. Must say this for them, but under Ho Chi Minh, they were purely communist. And the agreement had been that people from North or South Vietnam, once this single country was made two countries, could for a period of time migrate to whichever country they wanted to live in, these newly created countries. Over a million North Vietnamese had left to come to the South and then in violation of the agreement, Ho Chi Minh closed the border and said no and they weren't allowed out. And there were slaughters of some 50,000 landowners in North Vietnam also. But then, President Kennedy, because of the terrorist attacks and on our own civilian clothes, military, he sent in a division that began the actual conflict with us involved. And as you know, it multiplied up to 500,000 of our forces there. But the immorality was that our government asked young men to fight and die for their country, but was unwilling to let them win the cause they were fighting for. For some reason we had a terrible feeling that if we were victorious that this would somehow create a wider conflict involving then communist China. And we knew the Soviet Union was better than North Vietnam. And that was the immorality of Vietnam. But that Vietnam syndrome, there's no question, has had a very bad effect today with regard to legitimate areas where the United States should protect its own interests and that of our allies. Mr. President, Fred Jimmel is over there. He's over there giving me a big mess. I thought there was somebody right back here. I have stayed longer than I'm supposed to.


But the Pope Benedict knew that when something as part of the way in which the Holy Spirit communicates to his people, such as traditional Latin mass, that when that would let loose, then all heaven would break loose. And that's exactly what's happened. And certainly where we live here, the number of young families and convert families that attending the traditional mass is exploding. And the reason that this effort to crush the traditional mass is happening is because what Pope Benedict thought would happen is happening.  And it's not going to be stopped by any human effort or any political effort. All that will happen is that there will be a period of persecution, decades who knows, but the winner will be God. The winner will ultimately be the mystical body of Jesus Christ, which is the authentic Orthodox teaching church. It won't be any political clique or cadre within the church's hierarchies. So there's nothing to despair about. We should embrace persecution as Christ tells us we must. They persecuted him, they will persecute us. We should take the persecution on the chin as the saints do, but we should also do it with the charity that the saints do. And the one thing we have to avoid is an overreaction which leads to anger, which leads to a loss of charity. Because ultimately what happens is that modernism leads to a loss of faith. A certain type of angry traditionalism leads to a loss of charity. And ultimately, as Paul tells us, if you take that route, you're even worse than the modernists. So we have to be on the guard.  These people are all extremists. So when we see extremists, we have to calm them down. And if we can't calm them down, we have to distance ourselves from them.


UCLA removes professor for refusing to give special treatment. After receiving a demand that black students get special treatment, a UCLA professor promised to treat his students equally and not based on their skin color. As such, the university pulled him from his classes. However, he fought back. UCLA has removed a professor from his position after he refused to discriminate against students based on race. Gordon Klein taught in the UCLA Law School and Loyola Law School before moving on to the UCLA Anderson School of Management. For 39 years, he's lectured students in accounting. Unfortunately, he didn't realize that the main priority of the universities is no longer to produce career-driven individuals but, rather, political activists. The college fix reports that Klein received a request from a student asking for what the veteran professor calls, special treatment, regarding grading for black students in his classroom. The student suggested a no-harm and shortened final exam, as well as extended deadlines for final assignments and projects for black students. Accounting professor Gordon Klein received a request to give black students special treatment regarding grading and final exams. In response to the discriminatory appeal, Klein decided to get the student thinking about the consequences of such an action. In an email that has since been shared by angry activists, Klein utilizes the Socratic method to expose the serious flaws in the student's request. Are there any students that may be of mixed parentage, such as half-black half-Asian? What do you suggest I do with respect to them? A full concession or just half? Klein writes. Quote ellipsis. Can you guide me on how you think I should achieve a, no harm, outcome since our sole course grade is from a final exam only. One last thing strikes me. Remember that MLK famously said that people should not be evaluated based on the color of their skin. Do you think that your request would run afoul of MLK's admonition? The thought-provoking email received no answers but immediately prompted demands for Klein's termination. In a petition by UCLA student Preet Bains, Klein's equal treatment of black students has criticized as, extremely insensitive, dismissive, and woefully racist. The petition calls for the professor's termination, as soon as possible. We ask for your support in having Professor Klein's professorship terminated for his extremely insensitive, dismissive, and woefully racist response to his student's request for empathy and compassion during a time of civil unrest, Bains writes. UCLA student Preet Bains started a petition to have the professor removed for his, woefully racist, response. Apparently, the university agrees that its professors should use racially discriminatory practices toward students, as Klein was quickly suspended and replaced by other faculty members. Administrators refuse to cite which policy Klein has violated, only confirming that he was, reassigned, and suggesting that he was the subject of a discrimination complaint. Klein insists that he was actually following UCLA rules by refusing to modify his syllabus in response to, individual factors. He has accused the school of punishing him for following the rules and denying him an investigation. The best I can figure out, they needed the sacrificial lamb, he told Fox News. That's what my colleagues have told me. And I was easy to sacrifice when they're weighing the principle of standing on equality of treatment for all students irrespective of color versus trying to placate the angry mob. It was easy for them, at least they believe it was easy for them, to simply jettison me. Gordon Klein insisted on treating his students equally regardless of skin color. UCLA issued a bizarre response, invoking equality, while simultaneously apologizing to students for Klein's refusal to discriminate based on race. Respect and equality for all are core principles at UCLA Anderson. The Anderson School wrote in a statement, according to the Daily Bruin. We apologize to the student who received Gordon's email, and to all those who have been as upset and offended by it as we are ourselves. Klein has expressed willingness to consider exemptions for students based on their individual situations but reiterated that school policy would only approve rare exceptions. Still, he was barred from his classroom for his refusal to stray from the school's official policy. The university refused to answer whether or not the professor violated any policy. Although the school allows professors to offer alternative solutions for students on an individual basis, having a particular skin color isn't an acceptable indicator that an individual has special needs. In fact, assuming such is merely the soft bigotry of low expectations. Thanks to cancel culture, a good teacher has once again been suspended from his position. For the outrage mob, it's not enough to simply remain silent on political issues. They demand you say the right words and conform entirely.


I get to speak to some pretty big crowds as Prime Minister, but I have to say that the warmth and the energy here tonight is absolutely second to none. I said to my friend the Prime Minister before, the last time I saw someone on the stage here was Bruce Springstone, and he didn't get the welcome that Prime Minister Modi has got. Prime Minister Modi is the boss. Myself, when I was in India in March, where he hosted me with such generosity and warmth, there was a trip full of unforgettable moments, celebrating Holi in Gujarat, for the great Mahatma Gandhi in New Delhi, and doing a lap, something I will never quite forget, of the incredible stadium at Ahmedabad on day one of the four tests. I felt that deep sense of connection between the people of Australia and the people of India. It is a warmth I also felt when I backpacked around India for five weeks in 1991. And I say this to my friends from the Australian Parliament who are here today. If you want to understand India, travel by train and video bus. And you can even hitchhike. They're very friendly.


Okay, lovely. All right, so while we're working out the technology, I'm just gonna get started because the slides just are an enabler to the communication. So what we're gonna be talking about for the next 45 minutes or thereabouts is about agile contracts. Now, who here works in finance or procurement? Oh, one person, that was not expecting that. Okay, this is going to be a talk not from a finance perspective, not from a legal perspective. I'm not going to give you boilerplate templates. I'm going to talk about when you're actually building an agile contract, when you're engaging with a new client, how do you work with them to actually build a contract that supports an agile approach, especially when we have a situation where your client or customer may ask for fixed price. So we're gonna look at a couple of different topics. Some we're gonna look at trust. We're also gonna be looking at the different types of fixing that can occur, as well as other types of contracts. So before we really kick off, does anyone have any particular burning issues that they'd like to make sure that I cover? No? All right, well I'll just talk and if I'm off topic or you want me to expand on anything, just raise your hand, interrupt, and I'm happy to take this conversation where you want to go. Ultimately, you need to get something out of this. Yes? Absolutely, I will definitely be talking about that. Looking at how you actually have those fixed price contracts where the scope is not clear, all right? To go by the velocity points is because you want some quantifying value. Yep, okay, let me just make a note of that, velocity. Velocity is an interesting one and there's some issues and we'll talk about what the issues with building contracts around velocity are. It can be quite valuable and it can be a good measure, but only in certain circumstances and we'll talk about some of that. All right, so to kick off, yep, so yep. So schedule cost and the scope, everything is fixed. Where's the agenda? I'll be talking about the different types of fixing, absolutely. All right, so to kick off, for those of you who don't know, my name is Evan Laborn. I'm based out of Singapore and I've been working in a business context with Agile for the last seven or eight years taking Agile outside of IT and applying it to the wider business community. So let's actually look at one of the key principles that you need to understand in order to actually be Agile.