Podcast appearances and mentions of Ash Carter

This week on Sinica, I chat with veteran Wall Street Journal reporter Bob Davis, who has covered the U.S.-China relationship for decades. He recently published a new book called Broken Engagement, which consists of interviews with U.S. policymakers who were instrumental in shaping American policy toward China from the George H.W. Bush administration through the Biden administration. It's an eye-opening look at the individuals who fought for — and against — engagement with China.2:58 – Bob's thoughts on engagement: whether it was doomed from the start, when and why there was a shift, people's different aspirations for it and retrospective positioning, and whether it could have a transformative effect 13:28 – The Nancy Pelosi interview: her approach, her Taiwan visit, and her critique of capitulation to business interests17:18 – Bob's interviews with Charlene Barshefsky, Lawrence Summers, and Bob Zoellick: the WTO accession, the China shock, Zoellick's “responsible stakeholder” concept, and diplomacy as an ongoing process 27:24 – The Robert Gates interview: security-focused engagement, and his shift to realism 31:14 – Misreading Xi Jinping34:42 – Bob's interviews with Stephen Hadley and Ash Carter regarding the South China Sea 39:19 – The Matt Pottinger interview: his view on China and how COVID changed everything 46:14 – Michael Rogers' interview: cyber espionage and cyber policy 51:25 – Robert O'Brien's interview: the “reverse Kissinger” and Taiwan 54:14 – Bob's interview with Kurt Campbell: his famous Foreign Affairs essay, differentiating between decoupling and de-risking, and technology export restrictions and trade deals 59:28 – The Rahm Emanuel interview: his response to wolf warrior diplomacy1:01:57 – Bob's takeaways: the long-term vision of engagement, introspective interviewees, and his own increased pessimism Paying It Forward: Lingling Wei at The Wall Street Journal; Eva Dou at The Washington Post and her book House of Huawei: The Secret History of China's Most Powerful Company; and Katrina Northrop at The Washington Post Recommendations: Bob: The TV series Derry Girls (2018-2022) and Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-2024); and Margaret O'Farrell's novels, including Hamnet and The Marriage Portrait Kaiser: The BBC and Masterpiece series Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's become a common worry in America: why can't we listen to each other? Well, 60 years ago, the great American writer Studs Terkel showed us all what happens when we do listen to the stories and perspectives of others, when he wrote his landmark book, Division Street, and Ash Carter tells us why the book is more relevant than ever. Then Simon Mills joins us from London with his investigation into how and why Aperol has, like a bubbly orange tsunami, overtaken cocktail lounges from Naples to New York—and why Italians fear it's keeping down birth rates. And finally, Jennifer Gould reports from New York City on how Trump is rolling out the red carpet for kleptocrats and anyone looking to bribe U.S. government officials.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this episode of The Founder's Sandbox, Brenda speaks with Salvador Badillo Rios. Salvador is Founder and CEO of EquiTech Innovate, a strategic consulting and advisory firm aimed at helping underserved and overlooked founders bring innovative and disruptive technologies to market. He is also Senior Associate and Portfolio Manager at National Security Innovation Capital (NSIC), a component of the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), aimed at accelerating early-stage dual-use deep tech startups toward commercialization At DIU and NSIC, Salvador supported 21 early-stage dual-use hardware startups across 12 states with ~$50M over three years leading to over $335M in total follow-on private capital (up to 20X funded amount at up to 11X prior to funding valuation). They speak about Sal's origin story; how despite being from a disadvantaged background, this has not deterred his purposefulness and positivity to make a difference particularly in underrepresented communities. Listen as Sal shares how he eventually settled on an engineering degree after choosing over music and English literature. What he does today as a senior portfolio manager in the DIU defense innovation unit's National security innovation capital is a long way from Rancho Cucamonga.  You can find out more about Sal at: Linked IN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/salvador-badillo-rios https://equitechinnovate.com/     Transcript: 00:04  Hi, I'm pleased to announce something very special to me, a new subscription-based service through Next Act Advisors that allows members exclusive access to personal industry insights and bespoke 00:32 corporate governance knowledge. This comes in the form of blogs, personal book recommendations, and early access to the founder's sandbox podcast episodes before they released to the public. If you want more white glove information on building your startup with information like what was in today's episode, sign up with the link in the show notes to enjoy being a special member of Next Act Advisors. 01:01 As a thank you to Founders Sandbox listeners, you can use code SANDBOX25 at checkout to enjoy 25% off your membership costs. Thank you. 01:19 Welcome back to the Founders Sandbox. I am Brenda McCabe, your host to this monthly podcast that reaches entrepreneurs and business owners who learn about building resilient, purpose-driven and scalable businesses with great corporate governance. Guests to this podcast are founders themselves, professional service providers, corporate board directors and investors. 01:47 who like me want to use the power of the enterprise, be it small, medium, and large, to create change for a better world. And I do storytelling with each one of my guests that starts with their origin story. And then we'll get into the contents of the podcast with each of my guests, and we touch upon topics around resilience, scalability, and purpose-driven. 02:15 initiatives or what drives the guest. So thank you for joining me. And I am absolutely delighted this month to have Salvador Badillo Rios, Sal, as my guest. So thank you for joining me, Sal. Thank you, Brenda. I'm very excited to be here. Excellent. So we met not too long ago. I am a member of Angel Capital Association and attended their national 02:44 Summit in Columbus, Ohio. And I'm from Columbus, Ohio. So I kind of killed two birds with one stone. And I was blown away. So I've been a member for three years. And this year they had for the first time a breakout session on deep tech and dual technologies. And Sal, you were one of the panel members. And I myself 03:11 love to work with deep tech companies. So we had a lot of synchronicities. And that's when I asked you to join me eventually here in the podcast. Yeah, yeah, no. Yeah, that's where we met. And I think it was an amazing opportunity to really connect with the angel community. I think oftentimes, you know, there's a lot of focus on VCs, but angels really drive that early start to these companies and to these technologies. And so 03:37 I wanted to make an effort to reach out to the angel community, educate, inform, you know, angels about deep tech and a lot of the DOD opportunities that there are for startups and potential collaborations and synergies. So yeah, I'm happy to have met you. So we're going to touch on a couple of those points because you do have a multifaceted career and background and diverse founder yourself of your own. 04:05 strategic consulting and advisory firm. So you are founder and CEO of Equitech Innovate. And it's really working towards serving underserved and overlooked founders that bring innovative and disruptive technologies to market. So kudos to you. That's amazing. Thank you. Thank you, yeah. And another hat you wear, and I don't know where you find the time in the day. Frankly. 04:33 And this was your speaking capacity when I met you earlier this year, your senior associate and portfolio manager at the national security innovation capital, a component of the defense innovation unit, DIU. So lots of acronyms in our department defense. So INSEC and DIU. And I was fascinated because that particular area, what you're involved in is it's accelerating early stage 05:02 dual use later on, you're going to tell us what dual use is. Yeah. Deep tech startups toward commercial commercialization. So, um, again, thank you, um, for joining me. We're going to talk about deep tech. We're going to get into also your own work that you're doing with, um, underserved founders. And I always like to have a title of our episodes. Um, and this one, I really think we're going to talk about scalable businesses. So what you're doing. 05:31 particularly with NSIC and the DIU is scaling, identifying early stage companies that truly have the promise of scaling. So scalable businesses. And you know, in a short period of time, you have scaled and then we'll get into the questions, but I was also very impressed with the focus of the work at the DIU and NSIC, you've used yourself have supported 21 early stage 06:00 dual use hardware, all right, not software, hardware startups across 12 states with over $50 million over the last three years. And that's led on to lead on it investments of 335 million of private capital and up to 20 times funded amount at up to 11 times prior to fund evaluation. Amazing, amazing, amazing. Thank you, yeah. All right. So can you... 06:30 describe for my, let's get into your origin story. Your PhD aerospace engineering, first generation Latino. LGBT, tell me what would be your tagline if anything. What I mean, this mashup of deep, tell me your origin story. How did you know what you're doing today? Yeah, thank you, yeah. 06:55 I mean, yeah, I mean, I was thinking through the tagline and I was like, well, I think maybe one could be, you know, life through punches, but I turned them into power and purpose. And so I think, you know, everyone, I'm sure has their own set of struggles, right? Everyone has dealt a different set of cards, right, in life. And it's really what you make of that, right? That really defines you. So for me, right, I grew up, 07:24 Here in Southern California. So I grew up in Rancho Cucamonga, about an hour East of LA without traffic. And so yeah, I grew up, my background is Mexican. So my parents are from Mexico. They met here and I'm the oldest of three. So I have two younger siblings. One is a year younger and then the youngest, seven years younger, but he has 07:53 down syndrome pretty severely. So I grew up in a disadvantaged background in a community where really I didn't know anyone that went to a four-year college, no one that went into any STEM field, right? And so, and my parents also, right, had never gone to college. So a lot of it was just learning and figuring things out along the way. 08:20 But I was lucky to have teachers that believed in me, that saw sort of something in me in school. And they would say, oh, yeah, you need to go to college. Or they would say, oh, you're good at math and science, things like that. And so they would reaffirm those things. But even once I got to high school, I really hadn't really planned for the future. I didn't really have thought about what major I wanted to go into or what college I wanted to go. 08:49 And so it was around being around other students that had thought about that a little bit better or had parents who were engineers or doctors that when they started asking me about it, I was like, oh, I don't know, but let me start thinking about it a little bit more. And so, yeah, so in my classroom, one of my teachers said, oh, the UC applications opened up. And so that's how I found out. 09:17 you know, that I should apply to college. There were several interests that I had, write music, English literature, and then STEM, right? And so I decided to go and try engineering and initially started with civil engineering, transitioned into mechanical and then added aerospace, just as, you know, being in college and taking different courses and being involved in different projects and clubs. 09:47 That's sort of how my interest kind of evolved. But even then, right, I didn't know about what a PhD was, or venture capital, or the field that I'm in now. So a lot of it has been a bit of a learning process. And I'm lucky to have had different organizations along the way geared towards underserved communities in STEM. 10:15 you know, PhD or things like that, that help create awareness for me about the different opportunities. My thing is you can't really go after something that you don't even know exists, right? So the more you're aware about different opportunities, the more you can sort of start to pave your path based on your own interests, so yeah. So you're a lifetime learner, although you're very young still. 10:41 Thank you for the interest in that. It's interesting because yesterday I was on a webinar with the National Association of Corporate Directors. It was about AI and workers, right? And interesting enough, the current generation, the largest generation that composes the workforce in the United States are Gen Xers. No, Gen Zers. 11:11 And the average retention, so the average period of time that they're in is 2.4 years. The next generation is the alpha, right? They're like 13, 14. They will have up to 17 careers, is what they're saying. And so the young, yes. You have so many opportunities. And again, I think people in your early 11:39 childhood, your neighborhood, your school, this professors that saw the, the, the ability for you with STEM related topics, they geared you those opportunities. So yeah, it's amazing the future of workforce and opportunities. So you yourself are going to get into in this podcast. Yeah. Some of that so you get out of college and what is your first gig? What'd you do? 12:08 Yeah, well, again, I went all the way to the PhD route. So one thing that was unique and what plugged me into DOD was, you know, going into my PhD, I had the opportunity to go to UCLA, but having a unique opportunity to work with the Department of Defense. And so whereas most students conduct research on campus, in my case, I had the opportunity to, after I take 12:37 a few of my, you know, some of my course requirements go to Edwards Air Force Research Lab, which is called the Rocket Lab, and really conduct research there. And so one, you get a lot more resources, right? Just because you're within DoD. And so you're able to really run, you know, and create projects and do these things that are at a higher level, right? This research is able to conduct at a higher level, and working on also 13:07 important problems to national security, you know, to the DOD that are more applicable than simply something that's just in a lab, right, that may be cool and interesting, but maybe there's not, you know, a huge focus on the application area. And so, yeah, I got to work alongside other military members and other researchers at DOD and really start to look things from a national security perspective. 13:34 And so how is certain technologies, whether more fundamental, more applied, how is that important to DOD and national security in general? As well as, you know, I got to see a lot of also the issues within traditional DOD and obstacles and sort of inefficiencies as well. And so it gave me sort of this unique perspective that 14:03 I would say most PhD students typically don't get, so I was very fortunate to have that. And so while being there, I also got interested in an entrepreneurship program. I was like, I wanted to get myself out of my comfort zone, out of the box and really interact with people from different backgrounds, not just from the STEM background. And... 14:28 And I loved it. I didn't know that I was going to love it. And I just decided to try it one day. And I just really loved speaking with customers. I got to be part of a student led startup. And so speaking to customers and that customer discovery phase, pitching to VCs, brainstorming with people from different backgrounds. I was like, this is where I want to be at. And so I thought I wanted to go into product development. 14:57 at a startup. And so that's what I was gearing towards. And so taking business courses online. And again, this is when the pandemic started to hit. So taking business courses online, learning more about emerging technologies like quantum and AI, that just interested me. And then DoD found me. And so they were like, okay, you have this unique 15:26 you know, technical background, background with DoD and some knowledge, right, regarding DoD and then interest in this startup and business, you know, business world. And so DoD was really starting, wanted to stand up and say National Security Innovation Capital, which, you know, focuses on early stage hardware technology. So as you may know, a lot of funding tends to go. 15:54 towards VC funding tends to go towards software and not enough towards hardware. And often hardware companies will resort to getting foreign capital, which at times may be considered adversarial and may compromise national security. And so DoD wanted to sort of get a hold of this a bit. And so stand up this program. And so, yeah, a few of my team members and I, we basically were hired on board to really stand up this program. 16:24 And this really involved developing the funding thesis, establishing the processes, eventually me running operations. Then because of my background, right? I got to do a lot more and help source these startups, evaluate these startups and help fund them and then support them. So I think naturally I just like wearing a lot of hats. It was very, it's been a very startup culture. 16:52 in a way just because we're a very small but mighty team. And so it's allowed me to do a lot as well as have a seat at the table and really sort of see things from that perspective. I love the that you were in the early stage of standing up the is it pronounced in sick. We usually refer it to as an insect. So what are 17:21 you know, these will be in the show notes, the we have a kind of infographic on NSIC. What are the I think there's seven key areas of investment within the DOD? Yeah. Yeah. So again, we're a component of the Defense Innovation Unit. And so 17:50 companies that are a little bit more mature that have some VC funding, that have commercial product. And the goal there is for them to find sort of the use cases and sort of pair those gaps with and look for specific solutions to address those gaps and transition that technology into DoD. 18:17 Again, we focus on the earlier stage, pre-seat to seat stage companies. And so, however, our technology areas are aligned with DIU's portfolios. So, you know, our technology areas are autonomy. And then sensors is weaved into that now. So advanced sensing would fall into autonomy. Energy technology. So this can involve energy storage. Advanced battery chemistries is a big thing under that one. 18:47 space technology. And so this is satellite stuff, as well as satellite communications, things like that. Telecommunications, so advanced communications technologies. And again, there's a lot of synergies with these different technologies. And then we have an emerging technologies area, which under that we've we've been edge computing hardware. 19:15 electronics, photonics, as well as hypersonics platforms. 19:25 Interesting. It's fascinating. Yeah. And then within that we have sort of funded as well companies that are in the sort of advanced manufacturing, advanced materials, but they usually align with one of the technology areas that I mentioned. 19:43 So for my listeners, I would absolutely love you to define deep tech and dual technologies, all right? Yeah. Because many, you know, I have quite a large audience now and it's a concept that we don't run into. You don't go to the grocery store and buy. Right, yeah. Yeah, I even had a friend, you know, just a close personal friend that is not in this field at all. 20:11 asked me about that too. So yeah, it's constantly educating, right, the audience, just because it is a crucial part of our society nowadays. So yeah, so I would say I would describe deep tech startups as sort of being distinguished by their intensive focus on sort of cutting edge technologies and scientific achievements. So they operate at the frontier of innovation. And so 20:40 I would say they're characterized by sort of novel solutions that are rooted in scientific breakthroughs or, you know, significant technological or scientific breakthroughs. And you know, I think where a lot of technologies, a lot of conventional startups leverage existing technologies to solve market needs, deep tech startups. 21:06 can often create entirely new markets or radically transform existing ones with their disruptive innovations. And so the reason I think there's probably a name for this set of technologies is because they also face unique challenges in commercializing their innovation. So one characteristic thing and challenge is long development cycles. 21:34 So, you know, they often require years, if not even decades, right, for research and development before you even have some viable prototype, right, that may become a product. High R&D costs, right, so, you know, very capital intensive, you know, and securing funding can be challenging, especially in the early stages for these sets of technologies that 22:01 are often unproven or the market potential is not quite fully understood. And so when it comes to going to market, it may be a little bit more challenging because it's not just a matter of finding product market fit, but it's also about educating potential customers about. 22:28 you know, educating the market right about your technology. Right. And the dual purpose? Yeah, so the dual use purpose really involves having both commercial and defense applications. So defense tech, you know, is sort of a focus on these DOD critical needs for national security to enhance military capabilities. 22:55 And so the dual use aspect means really developing a product or technology that can serve both, civilian and military purposes. And so I will say there are challenges with this though, just because the DOD aspect is mission focused, right? And so you have to worry about finding product mission fit in that sense. Whereas on the commercial side, you have to worry about finding 23:25 product market fit. And so, it can be competing at times, right? Where, the startups and VCs are naturally focused on revenue and increasing sort of their investment and DOD may be focused on the mission, right? And so, it's a matter of really finding where you can overlap both of those missions, right? To really make progress in society. 23:54 And then it's also as you're developing a technology, it's a matter of balancing as well, the different requirements and applications. So, yeah. So the startups that you have been involved with, have they come like a spin out as a technology transfer from a university or not? I mean, where did you? Yeah. 24:22 Where did these companies come from? Their original ideas. Yeah. Yeah, so a lot of the companies that we fund, some of the technologies have begun in a university research lab setting. However, they're usually a little bit further along before we see them and we fund them. So we have partnerships with different programs, including National Security Innovation Network, which is a part of DIU. 24:51 that really focuses more on really helping spin out these technologies out of a research setting and finding those DOD use cases. And again, we also look at companies from all over the US. So, our meetings are usually virtual, which makes it easy for companies to reach us. But yeah, they come from all sorts of settings, right? Some of them have spin out from the lab. 25:20 others from another company. But like I mentioned, by the time we see them and we fund them, they've already had some preliminary traction on the DOD side, whether that means some funding spoken to and, you know, DOD users to really develop the requirements, as well as some commercial preliminary traction, like obtaining letters of support and things like that. Yeah. 25:47 So about the time I met you, I'd also been working in deep tech. And I have heard that perhaps private investment VC money had been crowding out the traditional investment of Nandaluda funding that was under either the DOD or SBIR. 26:16 Right. And for like the last 20 years or so. And the Department of Defense, and actually under, I think it was the Obama administration, Ash Carter kind of flipped the model and said that we can actually do dilutive as well as non-dilutive funding in order to attract again, I don't know whether you're losing the game, but to really get back into the pipeline. 26:44 of potential new businesses and new technologies. Is that, and that's kind of what I've, you know, you perceive it. I also saw that SBIR grants, VCs were no longer allowed to participate probably about eight years ago. So what have your observations been on the public versus private investment in the strategic mission-driven 27:13 sectors is, is it true? What I'm saying is that I mean, there's no probably it's not black or white, right? So what is the transition between public and private investment in these strategic sectors evolve? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So the way I would see it is, you know, a while back, there was really a lack of communication between sort of these public and private entities. 27:42 And so there wasn't much of a collaboration going on. And so, for example, with the establishment of DIU, the purpose was to really establish those public and private partnerships to really further innovation and especially deep tech innovation. And so that was just the first goal, right? Let's improve and establish these public and private partnerships and show that we can work together to fund companies. 28:11 that was a little bit rocky and figuring out, okay, how does that work and who does what? But I think over time, right, those relationships have really become established in some way and have been fortified. And now, DIU and NSIC and all these other DOD entities, we have strong relationships with different BCs and accelerators and other types of organizations. 28:41 they are aware of us and are interested in really knowing what our priorities are. And we are trying to always better communicate that to them. And we're going on funding companies together. So I would say that was sort of the first phase over time. Then, you know, I think you focused on, OK, let's let's let's see if we can if this model works, right? If we can fund companies. 29:10 using OTAs, for example, these prototype contracts, and helps to transition some of this technology into DoD. And I would say now where we're at is now we're really hyper-focused on the, you know, because we already proved we can do this, so now it's, okay, let's focus on the most impact for an urgent technologies to DoD, especially given 29:39 the current geopolitical climate. And so now we've sort of shifted into really a focus on these high impact, high, you know, at large scale and in high urgency technologies and startups. So it's a journey, right? It's an evolution. It's been a journey, yeah. And then on the hardware side, right, again, it's been a little bit different, but again, similar where, you know, there wasn't a lot of, I would say, 30:06 VC interests to really fund, especially hardware, early stage technologies. VCs were typically repelled by that, right, in some sense. And naturally so, right? But I think with standing up NSIC and these other organizations, there's been actually several VCs now in this pre-seed to seed stage, funding. 30:35 hardware companies. And so I would say now the hurdle is probably as we funded these companies, now they go on to series A, series B and now they need BCs at that stage, right? To really help them along and further their scaling, right? And so I would say more work is probably needed on that end now. Very exciting times. 31:05 Let's switch gears and let's go back to your consulting firm. Equitech innovate. Again, I don't know where you find the time, but I, you know, so can you showcase here what it is that you do in serving the underrepresented founders that are in these disruptive technologies? What was it that made you go out on your own? 31:32 Yeah, yeah, so just being in the deep tech space that I'm at, and, you know, dual use as well, you know, one thing that I started noticing, and it's something that I've noticed even from just my own background, right, in STEM, right, sort of one, a lack of diversity and representation, right, of, you know, different backgrounds, especially my backgrounds, right, whether it's 32:02 And so again, this is naturally found in a lot of the, deep tech spaces, right? Finding leadership and innovators in that space. And that, that's a whole nother conversation, right? But there's a lot of hurdles, just even for people getting to that space, right? And so naturally you find sort of a lack of talent there. 32:31 And then the other thing is, you know, once, you know, you have underserved communities in deep tech, right, then you have less of them that are aware or become deep tech founders, right? And so then once you are a deep tech founder, right, then you have these VC funding gaps, right, that you find, right, where 32:56 out of all the VC funding, 136 billion, only 1% goes to Black founders or even smaller to Latinx or Indigenous or to women. And especially being in the field that I am in, I would see very few, again, founders from understaffed communities even applying to our program. But then unfortunately, even those that did apply, sometimes the quality was just not up to par. 33:25 Okay. And so it does tear me a bit, you know, in the sense that, you know, I have compassion, but at the same time, there's a level of quality that we need to maintain and things like that. And that is because they often lack some of the resources and guidance, right? And so even to get to where they're at now has been such a huge feat. And so that's where I saw the opportunity 33:55 strategic consulting and advisory firm to really help underserved founders and give them a little bit more guidance and really help them get their technologies to market. Bringing in my DOD expertise, my deep tech expertise, and also in working with underserved communities throughout my career with different nonprofits and whatnot. All right. Yeah. 34:24 Yeah, being that person that looks like them, right? In the room, right? And you also have, you're a mentor for the Stanford Latino Business Action Network. And you're serving on the board of directors for Science is Elementary. And tell me, is that also part of kind of mission-driven? Speak to me a bit about those collaborations. Yeah, yeah, it is, yeah. So... 34:52 Again, just because I'm interested in helping underserved founders, you know, I must have gone, I think to an event at Stanford, and then that's how I got plugged in to that nonprofit organization. Okay. Yeah, so I became a mentor, that this was before starting Ecotech Innovate. And so again, that's where I also just got to focus on helping underserved founders and really guiding them, get them through that process. 35:22 And then in terms of the nonprofits that I'm a board of directors for, yeah, so one of them is Science is Elementary. And so that nonprofit, we focus on really providing inspiring, innovative, high quality science experiences to preschool and elementary school children from underserved communities. And. 35:48 you know, that involves, you know, teaching students, right, training teachers as well, to really build sustainable and quality sort of curriculum, and then engaging as well with different scientists and STEM professionals, and some of them may serve as role models and mentors and things like that. So again, I didn't have any sort of exposure to this. I wish I did when I was, you know, a young kid. But, you know, I think providing that 36:17 for the industry communities is very important because that's where it begins, right? Yes, but you get exposed to it. Yeah, you get exposed, so you learn about opportunities. And so you can dream to be a scientist or things like that. And also you get rid of those fears, right? That may intimidate you from going into STEM, right? Because now there's familiar. And then also it's important to know that 36:43 going to STEM doesn't necessarily mean you need to be a scientist, right? I've transitioned into this role, which is more business, right? But my science background, I'm able to leverage that and it's sort of a value add. So in the show notes, I would like to call out different ways by which my listeners can contact you. Can you speak to... 37:10 what you would like to have in the show notes? Is that your LinkedIn profile? Tell me a little bit about that. Yeah, so yeah, people can reach me on LinkedIn. I'm on there. Also, www.ancik.mil, you can find my LinkedIn there. And also, equi You can find my, you know. 37:37 LinkedIn information there as well as my email, salvador at equi Excellent. So that will be in the show notes as well as the infographic of NSIC. Thank you. So I am gonna move into the part of the podcast that I repeat with every single guest. I have my own consulting firm, NextAct Advisors, and I really work with 38:06 growth stage companies on being purpose driven, scalable and resilient. And I'd like to ask you, I guess, what does purpose driven mean to you? Yeah, I think to me, I've actually always been drawn to purpose driven work. And so for me, it's the so what, right? So there's a lot of cool things you can do, cool technologies. But to me, it's the why, right? And the so what behind it, that really 38:35 pushes me and motivates me to really do the work that I do because I know I'm making a difference in people's lives in one way or another, in a positive way. So whether it's through the nonprofits that I've been involved with, both at a volunteering level and then now on the board leadership or through NSIC and DIU, right? Helping the war fighter and helping with national security. 39:04 or now with my consulting firm and really focusing on helping underserved founders, I think that I'm just drawn to really purpose-driven work that creates a positive impact in people at scale, right? And maybe lead on to your next question, but that does it in a meaningful way. So that moves the needle. I love it. So you've chosen really in alignment with your own 39:33 Origin story. So scalable growth. What does that mean to you? And maybe wearing your INSEC hat or what was scalable? Yeah. So I think, you know, first in terms of like, you know, deep tech startups and going that route, the focus is first on finding product market fit and really getting there. But once you do, 40:02 I think scaling is really about growing, right? Growing not only your team, but expanding your product and really doing it in an impactful way. And I think along with that comes many challenges, right? That you have to make sure your manufacturing processes are in order and that can... 40:28 really accommodate for the volume and speed at which you need to do that. And so I think before scaling needs to come preparedness, right? Being prepared to grow before you do grow because one thing I find often is, you know, sometimes people are focused on growing and then as you're growing, you're really finding all these things that you can't keep up with, right? And then unfortunately, sometimes that's where startups fail, right? 40:55 And so, and it's sad because you've gone so far right along. And so, since you've worked so hard to get there, it's important to just take a beat and really prepare for the growth because I think that will set you up for success. You know, I'm gonna divert a little bit from the third question. I mean, product market fit. Yeah. And software, right? 41:23 Deep tech technologies, it's really about around technology readiness level, TRLs, right? Scaling right to that level where you are scalable, right? Can you for my listeners again, indulge us in technology readiness levels? Yeah. So, yeah. So there are different, you know, technology readiness levels that really describe sort of. 41:52 where your technology is in its development. With NSIC, for example, we have a minimum TRL three. And so that involves at least having sort of analytical and experimental critical function and or characteristic proof of concept. So we don't fund, you know, sort of paper studies or science projects. And so, that's a TRL level that we focus on. 42:21 And as that TRL advances, then you get into the testing phase and in-field environment testing and things like that. So then you can further refine your technology until it's really ready for a proper use case. And then I would say one thing we focus on now is also 42:48 just on the level of advancement in that TRL, right? So, you know, the more you can advance with the funding, the better and so that involves really having a very strong product development plan, right, in place. So that you get more bang for your buck in a way. Right, right. So the product roadmap. Yeah. Thank you. Let's get back to the sandbox and its resilience. 43:17 What does resilience mean to you? Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Yeah, it's one thing that someone told me, you know, they said, you're very resilient. And I was like, oh, really? Thank you. And so, yeah, reflecting back in my life, right? Again, as I mentioned before, you know, you'll be dealt different cards in life, you know, punches, right? And sometimes that will be things that you have no control over. And sometimes there'll be consequences because, you know, you're human and you're young and you make mistakes. And... 43:46 you're stubborn at times or things like that. And so I think resilience is, for me it involves a few things. One is not allowing that to define you. And so it means getting back up, but it also means getting back up stronger and wiser, at least for me, right? There's, I think something you can learn about yourself. 44:11 and about the situation and about others, right? In whatever circumstance you're in. And so it's really making sure you learn the most you can about that particular situation so that when you do stand up and move forward, you're able to do so in a more intentional and successful way, hopefully. Thank you. So last question, did you have fun in the sandbox today? Oh, I had a lot of fun. Yeah, thank you so much. Yeah. 44:41 It's been a unique experience. And so, I had a great time speaking to you when we first met and so today as well. So thank you so much for inviting me. Thank you, Sal. To my listeners, if you liked this episode with Sal Badiyurios, CEO and founder of Equitech Innovate, as well as advisor with Insic of the DIU, that's the Defense Innovation Unit. Please. 45:11 sign up for the Founder's Sandbox. It's released monthly. And business owners, corporate directors, and professional service providers are my guests and they help us learn about how to build with strong governance, resilient, scalable, and purpose-driven companies to make profits for good. So signing off for this month, thank you. And again, Sal, thank you for joining me. Thank you.  

It's the holidays, which means entertaining and cooking, so who better to chat with than one of our favorite people who knows a bit about both: Ruthie Rogers, the owner of one of the world's great restaurants, the River Cafe in London. Then, as the new Bob Dylan biopic, starring Timothée Chalamet, comes to theaters this month, Ash Carter has the story of the studio that revolutionized graphic design and left a lasting visual mark on the culture, thanks in part to that now legendary illustration of Dylan with his hair rendered as psychedelic curls. And finally, Andrew Ryvkin reports on why countries around the world, from Georgia to South Korea, are playing Fascist whack-a-mole.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, Author of Recoding America, Jennifer Pahlka, talks with the UC Riverside School of Public Policy about government's current challenges regarding technology implementation and utilization. This is the first episode in our 11-part series, Technology vs. Government, featuring former California State Assemblymember Lloyd Levine. Thank you so much to our generous sponsor for this episode, the Wall Street Journal. Activate your free school-sponsored subscription today at: WSJ.com/UCRiverside About Jennifer Pahlka: Jennifer Pahlka is a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center and the Federation of American Scientists and a senior advisor to the Abundance Network. She founded Code for America in 2010 and led the organization for ten years. In 2013, she took a leave of absence to serve as U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer under President Obama and helped found the U.S. Digital Service. She served on the Defense Innovation Board, started by the late Ash Carter, under Presidents Obama and Trump. At the start of the pandemic, she also co-founded U.S. Digital Response, which helps government meet the needs of the public with volunteer tech support. She has received the Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship, and was named by Wired as one of the 25 people who has most shaped the past 25 years. She serves on the boards of US Digital Response, America's Frontier Fund, and the Volcker Alliance. Learn more about Jennifer Pahlka via https://www.jenniferpahlka.com/ Interviewers: Lloyd Levine (Former California State Assemblymember, UCR School of Public Policy Senior Policy Fellow) Rachel Strausman (UCR Public Policy Major, Dean's Chief Ambassador) LINK YOUTUBE-ANCHORMusic by: Vir SinhaCommercial Links:https://spp.ucr.edu/ba-mpp https://spp.ucr.edu/mpp  This is a production of the UCR School of Public Policy: https://spp.ucr.edu/  Subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss an episode. Learn more about the series and other episodes via https://spp.ucr.edu/podcast. 

℠2015 – Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Paul Selva, hosted a remembrance ceremony at the Pentagon Memorial in honor of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Show notes and Transcript Col. (Ret) John R. Mills is former Director of Cybersecurity Policy and International Affairs at the Department of Defense. You will have seen his many appearances on War Room with Steve Bannon where he brings his in-depth understanding of national security to the War Room posse.  John is also part of the Center for Security Policy, Committee on Present Danger China.  A year ago he published "The Nation Will Follow: First hand Experiences Fighting the Deep State and the Action Plan for the American Citizen".  We start by discussing how John first became aware of the existence of the Deep State through a brief encounter with a colleague in one of the many corridors of the Pentagon.  He unpacks what exactly the Deep State is, how it is anti God and why it will stop at nothing to take down President Donald J Trump and we finish by looking at John's next book which will be published within months which goes deeper into the war against the Deep State. COL (Ret) John R. Mills is the former director of cybersecurity policy, strategy, and international affairs at the Department of Defense. COL (Ret) Mills has had an immense impact on a number of significant national security events over the last 40 years, from the Cold War, Peace Dividend, War on Terror, World in Chaos, and the era of Great Power Competition.  He has served multiple combat tours, this service has been both in uniform and as a senior civilian for the Department of Defense and included service with the National Security Council at the White House across two Administrations.  He has served in joint, conventional, and special operations units and as a senior staff planner on the Chairman's Joint Staff. John is a part of the Center for Security Policy, Committee on Present Danger China, Spectrum consulting group, an adjunct Professor for a major University's Graduate Program, founder of the National Election Integrity Association, and a regular Op-Ed writer for the Epoch Times, NewsMax, and Daily Middle East. There is a Deep State – and this is the citizen plan of action for what they can do in their immediate neighborhood, the ground upon which they live. That plan involves activating and equipping all citizens with the knowledge of how to represent themselves locally to make a national difference. In a raw, personal and bold account, Colonel Retired John Mills will show us how he, like Whitaker Chambers, played a part in both allowing the Deep State to get a foothold in the federal government and then taking action against it. What is needed is decisive action, directed at the right, precise topics, at the levels of government we know best. The Nation Will Follow is your guide and plan to take that action and take on the Deep State. The Nation Will Follow: Firsthand Experiences Fighting the Deep State and the Action Plan for the American Citizen available in paperback, e-book and audio-book from Amazonhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Nation-Will-Follow-Firsthand-Experiences/dp/1956257578/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-8 Connect with Colonel John.... WEBSITE: https://thenationwillfollow.com/ GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/colonelretjohn TRUTH: https://truthsocial.com/@ColonelRETJohn SUBSTACK: https://substack.com/@colonelretjohn Interview recorded 11.7.23 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Please subscribe, like and share!   Subscribe now Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Colonel John Mills, it is wonderful to have you with us today. Thank you so much for your time. (Col Ret John Mills) Peter, an absolute honour to be on your show. Thank you. Absolutely great to have you. And people can see where they can find you, @ColonelRetJohn, on Truth and on GETTR, the nationwillfollow.com, which we're going to get into, but I encourage everyone to go and make use of the website and see what John has put together. And, John, you're so many people, touch a former director of cyber security policy. I know you served 35 years as a colonel and senior civilian, and you've been involved, as I've learned from just reading the book, at many different areas and aspects of, I guess, the government level, the military level, the Pentagon, so many areas. But it's probably better for me to ask you to introduce yourself and touch on some of those areas, because I certainly can't give honour to all the things you've done. So maybe take a moment or two to introduce yourself. Maybe two thirds of our viewers are UK, we're about 20% US, but two thirds are the UK. So take a minute to and introduce yourself to our audience before we jump into your book. Yeah, thank you, Peter. And also ColonelRetJohn on Substack will be Colonel Ret John all the time more Colonel Ret John than you can handle. And it'll just be a firehose of Colonel Ret John on Substack. But so Peter, I mean, I stopped counting at 35 years because I still have, I still do consulting, I'm very heavily involved in think tanking and things like that. So I'm very involved in the game, but I stopped counting at 35 years, but I kind of break up my time into five eras of service. I came in during the Reagan years and the Cold War. A child of the Cold War, I grew up in the Cold War with nuclear weapons, on alert, not too far from where I grew up. I came in during the Cold War, during the last decade of the Cold War, and it was an exciting time. It was the Reagan era. We were good, they were bad, and we were gonna put the Soviets out of business. It was as simple as that. It was an exciting time, some of the Reagan years. Then it evolved into the peace dividend years. I did a tour in Bosnia, worked closely with the British in peace making and peacekeeping in Bosnia. Learned a lot about a lot of things. So those are the peace dividend years when we'd wonder what is the purpose of our military? What do we do with our military? And then it evolved into the War on Terror. But it was, we even, even before then, this person named Osama kept on coming up in meetings, Osama. This guy, Osama, what does this have to do with us? But I don't get it. Who is this guy? Training camps in Afghanistan. So, I don't understand what's going on. So, it was the War on Terror years. And it was, it was a righteous anger in the response. But you know, as time has gone on, who knows some of the truth of things that went on. But it was as we spun up the US and world machine to hunt down terrorists, for a period of time, things seemed to be working. But that started to morph into from the war on terror to the, I called it the, during the Obama, Biden years, the world in chaos, the world in chaos. And then it became the, after that we'd say great power competition. And now, as we realized what was going on with China, and now it's the great showdown with China. The fifth act is the great showdown with China and the battle to save the republic here in America and actually worldwide.  Well I know we've had Frank Gaffney on talking about his book The Indictment on China. I know you're a fellow of the CSB, so one of your many other parts that you play. But going on to the book, if I can just bring up, this is what the viewers will find on the website. The Nation will follow. I'd encourage everyone to go there. I enjoyed John's book on audio. You can obviously get it as a hardback, paperback. And so much to find, so please go to the website and make use of the information available there. Order your copy. It's a short book, 200 pages. You can read it quite quickly. It'll give you such an overview of The Deep State, really, in the situation there. But maybe I can bring you back. Chapter two, Encounter on the A-Ring, and the quote there, which obviously made you think of what was happening, was, we see more opportunities with her. Do you want to talk about that encounter and how that maybe opened your eyes to what was happening deeper. Well, thank you, Peter. So roughly, it was like July 2016. And I was rushing to a meeting in the Pentagon, you always go to the A-Rank so you can get you can spin around and come out to the, the other part of the Pentagon. You can get to anywhere part of in the Pentagon in eight minutes, if you know, know how to navigate. I was rushing to a meeting. That's what you do in the Pentagon, you rush to meetings and I was in the A-ring, the inner circle of the A-ring and I ran into somebody who had been a Bush appointee, somebody I trusted, somebody I worked with very closely together, somebody I looked at as a mentor, a friend and I just, we ran into each other. I said, well, what are you up to? Where are you going? He says, well, I'm being a greybeard. That's being a sage counsel during some something, some meeting. I'm a grey beard. And and I and I said, well, you know, I said, well, the didn't mean be political, but it was he was a Republican and a Republican appointee. And I said, well, the convention's coming up at this point in time. Trump had knocked out 16 in a row. I was originally a Cruz guy. But hey, after seeing 16 knockouts in a row, I'm Trump. OK. And I said, well, you're going to support Trump at the convention because I knew he was going to the convention. He said, this changed, first thing that changed my life was becoming a saved believer in Christ, but the second and not as important, but pretty important was what he said. He said, when I said, are you going to support Trump at the convention? He said, no, we see more opportunities with her. And I was just, for a second I was just, I didn't know what to say and then I almost lunged at him and I said, who is we and what opportunities do you see? And I just, everything flashed in front of my eyes and my career. I said, Donald J. Trump was right. There is a swamp, there is a deep state, and I just ran headlong right into it. I was shocked. And that, must, is you hadn't come across this in your time in the military. Maybe touch on how you made the step from, I guess, serving, you mentioned serving in Bosnia, how you, that move to actually being in the Pentagon, because the Pentagon is, I've driven past a number of times, and it's this iconic building. How did you end up actually physically being in there? Well, that's a very interesting question. So after 9-11, I was actually with another government agency at that time. I was in San Antonio. We home-schooled our son. I was at a big conference in San Antonio on 9-11, I had my son with me. He was in the room doing his work, but the TV was on. I He said, Dad, you need to come to the TV, something's going on. So I said, oh my. So bottom line, once we got back to the DCC, which is a story in itself, it's in the book. I was actually sent to Central Command, Central Command, and I was in the J5, and I worked for Admiral Cunningham, Admiral Cunningham, not British fleet, Admiral Cunningham from earlier days, but I mean, this is American Navy, Admiral Cunningham. We had no standing con plan or contingency plan for Afghanistan, shockingly enough. We have a lot of what we call con plans, not for everything. And this is one we didn't have for Afghanistan. So I was working outside of the Admiral's office with me, somebody from another government agency, an army planner, and a couple of Air Force C-17 drivers. And so we're kind of trying to come up with the plan. And so his door would be open and Rumsfeld or my president would be on the line saying, what is the blankety blank plan? Give us something. And I felt like a script writer in Hollywood because we're outside, you know, okay, here's the deal. Here's what, here's the next one. They don't like that one. Okay, here's what we're going to do next. So anyway, we came up with the plan for Afghanistan. Shortly after that, I was sent to the Joint Staff because they needed a war planner inside what is called the J3 on the Joint Staff. This is the highest staff in the universe. This was, until woke-ism, the best staff in the universe, all due respect to Whitehall, and I love my British Five Eyes partners. And I've spent time in Whitehall, And I,  there's more on that in the book, but so I went to J3 Special Operations to finish off the Afghan plan, work on other places like Yemen, which is such a beautiful and lovely country and so friendly and nice. And then we started working on the plan for removing Mr. Hussein and started recruiting regime exiles and putting that plan together and executing that plan and going to Iraq to help stand up post-regime change government. So that's how I ended up in the Pentagon. That's how I ended up in the Pentagon. Wow. There's another part of the book that you describe a chance encounter with someone, whether it's chance or not is another issue, but on your way to London, and I remember listening to this, you discussing sitting at dinner and a strange encounter there, which I guess further made you think of what was happening. Do you wanna explain that to the viewers? Thank you, Peter. Yeah, this was October, first few days of October, six, seven, eight, nine, that area. And I was in, I was going to London for a Five Eyes meeting on information sharing. I was the American senior official to the Five Eyes information sharing, the five English speaking countries. On the plane, I saw somebody who had worked for years. He was a very senior FBI official, had retired. We chit chatted a bit on the plane and didn't quite understand what he was doing in London. But a few nights later. Dinner, totally unrelated to the Five Eyes meeting, a common friend of ours had been in London and was giving a dinner. And at the dinner, my call, my retired senior law enforcement colleague, we all stand up and kind of sing for our supper and tell what are we, what is it we're passionate about? And he had an absolute meltdown. Remember, this is 30 days out from the election, and an absolute meltdown about Trump. And we're going to prove that Trump is a Russian asset, which later, when he gave classified testimony to Adam Schiff and it was revealed, he totally said, we have nothing, we have nothing on Trump. So he, when he was, when he rose his right, when he gave, took an oath and was giving testimony, he said, we have nothing, we have nothing. But in this public thing, he says, we're going to prove Trump is a Russian asset. And I go, this is, this is insane. Well, I've never seen him so just crazed like this. And I'm looking around the room, you know, people are probably globalist elites and they're all going fine, because they're saying, oh, come on, Hillary's going to clean up the floor with this Trump guy. It's going to be a knockout. I go, this is crazy. This is crazy. 30 days before the election. And if you do the forensics, and I did the forensics later because I gave a large statement on this to the Durham investigation, is when I did the forensics, he was a good friend of Comey, I knew that he was a good friend of Comey. The only reason he would have been in London was to talk to chief of station. That's an American term for the senior CIA official, Chief of Station. Gina Haspel, Gina Haspel to finalize the Fusion GPS story, which was later proven to be fake. Everybody lied about it. It was stunning. And I'm going, what am I witnessing? Somebody I trust. I've been at many meetings at the White House, many meetings sitting across the table as we introduced the mass surveillance system from 2007-2014 and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative. And that was a good idea at the time. We're going to target bad people, terrorists. What could possibly go wrong? And I want to get on the Trump side. And you made one step from Cruz to Trump. I was Carson Cruz Trump, so I took another step on. But at the beginning, in the first part, you have a chapter simply entitled, What is the Deep State? And we have touched on this just once before, actually, in many interviews, only once with Alex Newman, and he's coming out from a commentator's point of view, but you're coming out of from someone who's served in the military. So a different aspect. So maybe you can explain, this is a term which I guess is, more familiar to our US audience and maybe our UK audience and is often, disparaged, dismissed and ridiculed, mocked and thrown out by the media, which makes you wonder when the media are throwing something out and dismissing something that makes you wonder why they are dismissive so quickly. But the deep state, maybe take a while and introduce what is actually the Deep State. Well, I think you can break the deep state down to three basic components. The first are the technocrats, and these are the senior ranking officials that kind of float in and out of government at the, as we're finding out, the fifth, I call it the fifth branch of government, the non-profits in America. They go to the think tanks. I'm all for think tanks. I'm all for, but I'm for transparency and accountability. I'm all for think tanks, but they float into university. I'm a college professor, university professor myself and do a graduate course. I'm all for that, but, they kind of float in and out. These are the Fauci's. These are the Fauci's. Now Fauci actually never left government. He was literally the highest paid bureaucrat in the US government, But he was not just a simple bureaucrat. He was a very senior technocrat that were, these are the ones that are the high priests of what is truth and what is the narrative. And they cannot be questioned or you will be blacklisted. You'll be side-lined if you dare question the technocrats. But then there's the bureaucrats. Those are the careerists. They can be uniformed military. They can be civilians, and I've been both. You take an oath in office of both, in uniform or as a civilian in the US government. But these are the bureaucrats that are beholden to the idea of no matter what the question is, the answer is government and more government. Doesn't matter what the question is, The answer is a government program. So you've got the technocrats, the bureaucrats, and then you've got the plutocrats. And these are the wealthy. Many of them dominate big tech. Nothing wrong with being wealthy. Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as it was properly and legally accrued. But they have immense wealth. And as we saw with, you know, with big tech, you know, Elon Musk, you know, Facebook, Amazon, Jeff Bezos, all these, you know, they have immense power in America. You also have the venture capitalists that, you know, we're finding out and I've been to many of them, There's Anne Greeson Horowitz, Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia, etc. on Sand Hill Road in Silicon Valley. So these plutocrats have immense wealth, nothing wrong with being wealthy, but they have undue influence and access because of that wealth. So those are the three major components of the deep state. And I guess the deep state had no intention, the media had no intention, the establishment had no intention of Trump actually winning that election. And that changed the whole game. Suddenly someone was in the White House that was not part of the plan in whichever way you want to take that. Tell us about that because you talk about that the forces that are there that really were opposing Trump at every step. Yeah, absolutely. Government has grown out of control and there are those in government say they're conservative, they're not conservative, most of them, they're beholden to government and big government and all powerful government, but in early 2016, we started suddenly these meetings started happening where the Russians are meddling in the election again. Okay, well, interesting. And the cyber response group was a group that I was one of the original members of going back 2008, 2009. Because of several reasons, I would say I was eased out of that group. And these tremors and indicators were coming from the cyber response group. So in these very classified meetings, we start, several people start going, tee hee, tee hee, It's the Russians again, and they're very interested in this Trump guy. Very interested, and a lot of this is coming from our Five Eyes partners, because if you understand the American process of intelligence collection, we have very, what are supposed to be strict controls, but an end around that existed. It was not normally used, but used was when one of your Five Eyes partners would come up to the operations table, because at most of these, these operations centers, you normally have your five eyes partners who are, who are there right with you. So you got a Brit, you got, Canadian, and an Australian and, and maybe 25% of a New Zealander, because they have to cover everything. So... You know, you know, it too well. So, and it's a wonderful partnership and it's a good partnership, but it's part of the basis for what spun out of control. So they could, you could come up and it's called, it's called a table drop where one of your partners, and this can be used in several situations, but you know, your back is turned, you know, you're at the, you're at the centre table on the watch floor. Of your Five Eyes partners walks up, you turn around, you turn back, and there's a piece of paper on the table. And it's like, ooh, what is that? Ooh, this is good. Ooh, it's very interesting. And, oh, it didn't come from us. So I don't have to worry if there is an American national in this collection because it didn't come from us. It didn't come from us. It came from one of our partners. So there was that aspect, because there was all these inferences that all of this was coming from our Five Eyes partners, that Trump was mocked and pilloried for daring to say, because remember, he brought that up. And everybody's, oh, come on, come on. What are you talking about? No, no, that's exactly what happened. That's exactly what happened. So a few days after the election, I was called by one of my careerist colleagues on the classified, the top secret phones, and John, you have got to be involved in this. We're standing up an interagency committee to finalize the Russian narrative and delay or block Trump's first inauguration. I said, I just, I just, as soon as I sung up the phone, I just put my head in my hands on my desk. I said, I cannot believe this is going on. The simple short story is we ran the asset, but I'm a careerist. I took an oath of office. If Trump is a Russian asset, I want to know about it. So the bottom line, November, December of 2016, we spun up. The outcome was there were no dinosaurs in this dinosaur park. There was no information. So, so this is what, this is one of the, we have Intel community assessments. I've been involved in a number, national intelligence estimates. That's why we're spending $80 billion a year on the US intelligence community. And that's an unclassified number that it's released. It's right on the DNI website. And in this, there was no information. So in my write-up, because when that process, the package comes back to the departments and agencies, I write an action memo for the Secretary of Defense, who was Ash Carter, he's now dead. And I said, sir, my recommendation is not concur. There is no information that shows that Trump is a Russian asset. Even though the executive summary said Trump is a Russian asset, if you look in the body, there's nothing. We got nothing. And I was told John, stand down, cease and desist. Ash already signed his Comey and Brennan are personally hands on keyboard typing this very brief document. Which came out it's not the unclassified version is on the DNI website but if there's very little difference between these classified and top secret versions, its like what's the difference why do we even have two versions. And they Oh, John, John, you don't understand we said, small dog, but in the public version, we said puppy, all the difference in the world. Okay, I said, This is utterly ridiculous. But so you never get a director of CIA, or FBI, personally typing these memos, that's what you have a staff for. And so this was a total coup before to try and prevent block Trump from even getting into office, but that the war never ceased and never stopped to this day. John, I want to get on to the second book coming out. When you do anything with, I guess, the War Room Posse, having Stephen K. Bannon writing the intro, it becomes bigger and is part of a series now. But I want to, as a Christian, I'm intrigued by someone who talks about their faith as quite central, and listening to that, that came across, and it's, I guess, a balance against the deep state that wants to remove that and provide its own truth and security. But you talk about your Christian faith as providing, I guess, a foundation, a confidence, a certainty for you personally. How has that played, what importance has that played, I guess, in your career in the military and what you're doing now? Well, we want to be, we live in this world as Christians, but we should not conform or be part of this world. Man, which includes man and woman, is imperfect and fallen, and we have to always realize that, but the secularist, those who want to drive God out of the public discussion are, it's all about me. It's about me, me, me, and we're perfect. We have, It is this presumption, and it's faulty, that we have ultimate knowledge of everything, and we are masters of our situation. We aren't. We aren't. And being a saved believer in Christ gives you what I call a known starting point in life, whether you're talking about position, navigation, or timing, or you're talking about life, it's a known starting point, and it sets you out differently. And I'll just give you a little vignette of why we should be different and just not fall into what is the trend of the day? Is it the cult of transgenderism? Is it this? Is it that? No, no, the book, Bible, King James Version, that's what I read, it's enduring, it transcends time, almost said the wrong word there, transcends time. And no matter what, it gives you a known starting point. And in the business of government or the business of business, in life, you're going to be have a lot of questionable situations, you're going to be put in whether you like it or not. And having a moral compass, that known starting point is a foundation, but a quick vignette. I used to have to travel with this Japanese general. And one time, he came up to me, and we were getting ready to go out on the day together to do some things. And he comes up to me. John, something is different about you, you're different, why are you different? And I said, well, sir, I looked around, I go, I just didn't expect this, I said, sir, I'm a saved believer in Christ, and I'd like to share that message with you of his plan of salvation. He was like, but it was an honour, this Japanese general, he'd seen something different in me. And I really appreciate that, respected it, and hopefully I was a good witness for Christ in that situation. I've stayed in contact with him and hopefully planted that seed. So that's where I think it's very important, Peter. John, thanks for sharing your faith story. As I said, it's always fascinating. And as I said before, what you started out, you may not have intended to be serious, I have no idea. I know that Worm has a habit of making things bigger and grander and growing things. And you're, the second book coming out, War Against the Deep State. When is this coming out? It's available for pre-order now on thenationwillfollow.com. Should be out in the fall here, September, October time period, and it's a great follow-up book that gives, talks about several things. One of the big messages in The Nation Will Follow is in the American governance system, it's all about action, action, action at the county level. We have roughly 3,300 counties in America and county equivalents, a city can be a county. And it's all about government. It's all about the foundation of our governance. And if anybody is not happy with the way things are going in the swamp in D.C., the swamp in D.C. and the elite stand upon the shoulders of the nanny staters at the county level. What the left has done in America is, over 50 years, they've taken over the seven common centres of gravity in America and our county. It's the school board, county council, election board, registrar, judges, sheriffs, and prosecutors. We have to take those back. We've lost them over 50 years. In book two, we go into greater detail on that. We give some good success stories. We also talk about the foundations of the surveillance state, which I was one of the creators of, unfortunately, in the 2007 to 2014. So more-  That's something that fascinates me because we have now seen live facial recognition across London, across the UK, widened out, and a huge abuse of, so we have the online safety bill coming in the UK, which will bring in the most, the biggest control, I guess, of what is said online. And I know that a number of, I know that Wikipedia, Signal, a number of others said they'll have to pull out of the UK. But talk to us about that mass surveillance state because that seems to be where we are going as a society. Well, in the book, Ordinance of the Deep State, I give the genesis and foundation of mass surveillance. And it was really, as the war on terror started, we realized we need to be better on scale. And now I've learned to be very careful about that word scale, globalists and elites and deep staters love the word scale, because they want to always control on scale. But yeah, tracking, hacking, individual cell phone is one thing or an individual computer is one thing. Doing it in an enduring manner on a mass scale is something very different. And you have to automate, you have to do it, use artificial intelligence, you can't just use throw more humans at the problem. So you have to create these structures. The foundation was the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative started during the, toward the end of the Bush period, Obama came on board, they did a review, they liked it, they loved it, they wanted more of it, so they poured gas on it. And it exploded because it's almost intoxicating to the policy person, to the senior official. And the question is not, it was not, it was no longer can we, the question should have been should we, because it got out of control. It just, it became, when you see the mass scale that is capable, that is possible, Everybody just, just goes bonkers they lose their minds they said yeah, it's you could get anything you want in split seconds and believe me, people don't understand this until we've actually sat in the, one of the control centres at one of the intelligence communities or five eyes partners and see what what what I mean by that because it's it's breath-taking what can be had, we see Hollywood versions. But a lot of this stuff is, and sometimes is even better, and it becomes dangerous because it starts to establish a mastery of government over the citizen. In the American system, definitely, the people are the owners of the government, not the other way around. But if you're one of the elite, going in and out of government, think tanks, universities, You don't worry about what the common folks say. It's irrelevant, because they're too stupid. And that's been said. I've seen that at the White House. I've heard that said at the White House on both the Bush and the Obama era. A citizen is too stupid to know what they want, yet we're going to decide for them. Verbatim, that's been said. And that's bad. That is really dangerous. Because then you start the pathway down to socialism, totalitarianism, communism, and that's dangerous. So these are tools and the campuses out in the Virginia countryside that have now been established are derived from that program. Actually, I managed, I was the DOD senior lead for that and I had budget oversight over immense amount of money. And a lot of those campuses out on the Virginia countryside were born from that program. And so no longer do we have your old school CIA operative trying to buy off somebody in some remote country. I mean, that's dangerous. It's dirty. You don't get to see the kids and family at night. So why don't you just do it remotely and do it remotely. But it also became exciting because, what, who cares about what's going overseas. What about domestically? Why don't we just use it to start unmasking those Americans and expose what those Americans are saying in these intercepts? We're supposed to be focused on the foreign threat. No, no, no, we don't care about the foreign threat. We want to know who's opposing Obamacare? Who's opposing the growth of government? Who doesn't agree with us? And we just had an incredibly important court order. I'm number 862 on the Twitter top 10,000 of those silenced by Twitter, you know, and we just had an incredible court finding where a federal judge in Louisiana said, hold on federal government. You can't collude with big tech. You are not allowed to collude with big tech on this. He goes, I don't, this is wrong. You cannot do this. We knew, everybody knew about this. We knew about this. We knew about this. And, you know, and Merrick Garland's Department of Justice, instead of saying, you're right, judge, we shouldn't collude with big tech to spy on American citizens. Merrick Garland is, and just got overruled, introduced a petition to, you know, stay that judge's ruling. Why? Because DHS CISA on Glebe Road wants to continue what they call the customer access portal, where government officials can directly reach into big tech and social media and identify and throttle American citizens. And again, that's very important for me. I have a legal team working on a filing. This was a huge, huge finding for this judge to, to, to cease this program and we need to know the truth. And who's leading this right now? Jenny Silly. Jenny Silly, retired Army O5 from, spent a lot of time at Fort Meade, very close to Keith Alexander, the former director of NSA and, and Cyber Command. And she was one of the ones I worked on in the early days of the CNCI. And she's upset, Biden's upset that they can't collude with big tech to silence America. Ladies and gentlemen, we got to fight. We got to fight and we got to bring down the deep state because they will, they will destroy every one of us. And I know that, although I watched it closely, and I know you talk about that, the cancer of big government and that big tech collusion. Maybe I could ask you about the Durham report, because obviously many of those in position of power have done all they can do. They failed to keep Trump out in 2016, but they've done all they can do to try and discredit him. And that's been part of the Durham report. Do you want to just let us know how that has transpired? What kind of has been the outcome of that?  Well, I gave a number of statements. I had to update them as more truth was revealed to the Durham investigation. And I know we didn't get a slam dunk home run or whatever the British sports appropriate British sports term is. We didn't get a, yeah, I know Steve Bannon and others, I mean, I wasn't totally happy, but there were many good things that came out. Now, first of all, I'd say the mere fact that Durham was able to release a report, if you, understand the deepest part of the deep state is the Department of Justice and the Department to Justice front office. I worked with them closely during the Trump years and getting anything out of the DOJ front office was a miracle. Because they hated Trump and they were totally undermining Barr, even though Barr was in the end the best anyway either, but they were totally undermining Barr, everything. So the mere fact that he got it out was incredible. The second thing was he also, It was a horrific indictment, informal indictment of the entire federal law enforcement and intelligence community. The third, I would say, now I think this was part of the negotiation between Bulldog Durham and Garland to get the report out is, yeah, you've got this FBI retired guy McGonigal, the senior executive, he's been arrested, indicted for taking payoffs from the Russians, but we're not gonna call it part of the Durham report. We're just gonna announce it, it's gonna be separate, and we're not gonna connect it to the Durham report. Very likely information I gave at Durham led to McGonigal, and for everybody's reference, Charles McGonigal in 2015, 2016 was the senior FBI official in charge of counterintelligence in the FBI field office, the largest FBI field office. And so here's the guy who's supposed to be investigating Russia interference in the election, Russia penetration of the Trump campaign, and he retires and is arrested for what? Unlawfully working for the Russians. Now, of course, the pious elitist would say, oh, but he was retired. It has nothing to do with his government service. Oh, come on. These things just don't come out of thin air. Those tentacles of him working for the Russians go back years, years before he retired. So it was a huge finding. The guy who was supposed to be the trusted FBI chief in charge of Russia, Russia, Russia, has been arrested. His whole life is a mess now. He's going to prison, I guarantee that. And he's been arrested for working for the Russians. So that was huge. Now there's also five in, they're called criminal referrals, oftentimes just simplified to referrals. You never, I didn't get through 35 plus years of government service never being charged or indicted without understanding intimately the traps and the unforced errors of the environment, but you never want your name to be associated with a referral. That is known as a bad thing. Five criminal referrals are on page 11 of Durham. Well, three of those five sure sound an awful lot like information that I gave to the Durham investigation. So not a home run, maybe not even a triple, but there was good things that came out of the Durham report and these things take time. It's not over yet and we got to just keep on fighting and swinging. And as somebody from England said, never ever, ever, ever give up, never, ever surrender. Absolutely. Colonel Retired John Mills, I so appreciate you coming on. As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the book. If I can just bring it up once again to encourage, whether you're US, UK, Europe, you can get a hold of it either as a physical book or as an audiobook and then part two, the next part of the series is coming very soon. John said the fall for American viewers, autumn for UK viewers. It is coming soon, but do get a copy. You'll really enjoy reading, understanding what lies behind a lot of what we are seeing and it will educate you massively.  So John, I appreciate you coming on. Thank you so much for your time today. Peter, thank you so much. Honoured to be on with you, all my UK brothers and sisters and all freedom-loving people in Europe. Thank you so much, Peter.

Let's talk about the magic that is improvisation, or what us cool kids call "improv." It's an art form that's all about unleashing your creativity and performing without a script or plan. Sure, you may have heard of it as a side-splitting comedy act, but improv goes a lot deeper than that. From acting to business to mental health, improv skills can be applied in various areas of life.  Enter Kelly Leonard, the VP of Creative Strategy, Innovation, and Business Development at the infamous Second City in Chicago. Kelly, who over the decades has produced hundreds of original revues with comedians such as Stephen Colbert, Tina Fey, and Seth Meyers (to name a few) has a unique understanding of behavioral science through the lens of improv.   Regaling us with lessons and stories from his career and book, ‘Yes And', we learn how to utilize improv to help us adapt, empathize, communicate, trust, and collaborate better. We are reminded that saying ‘yes' to new ideas and experiences sparks creativity and can lead to beneficial outcomes. From deepening our relationships with others by practicing active listening and learning to accept and appreciate new ideas, regardless of their origin. It also teaches us to think on our feet and work together to create innovative solutions to problems. Listen and Learn:  How Stephen Colbert came to write a blurb for Kelly's book, Yes, and: How Improvisation Reverses No, But Thinking and Improves Creativity and Collaboration Why so many successful comedy performers have an improv background  How improv skills can help us to empathize, communicate and collaborate The idea of the ‘Yes And' exercise  Why Kelly prefers to use the word ensemble vs. team  Improv's positive impact on caregiver burden and depression An introduction to the ‘I Am Somebody Who' exercise Why adopting a Yes And mentality helps create a psychologically safe environment How improv can be applied in therapy  If improv were an animal, what animal would it be?  What's next for Kelly's work in science and the arts  Resources:  Learn more about Kelly: https://www.secondcity.com/people/kelly-leonard+ Get your copy of Yes, And: How Improvisation Reverses No, But Thinking and Improves Creativity and Collaboration: https://bookshop.org/a/30734/9780062248541 Check out The Second City website: https://www.secondcity.com/ Listen to Kelly's podcast, Getting to Yes And: https://www.secondcityworks.com/podcast About Kelly Leonard  Kelly Leonard is the Executive Director of Learning and Applied Improvisation at Second City Works. His book, “Yes, And: Lessons from The Second City” was released to critical acclaim in 2015 by HarperCollins and was praised by Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair who called it “...an excellent guide to the lessons that have bubbled up in Second City's improv workshops.” Kelly is a popular speaker on the power of improvisation to transform people's lives. He has presented at The Aspen Ideas Festival, The Code Conference,TEDx Broadway, Chicago Ideas Festival, The Stanford Graduate School of Business and for companies such as Coca Cola, Microsoft, Twitter, Memorial Sloan Kettering and DDB Worldwide.  Kelly co-created an initiative with the Center for Decision Research at the Booth School at the University of Chicago, The Second Science Project, that looks at behavioral science through the lens of improvisation. He also hosts the podcast, “Getting to Yes, And,” for Second City Works and WGN radio that features interviews with academics, authors and leaders such as Brene Brown, Adam Grant, Michael Lewis, Lindy West, Ash Carter and Amy Edmondson. For over twenty years, Kelly oversaw Second City's live theatrical divisions where he helped generate original productions with such talent as Tina Fey, Stephen Colbert, Amy Poehler, Seth Meyers, Steve Carell, Keegan Michael Key, Amy Sedaris, Adam McKay and others. In 2019, Arts Alliance Illinois awarded Kelly and his wife Anne Libera with their Creative Voice Award.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Margaret O'Mara, Scott and Dorothy Bullitt Chair of American history and professor at the University of Washington, leads the conversation on big tech and global order.   CASA: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Maria Casa, director of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Thank you all for joining us. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic, if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Margaret O'Mara with us to discuss big tech and global order. Dr. O'Mara is the Scott and Dorothy Bullitt Chair of American history and professor at the University of Washington. She writes and teaches about the growth of the high-tech economy, the history of American politics, and the connections between the two. Dr. O'Mara is an Organization of American Historians distinguished lecturer and has received the University of Washington Distinguished Teaching Award for Innovation with Technology. Previously, she served as a fellow with the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Forum on the Future of Liberal Education. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. O'Mara served in the Clinton administration as an economic and social policy aide in the White House and in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She is the author of several books and an editor of the Politics and Society in Modern America series at Princeton University Press. Welcome, Margaret. Thank you very much for speaking with us today. O'MARA: Thank you so much, Maria, and thank you all for being here today. I'm setting my supercomputer on my wrist timer so I—to time my talk to you, and which is very apropos and it's really—it's great to be here. I have a few slides I wanted to share as I talk through, and I thought that since we had some really interesting meaty present tense readings from Foreign Affairs as background for this conversation as well as the recent review essay that I wrote last year, I thought I would set the scene a little more with a little more history and how we got to now and thinking in broad terms about how the technology industry relates to geopolitics and the global order as this very distinctive set of very powerful companies now. So I will share accordingly, and, Maria, I hope that this is showing up on your screen as it should. So I knew I—today I needed to, of course, talk—open with something in the news, this—the current—the ongoing questions around what has—what was in the sky and what is being shot down in addition to a Chinese spy balloon, which is really kind of getting to a question that's at the center of all of my work. I write at the intersection of economic history and political history and I do that because I'm interested in questions of power. Who has power? What do they value? This is the kind of the question of the U.S.-China—the operative question of the U.S.-China rivalry and the—and concern about China, what are the values, what are the—and Chinese technology and Chinese technology companies, particularly consumer-facing ones. And this is also an operative question about the extraordinary concentration of wealth and power in a few large platform companies that are based on the West Coast of the United States—(laughs)—a couple in my town of Seattle where I am right now talking to you, and others in Silicon Valley. It's very interesting when one does a Google image search to find a publicly available image and puts in Silicon Valley the images that come up are either the title cards of the HBO television comedy, which I was tempted to add, but the—really, the iconic shot of the valley as place is the Apple headquarters—the Spaceship, as it's called in Cupertino—that opened a few years ago in the middle of suburbia. And this is—you know, the questions of concentrated power in the Q&A among the background readings, you know, this was noted by several of the experts consulted about what is the threat of big tech geopolitically and concentrated power, whether that's good, bad, if that's an advantage geopolitically or not. It was something that many of those folks brought up as did the other readings as well. And this question of power—who has power and taking power—has been an animating question of the modern technology industry and there's an irony in this that if you think about the ideological granddaddy of Apple itself is the Whole Earth Catalog, which I—and this is—I quote from this in the opening to my review essay that was part of the background readings and I just thought I would pop this up in full for us to think about. This is Stewart Brand. This is the first issue of the Whole Earth Catalog. The full issue is digitized at the Internet Archive as are so many other wonderful artifacts and primary source materials about this world, and this is right here on the—you know, you turn—open the cover and here is the purpose: “We are as gods and might as well get used to it. So far, remotely done power and glory as via government, big business, formal education, and church has succeeded to the point where gross obscure actual gains. In response to this dilemma and to these gains a realm of intimate personal power is developing—power of the individual to conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested. Tools that aid this process are sought and promoted by the Whole Earth Catalog.” The audience of the Whole Earth Catalog was not a bunch of techies, per se. It was back to the landers, people who were going and founding communes and the catalog was—you know, which was more a piece of art than it was an actual shopping guide, had all sorts of things from books by Buckminster Fuller to camp stoves and to the occasional Hewlett Packard scientific calculator, making this kind of statement that these tools could actually be used for empowerment of the individual because, of course, the world of 1968 is one in which computers and AI are in the hands of the establishment. We see this playing out in multiple scales including Hollywood films like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which, of course, follows, what, four years earlier Dr. Strangelove, which was also a satiric commentary on concentrated power of the military industrial complex, and computers were, indeed, things that were used by large government agencies, by the Pentagon, by Fortune 50 companies. And so the countercultural computer or personal computer movement is very much about individual power and taking this away from the global order, so to speak. This is the taking—using these tools as a way to connect people at the individual level, put a computer on every desk, connect everyone via computer networks to one another, and that is how the future will be changed. That is how the inequities of the world would be remedied. The notion of ultimate connectivity as a positive good was not something that originated with Facebook but, indeed, has much, much deeper origins and that's worth thinking about as we consider where we are in 2023 and where things are going from there. It's also worth thinking about the way in which global—the global order and particularly national security and government spending has played a role—an instrumental role—in the growth of the technology industry as it is. Take, for example, the original venture-backed startup, Fairchild Semiconductor, which is legendary as really starting the silicon semiconductor industry in the valley. It is the—it puts the silicon in the valley, and the eight co-founders known as the Traitorous Eight because they all quit en masse their previous job at Shockley Semiconductor working for William Shockley, the co-inventor of the transistor, and they went off and did something that one does not—did not do in 1957 very often, which was start your own company. This was something that you did if you were weird and you couldn't work for people. That's what one old timer told me, reflecting back on this moment. But they, indeed, started their own company, found outside financing and in this group contains Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, the two co-founders of Intel, as well as Gene Kleiner, co-founder of Kleiner Perkins, the venture capital firm. This is really the—you know, the original—where it all began, and yes, this is a story of free-market entrepreneurialism but it also is a story of the national security state. This is a—Fairchild is founded at a moment when most of the business in the Santa Clara Valley of California, later known as Silicon Valley, was defense related. This is where the jobs were. This is the business they were doing, by and large. There was not a significant commercial market for their products. A month after they're incorporated—in September '57 is when Fairchild incorporates itself. October 1957 Sputnik goes into orbit. The consequent wave of space spending is really what is the literal rocket ship that gets Silicon Valley's chip business going. The integrated circuits made by Fairchild and other chip makers in the valley go into the Apollo guidance system. NASA is buying these chips at a time that there is not a commercial market for them and that enables these companies to scale up production to create a commodity that can be delivered to the enterprise. And so by the time you get to the 1970s you are not talking about defense contractors in any way. These are companies that are putting their chips in cars and in other—all sorts of one time mechanical equipment is becoming transistorized. And Intel is Intel, still one of the most important and consequential—globally consequential tech companies around at the center of the action in the CHIPS Act of last year, not to mention others. But this longer history and this intertwining with the military industrial complex and with broader geopolitics—because, of course, the space program and the Apollo program was a Cold War effort. It was about beating the Soviets to the moon, not just doing it because we could. But that really kind of dissipates and fades from collective memory in the Valley and beyond with the rise of these entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, young, new-time CEOs that are presenting a very, very different face of business and really being consciously apolitical, presenting themselves as something so far apart from Washington, D.C. And this notion of tech, big or little, being something separate from government and governance is perpetuated by leaders of both parties, not just Ronald Reagan but also by Democrats of a younger generation that in the early 1980s there was a brief moment in which lawmakers like Tim Wirth and Gary Hart were referred to as Atari Democrats because they were so bullish on high-tech industries as the United States' economic future. And the way in which politicians and lawmakers from the 1980s forward talked about tech was very much in the same key as that of people like Steve Jobs, which is that this is a revolutionary—the tools have been taken from the establishment, and this is something that is apart from politics, that transcends the old global order and is a new one. And, in fact, in the speech in May 1988 in Moscow at the end of his presidency Ronald Reagan delivers a—you know, really frames the post-Cold War future as one in which the microchip is the revolutionary instrument of freedom: “Standing here before a mural of your revolution”—and a very large bust of Lenin—“I talk about a very different revolution that is taking place right now. Its effects are peaceful but they will fundamentally alter our world, and it is—the tiny silicon chip is the agent of that, no bigger than a fingerprint.” This is really remarkable, if we sit back and take a deep breath and think about it, and particularly thinking about what happens after that. What happens after that are decades in which, again, leaders of both parties in the United States and world leaders elsewhere are framing the internet and understanding the internet as this tool for freedom and liberation, a tool that will advance democracy. Bill Clinton, towards the end of his presidency, famously kind of said, effectively, that I'm not worried about China because the internet is going to bring—you know, internet is going to make it very hard to have anything but democracy. And this notion of a post-Cold War and beyond the end of history and tech and big tech being central to that that, in fact, aided the rise of big tech. That was a rationale for a light regulatory hand in the United States, allowing these companies to grow and flourish and so big, indeed, they have become. But I want to end on a note just thinking about the—you know, why this history is important, why this connective tissue between past and present actually does matter. It isn't just that, oh, this is nice to know. This is useful. Lawrence Preston Gise was the second—sorry, the first deputy administrator of DARPA in 1958, created in the wake of the Sputnik—post-Sputnik panic, originally called ARPA, now DARPA. He later ran the entire Western Division of the Atomic Energy Commission—Los Alamos, Livermore, et cetera. Longtime government public servant. In his retirement he retired to his farm in west Texas and his young grandson came and lived with him every summer. And his grandson throughout his life has talked about how—what a profound influence his grandfather was on him, showing him how to be a self-sufficient rancher, how to wrangle cattle and to build a barbed wire fence. But the grandson—you know, what the grandson didn't mention that much because it wasn't really relevant to his personal experience was who his grandfather was and what he had done. But when that grandson, Jeff Bezos—a few years ago when there was—when Google employees were writing their open letter to CEO Sundar Pichai saying, we are not in the defense business. We are—we don't like the fact that you are doing work with the Pentagon, and pressuring Google successfully and other companies to get out of doing work with the Pentagon, Bezos reflected, no, I think we're—I think this is our patriotic duty to do work—do this kind of work. And as I listened to him say that on a stage in an interview I thought, ah, that's his grandfather talking because this little boy, of course, was Jeff Bezos, the grandfather of Lawrence Preston Gise, and those—that connective tissue—familial connective tissue as well as corporate and political connective tissue, I think, is very relevant to what we have before us today. So I'll leave it there. Thanks. CASA: Thank you, Margaret, for that very interesting introduction. Let's open up to questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) While our participants are gathering their thoughts would you start us off by providing a few examples of emerging technologies that are affecting higher education? O'MARA: Yeah. Well, we've had a very interesting last three years in which the debate over online learning versus in-person learning very quickly was not necessarily resolved. We did this mass real-time experiment, and I think it made—put into sharp relief the way in which different technologies are shaping the way that higher education institutions are working and this question of who's controlling the—who controls the platforms and how we mediate what learning we do. Even though I now teach in person again almost everything that I do in terms of assignments and communication is through electronic learning management systems. The one we use at UW is Canvas. But, of course, there are these broader questions—ethical questions and substantive questions—about how our AI-enabled technologies including, notably, the star of the moment, ChatGPT, going to change the way in which—it's mostly been around how are students going to cheat more effectively. But I think it also has these bigger questions about how you learn and where knowledge, where the human—where the human is necessary. My take on it is, aside from the kind of feeling pretty confident in my having such arcane prompts for my midterm essay questions and research projects that ChatGPT, I think, would have a very hard time doing a good job with it but although I'm looking forward to many a form letter being filled by that technology in the future, I think that there is a—you know, this has a history, too. The concern about the robot overlords is a very deep one. It extends from—you know, predates the digital age, and the anxiety about whether computers are becoming too powerful. Of course, this question of artificial intelligence or augmented intelligence kind of is the computer augmenting what a human can do rather than replacing what a human can do or pretending to have the nuance and the complexity that a human might be able to convey. I think there's, you know, these bigger questions and I'm sure—I imagine there are going to be some other questions about AI. Really, you know, this is a—I think this is a very good learning moment, quite frankly, to think more—you know, one of the things I teach about a lot is kind of the information that is on the internet and who's created it and how it is architected and how it is findable and how those platforms have been developed over time. And what ChatGPT and other AIs like them are doing is they're scraping this extraordinary bounteous ocean of information and it is as good as the—it's as good as its source, right. So whatever you're able to do with it you have—your source materials are going to determine it. So if there is bias in the sources, if there is inaccuracy in the sources, there is—that will be replicated. It cannot be—you know, I think what it is is it's a really good rough draft, first draft, for then someone with tacit knowledge and understanding to come into, and I like to think of digital tools as ones that reveal where things that only people can do that cannot be replicated, that this—where human knowledge cannot be, where a machine still—even though a machine is informed by things that humans do and now does it at remarkable speed and scale it still is—there is—we are able to identify where humanity makes a difference. And then my one last caution is I do—you know, the one thing you can't do with these new—any of these new technologies is do them well really fast, and the rush to it is a little anxiety inducing. CASA: Thank you. Our first question is from Michael Leong from the—he's a graduate student at the University of Arizona. Michael, would you like to unmute and ask your question? Q: Yeah. Hi, Dr. O'Mara. Hi, Ms. Casa. Sorry for any background noise. I just had a, like, general question about your thoughts on the role big tech plays in geopolitics. Specifically, we've seen with SpaceX and Starlink especially with what's going on in Ukraine and how much support that has been provided to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and potentially holding that over—(inaudible)—forces. So, basically, do we expect to see private companies having more leverage over geopolitical events? And how can we go forward with that? O'MARA: Yeah. That's a really—that's a really great question. And you know, I think that there's—it's interesting because the way—there's always been public-private partnerships in American state building and American geopolitics, and that's something—it's worth kind of just noting that. Like, from the very beginning the United States has used private entities as instruments of policy, as parastatal entities, whether it be through, you know, land grants and transcontinental railroad building in the nineteenth century all the way through to Starlink and Ukraine because, of course, the Pentagon is involved, too—you know, that SpaceX is in a very—is a significant government contractor as ones before it. I think that where there's a really interesting departure from the norm is that what we've seen, particularly in the last, you know, the last forty years but in this sort of post-Cold War moment has been and particularly in the last ten to fifteen years a real push by the Pentagon to go to commercial enterprises for technology and kind of a different model of contracting and, I should say, more broadly, national security agencies. And this is something, you know, a real—including the push under—when Ash Carter was in charge of DOD to really go to Silicon Valley and say, you guys have the best technology and a lot of it is commercial, and we need to update our systems and our software and do this. But I think that the SpaceX partnership is one piece of that. But there has been a real—you know, as the government has, perhaps, not gotten smaller but done less than it used to do and there's been more privatization, there have been—there's been a vacuum left that private companies have stepped into and I think Ian Bremmer's piece was really—made some really important points in this regard that there are things that these platform companies are doing that the state used to do or states used to do and that does give them an inordinate amount of power. You know, and these companies are structurally—often a lot of the control over these companies is in the hands of very, very few, including an inordinate unusual amount of founder power, and Silicon Valley, although there's plenty of political opinionating coming out of there now, which is really a departure from the norm, this kind of partisan statements of such—you know, declarations of the—of recent years are something that really didn't—you didn't see very much before. These are not folks who are—you know, their expertise lies in other domains. So that's where my concern—some concern lies where you have these parastatal actors that are becoming, effectively, states and head of states then and they are not, indeed, speaking for—you know, they're not sovereign powers in the same way and they are speaking for themselves and speaking from their own knowledge base rather than a broader sense of—you know, they're not speaking for the public. That's not their job. CASA: Our next question is from Michael Raisinghani from Texas Woman's University. Michael, if you could unmute. Q: Thank you, Ms. Casa and Dr. O'Mara. A very insightful discussion. Thank you for that. I just thought maybe if you could maybe offer some clarity around the generative AI, whether it's ChatGPT or Wordtune or any of this in terms of the future. If you look, let's say, five, ten years ahead, if that's not too long, what would your thoughts be in this OpenAI playground? O'MARA: Mmm hmm. Well, with the first—with the caveat that the first rule of history is that you can't predict the future—(laughs)—and (it's true ?); we are historians, we like to look backwards rather than forwards—I will then wade into the waters of prediction, or at least what I think the implications are. I mean, one thing about ChatGPT as a product, for example, which has been really—I mean, what a—kudos for a sort of fabulous rollout and marketing and all of a sudden kind of jumping into our public consciousness and being able to release what they did in part because it wasn't a research arm of a very large company where things are more being kept closer because they might be used for that company's purposes. Google, for example, kind of, you know, has very in short order followed on with the reveal of what they have but they kind of were beaten to the punch by OpenAI because OpenAI wasn't—you know, it was a different sort of company, a different sort of enterprise. You know, a lot of it are things that are already out there in the world. If we've, you know, made an airline reservation and had a back and forth with a chatbot, like, that's—that's an example of some of that that's already out in the world. If you're working on a Google doc and doing what absolutely drives me bonkers, which is that Google's kind of completing my sentences for me, but that predictive text, those—you know, many things that we are—that consumers are already interacting with and that enterprises are using are components of this and this is just kind of bringing it together. I think that we should be very cautious about the potential of and the accuracy of and the revolutionary nature of ChatGPT or any of these whether it be Bard or Ernie or, you know, name your perspective chatbot. It is what it is. Again, it's coming from the—it's got the source material it has, it's working with, which is not—you know, this is not human intelligence. This is kind of compilation and doing it very rapidly and remarkably and in a way that presents with, you know, literacy. So I'm not—you know, does very cool stuff. But where the future goes, I mean, clearly, look, these company—the big platform companies have a lot of money and they have a great deal of motivation and need to be there for the next big thing and, you know, if we dial back eighteen months ago there were many in tech who were saying crypto and Web3 was the next big thing and that did not—has not played out as some might have hoped. But there is a real desire for, you know, not being left behind. Again, this is where my worry is for the next five years. If this is driven by market pressures to kind of be the—have the best search, have the best—embed this technology in your products at scale that is going to come with a lot of hazards. It is going to replicate the algorithmic bias, the problems with—extant problems with the internet. I worry when I see Google saying publicly, we are going to move quickly on this and it may not be perfect but we're going to move quickly when Google itself has been grappling with and called out on its kind of looking the other way with some of the real ethical dilemmas and the exclusions and biases that are inherent in some of the incredibly powerful LLMs—the models that they are creating. So that's my concern. This is a genie that is—you know, letting this genie out of the bottle and letting it become a mass consumer product, and if—you know, OpenAI, to its credit, if you go to ChatGPT's website it has a lot of disclaimers first about this is not the full story, effectively, and in the Microsoft rollout of their embedding the technology in Bing last week Microsoft leaders, as well as Sam Altman of OpenAI, were kind of—their talking points were very careful to say this is not everything. But it does present—it's very alluring and I think we're going to see it in a lot more places. Is it going to change everything? I think everyone's waiting for, like, another internet to change everything and I don't know if—I don't know. The jury's out. I don't know. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written one. It comes from Denis Fred Simon, clinical professor of global business and technology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He asked, technology developments have brought to the surface the evolving tension between the drive for security with the desire for privacy. The U.S. represents one model while China represents another model. How do societies resolve this tension and is there some preferred equilibrium point? O'MARA: That is a—that's the billion-dollar question and it's—I think it's a relevant one that goes way back. (Laughs.) I mean, there are many moments in the kind of evolution of all of these technologies where the question of who should know what and what's allowable. If we go back to 1994 and the controversy over the Clipper chip, which was NSA wanting to build a backdoor into commercially available software, and that was something that the industry squashed because it would, among other things, have made it very difficult for a company like Microsoft to sell their products in China or other places if you had a—knew that the U.S. national security agencies were going to have a window into it. And, of course, that all comes roaring back in 2013 with Snowden's revelations that, indeed, the NSA was using social media platforms and other commercial platforms—consumer-facing platforms—to gather data on individuals. You know, what is the perfect balance? I mean, this is—I wish I had this nice answer. (Laughs.) I would probably have a really nice second career consulting and advising. But I think there is a—what is clear is that part of what has enabled the American technology industry to do what it has done and to generate companies that have produced, whether you think the transformations on balance are good or bad, transformative products, right. So everything we're using to facilitate this conversation that all of us are having right now is coming from that font. And democratic capitalism was really critical to that and having a free—mostly free flow of information and not having large-scale censorship. I mean, the postscript to the Clipper chip—you know, Clipper chip controversy is two years later the Telecom Act of 1996, which was, on the one hand, designed to ensure the economic growth of what were then very small industries in the internet sector and not—and prevent the telecoms from ruling it all but also were—you know, this was a kind of making a call about, OK, in terms when it comes to the speech on the internet we are going to let the companies regulate that and not be penalized for private—when private companies decide that they want to take someone down, which is really what Section 230 is. It's not about free speech in a constitutional sense. It's about the right of a company to censor or to moderate content. It's often the opposite of the way that it's kind of understood or interpreted or spun in some ways. But it is clear that the institutions of—that encourage free movement of people and capital have been—are pretty critical in fueling innovation writ large or the development and the deployment and scaling of new technologies, particularly digital technologies. But I think you can see that playing out in other things, too. So that has been, I think, a real tension and a real—there's a market dimension to this, not just in terms of an ethical dimension or political dimension that there does need to be some kind of unfettered ability of people to build companies and to grow them in certain ways. But it's a fine balance. I mean, this sort of, like, when does regulation—when does it—when do you need to have the state come in and in what dimension and which state. And this goes back to that core question of like, OK, the powerful entities, what are their values? What are they fighting for? Who are they fighting for? I don't know. I'm not giving you a terribly good answer because I think it's a really central question to which many have grappled for that answer for a very long time. CASA: Thank you. Our next question comes from Ahmuan Williams, a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma. Ahmuan? Q: Thank you. Hi. I'm wondering about ChatGPT, about the regulation side of that. It seems like it's Microsoft that has kind of invested itself into ChatGPT. Microsoft had before gotten the Pentagon contract just a few years back. So it's kind of a two-part question. So, first of all, how does that—what does that say about government's interest in artificial intelligence and what can be done? I know the Council of Foreign Relations also reported that the Council of Europe is actually planning an AI convention to figure out how, you know, a framework of some type of AI convention in terms of treaties will work out. But what should we be worried about when it comes to government and the use of AI in political advertisements and campaigns, about, basically, them flooding opinions with, you know, one candidate's ideas and, therefore, them being able to win because they're manipulating our opinions? So what would you say would be kind of a regulation scheme that might come out of these type—new flourishing AI devices? O'MARA: Mmm hmm. Mmm hmm. That's a good question. I think there's sort of different layers to it. I mean, I see that, you know, the Pentagon contract—the JEDI contract—being awarded to Microsoft, much to Amazon's distress—(laughs)—and litigious distress, is a kind of a separate stream from its decision to invest 10 billion (dollars) in OpenAI. I think that's a commercial decision. I think that's a recognition that Microsoft research was not producing the—you know, Microsoft didn't have something in house that was comparable. Microsoft saw an opportunity to at last do a—you know, knock Google off of its dominant pedestal in search and make Bing the kind of long—kind of a punch line—no longer a punch line but actually something that was a product that people would actively seek out and not just use because it was preinstalled on their Microsoft devices. That is—so I see that as a market decision kind of separate from. The bigger AI question, the question of AI frameworks, yes, and this, again, has a longer history and, you know, I kind of liken AI to the Pacific Ocean. It's an enormous category that contains multitudes. Like, it's—you know, we can—oftentimes when we talk about AI or the AI that we see and we experience, it's machine learning. And part of why we have such extraordinary advances in machine learning in the last decade has—because of the harvesting of individual data on these platforms that we as individuals use, whether it be Google or Meta or others, that that has just put so much out there that now these companies can create something that—you know, that the state of the art has accelerated vastly. Government often is playing catch up, not just in tech but just in business regulation, generally. The other—you know, another example of this in the United States cases with the—in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, with what were then new high-tech tech-driven industries of railroads and oil and steel that grew to enormous size and then government regulators played catch up and created the institutions that to this day are the regulators like the FTC created in 1913. Like, you know, that's—of that vintage. So, I think that it depends on—when it comes to—the question about electoral politics, which I think is less about government entities—this is about entities, people and organizations that want to be in charge of government or governments—that is, you know, AI—new technologies of all kinds that incorporate ever more sophisticated kind of, essentially, disinformation, that—information that presents as real and it is not. The increased volume of that and the scale of that and the sophistication of that and the undetectability of it does create a real challenge to free and fair elections and also to preventing, in the American context, international and foreign intervention in and manipulation of elections but true in every context. That is, you know, getting good information before voters and allowing bad actors to exploit existing prejudices or misassumptions. That is an existing problem that probably will be accelerated by it. I think there's—there's a strong case to be made, at least in the U.S. context, for much stronger regulation of campaign advertising that extends to the internet in a much more stricter form. In that domain there's—I think we have pretty good evidence that that has not been—you know, having that back end has made the existing restrictions on other types of campaign speech and other media kind of made them moot because you can just go on a social platform and do other things. So there's—you know, this is—I think the other thing that compromises this is the rapidly changing nature of the technology and the digital—and the global reach of these digital technologies that extends any other product made—you know, any other kind of product. It just is borderless that—in a kind of overwhelming way. That doesn't mean government should give up. But I think there's a sort of supranational level of frameworks, and then there are all sorts of subnational kind of domain-specific frameworks that could occur to do something as a countervailing force or at least slow the role of developers and companies in moving forward in these products. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written one. It comes from Prashant Hosur, assistant professor of humanities and social sciences at Clarkson University. He asks, how do you—or she. I'm sorry. I'm not sure. How do you think big tech is likely to affect conventional wisdom around issues of great power rivalry and power transitions? O'MARA: Hmm. I don't—well, I think there are a—these are always—these definitions are always being redefined and who the great powers are and what gives them power is always being reshuffled and—but, of course, markets and economic resources and wealth and—are implicated in this for millennia. I think that tech companies do have this—American tech companies and the tech platforms, which I should preface this by saying, you know, none of the companies we're talking about now are going to rule forever. Maybe that just goes without—it's worth just note, you know, this is—we will have the rise and fall. Every firm will be a dinosaur. Detroit was the most innovative city in the world a hundred and ten years ago. There's still a lot of innovation and great stuff coming out of Detroit, but if you—if I queried anyone here and said, what's the capital of innovation I don't know if you would say Detroit. But back in the heyday of the American auto industry it was, and I think it's a good reminder. We aren't always going to be talking about this place in northern California and north Seattle in this way. But what we have right now are these companies that their products, unlike the products of Henry Ford or General Motors, are ones that are—go across borders with—you know, the same product goes across borders seamlessly and effortlessly, unlike an automobile where a—to sell in a certain country you have to meet that country's fuel standards and, you know, safety standards, et cetera, et cetera. You have a different model for a different market. Instead, here, you know, a Facebook goes where it goes, Google goes where it goes, YouTube goes where it goes, and that has been kind of extraordinary in terms of internationalizing politics, political trends. I think what we've seen globally is very—you know, the role of the internet in that has been extraordinary, both for good and for ill, in the last fifteen years. And then the kind of—the immense—the great deal of power that they have in the many different domains and, again, Ian Bremmer also observed this kind of the—all the different things they do and that is something that is different from twenty-five years ago where you now have companies that are based on the West Coast of the United States with products designed by a small group of people from a kind of narrow, homogenous band of experience who are doing things like transforming taxis and hotels and, I mean, you name it, kind of going everywhere in a way that in the day of the—you know, the first Macintosh, which was like this cool thing on your desk, that was—yes, it was a transformative product. It was a big deal and Silicon Valley was—became a household word and a phrase in the 1980s and the dot.com era, too. That was—you know, everyone's getting online with their AOL discs they got in the mail. But what's happened in the twenty-first century is at a scale and—a global scale and an influence across many different domains, and politics, this very deliberate kind of we are a platform for politics that has really reshaped the global order in ways that are quite profound. This is not to say that everything has to do with big tech is at the root of everything. But let's put it in context and let's, you know—and also recognize that these are not companies that were designed to do this stuff. They've been wildly successful what they set out to do and they have a high-growth tech-driven model that is designed to move fast and, yes, indeed, it breaks things and that has—you know, that has been—they are driven by quarterly earnings. They are driven by other things, as they should be. They are for-profit companies, many of them publicly traded. But the—but because, I think, in part they have been presenting themselves as, you know, we're change the world, we're not evil, we're something different, we're a kinder, gentler capitalism, there has been so much hope hung on them as the answer for a lot of things, and that is not—kind of giving states and state power something of the past to get its act together that instead states need to step up. CASA: Our next question is from Alex Grigor. He's a PhD candidate from University of Cambridge. Alex? Q: Hello. Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? O'MARA: Yes. CASA: Yes. Q: Yeah. Hi. Thank you, Ms. O'Mara. Very insightful and, in fact, a lot of these questions are very good as well. So they've touched upon a lot of what I was going to ask and so I'll narrow it down slightly. My research is looking at cyber warfare and sort of international conflict particularly between the U.S. and China but beyond, and I was wondering—you started with the sort of military industrial complex and industry sort of breaking away from that. Do you see attempts, perhaps, because of China and the—that the technology industry and the military are so closely entwined that there's an attempt by the U.S. and, indeed, other countries. You see increase in defense spending in Japan and Germany. But it seems to be specifically focused, according to my research, on the technologies that are coming out of that, looking to reengage that sort of relationship. They might get that a little bit by regulation. Perhaps the current downsizing of technology companies is an opportunity for governments to finally be able to recruit some good computer scientists that they haven't been able to—(laughs)—(inaudible). Perhaps it's ASML and semiconductor sort of things. Do you see that as part of the tension a conscious attempt at moving towards reintegrating a lot of these technologies back into government? O'MARA: Yeah. I think we're at a really interesting moment. I mean, one thing that's—you know, that's important to note about the U.S. defense industry is it never went away from the tech sector. It just kind of went underground. Lockheed, the major defense contractor, now Lockheed Martin, was the biggest numerical employer in the valley through the end of the Cold War through the end of the 1980s. So well into the commercial PC era and—but very—you know, kind of most of what was going on there was top secret stuff. So no one was on the cover of Forbes magazine trumpeting what they've done. And there has been—but there has been a real renewed push, particularly with the kind of—to get made in Silicon Valley or, you know, made in the commercial sector software being deployed for military use and national security use and, of course, this is very—completely bound up in the questions of cyber warfare and these existing commercial networks, and commercial platforms and products are ones that are being used and deployed by state actors and nonstate actors as tools for cyber terrorism and cyber warfare. So, yes, I think it's just going to get tighter and closer and the great—you know, the stark reality of American politics, particularly in the twentieth and into the twenty-first centuries, is the one place that the U.S. is willing to spend lots of money in the discretionary budget is on defense and the one place where kind of it creates a rationale for this unfettered—largely, unfettered spending or spending with kind of a willingness to spend a lot of money on things that don't have an immediately measurable or commercializable outcome is in national security writ large. That's why the U.S. spent so much money on the space program and created this incredible opportunity for these young companies making chips that only—making this device that only—only they were making the things that the space program needed, and this willingness to fail and the willingness to waste money, quite frankly. And so now we're entering into this sort of fresh—this interesting—you know, the geopolitical competition with China between the U.S. has this two dimensions in a way and the very—my kind of blunt way of thinking about it it's kind of like the Soviet Union and Japan all wrapped up in one, Japan meaning the competition in the 1980s with Japan, which stimulated a great deal of energy among—led by Silicon Valley chip makers for the U.S. to do something to help them compete and one of those outcomes was SEMATECH, the consortium to develop advanced semiconductor technology, whose funding—it was important but its funding was a fraction of the wave of money that just was authorized through last year's legislation, the CHIPS Act as well as Inflation Reduction Act and others. So I'm seeing, you know, this kind of turn to hardware and military hardware and that a lot of the commercial—the government subsidized or incentivized commercial development of green technology and advanced semiconductor, particularly in military but other semiconductor technology and bringing semiconductor manufacturing home to the United States, that is—even those dimensions that are nonmilitary, that are civilian, it's kind of like the Apollo program. That was a civilian program but it was done for these broader geopolitical goals to advance the economic strength and, hence, the broader geopolitical strength of the United States against a competitor that was seen as quite dangerous. So that's my way of saying you're right, that this is where this is all going and so I think that's why this sort of having a healthy sense of this long-term relationship is healthy. It's healthy for the private sector to recognize the government's always been there. So it isn't though you had some innovative secret that the government is going to take away by being involved. And to also think about what are the broader goals that—you know, who is benefiting from them and what is the purpose and recognize often that, you know, many of the advanced technologies we have in the United States are thanks to U.S. military funding for R&D back in the day. CASA: Our next question is written. It's from Damian Odunze, who is an assistant professor at Delta State University. Regarding cybersecurity, do you think tech companies should take greater responsibility since they develop the hardware and software packages? Can the government mandate them, for instance, to have inbuilt security systems? O'MARA: Hmm. Yeah. I think—look, with great power comes great responsibility is a useful reminder for the people at the top of these companies that for—that are so remarkably powerful at the moment and because their platforms are so ubiquitous. There are—you see, for example, Microsoft has really—is a—I think what they've done in terms of partnering with the White House and its occupants and being—kind of acting as a NSA first alert system of sorts and kind of being open about that I think that's been good for them from a public relations perspective, and also—but I think it also reflects this acknowledgement of that responsibility and that it also is bad for their business if these systems are exploited. Yeah, I think that, again, regulation is something that—you know, it's like saying Voldemort in Silicon Valley. Like, some people are, like, oh, regulation, you know. But there's really—there can be a really generative and important role that regulation can play, and the current industry has grown up in such a lightly-regulated fashion you just kind of get used to having all that freedom, and when it comes to cybersecurity and to these issues of national security importance and sort of global importance and importance to the users of the products and the companies that make them there's, I think, a mutual interest in having some sort of rules of the road and that—and I think any company that's operating at a certain scale is—understands that it's in their market interest to be—you know, not to be a renegade, that they are working with. But I think having—you know, there can be a willingness to work with but they're—having a knowledge and an understanding and a respect for your government partners, your state partners, whether they be U.S. or non-U.S. or supranational is really critically important and sometimes tech folks are a little too, like, oh, politics, they don't know what they're doing, you know. We know better. And I think there needs to be a little more mutual exchange of information and some more—yes, some more technical people being able to be successfully recruited into government would probably be a help, too, so there's—on both sides of the table you have technically savvy people who really understand the inner workings of how this stuff is made and don't have simplistic answers of like, oh, we'll just take all the China-made technology out of it. You're, like, well, there's—like, it's kind of deep in the system. You know, so having technologists in the conversation at all points is important. CASA: Thank you. I think we have time for one more question. We'll take that from Louis Esparza, assistant professor at California State University in Los Angeles. Q: Hi. Thank you for your very interesting talk. So I'm coming at this from the social movements literature and I'm coming into this conversation because I'm interested in the censorship and influence of big tech that you seem to be, you know, more literate in. So my question is do you think that this—the recent trends with big tech and collaboration with federal agencies is a rupture with the origin story of the 1960s that you talked about in your talk or do you think it's a continuity of it? O'MARA: Yeah. That's a great way to put it. The answer is, is it both? Well, it's something of a rupture. I mean, look, this—you know, you have this—you have an industry that grows up as intensely—you know, that those that are writing and reading the Whole Earth Catalog in 1968 the military industrial complex is all around them. It is paying for their education sort of effectively or paying for the facilities where they're going to college at Berkeley or Stanford or name your research university—University of Washington. It is the available jobs to them. It is paying for the computers that they learn to code on and that they're doing their work on. It is everywhere and it is—and when you are kind of rebelling against that establishment, when you see that establishment is waging war in Vietnam as being a power—not a power for good but a power for evil or for a malevolent—a government you don't trust whose power, whose motivations you don't trust, then you—you know, you want to really push back against that and that is very much what the personal computer movement that then becomes an industry is. That's why all those people who were sitting around in the 1970s in Xerox Palo Alto Research Center—Xerox Park—just spitballing ideas, they just did not want to have anything to do with military technology. So that's still there, and then that—and that ethos also suffused other actors in, you know, American government and culture in the 1980s forward, the sort of anti-government sentiment, and the concerns about concentrated power continue to animate all of this. And the great irony is that has enabled the growth of these private companies to the power of states. (Laughs.) So it's kind of both of those things are happening and I think, in some ways, wanting to completely revolutionize the whole system was something that was not quite possible to do, although many—it is extraordinary how much it has done. CASA: Margaret, thank you very much for this fascinating discussion and to all of you for your questions and comments. I hope you will follow Margaret on Twitter at @margaretomara. Our next Academic Webinar will take place on Wednesday, March 1, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Chris Li, director of research of the Asia Pacific Initiative and fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, will lead a conversation on U.S. strategy in East Asia. In the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR's paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/Careers. Follow at @CFR_Academic on Twitter and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Thank you again for joining us today. We look forward to you tuning in for our webinar on March 1. Bye. (END)  

In this installment of Best Of The Gist, we listen back to Mike's October 17, 2019 interview with former Secretary of Defense in the Obama White House, Ashton Carter. He died this week at 68 years old. Then we replay Mike's Tuesday Spiel about Kanye West's most recent public disaster and its root causes. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chris, Zack, and Melanie sit down to talk about the recently-released Biden-Harris National Security Strategy. Several months delayed, the document recognizes that the United States is in an intense competition with China and asserts that Washington will look for ways to cooperate with both allies and adversaries on important global challenges such as climate change. Does the NSS assess the threat environment correctly? How will the United States manage both competition and cooperation with adversaries? Is the U.S. doing what it must to “outmaneuver” China during this “decisive decade”? Chris is bothered that it is hard to have an honest debate about what the United States is doing in Ukraine, Zack discusses the legacy of Ash Carter, and Melanie is appalled that American military pilots have been selling their services to the Chinese military. Episode Reading: https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/assessing-the-national-security-strategy

On this Washington Roundtable episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report Podcast, sponsored by Bell, our guests are Dov Zakheim, PhD, former DoD comptroller, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dr. Patrick Cronin of the Hudson Institute, Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO who is now with the Center for a New American Security and Michael Herson of American Defense International. Topics: — Update on National Defense Authorization Act and debt ceiling increase during the “lame duck” session after the election next week and the new Congress in January — Support for Ukraine on Capitol Hill as 30 progressives propose then rescind letter calling for talks with Russia — Gauging whether Republicans retake both House and Senate or just the House — How Washington and NATO counter Moscow should Russian officials make good on their threats to target US commercial spacecraft supporting Ukraine — Why Vladimir Putin appears to be easing off his nuclear rhetoric and whether he will be removed from power over the coming months — Takeaways from Chinese Communist Party's congress as Xi Jinping and a phalanx of hardliners take power, humiliating moderates including former premier Hu Jintao by physically removing him from the Great Hall during the closing ceremony, but also from the Standing Committee and Politburo — Implications of US Air Force's proposal to retire it's last two active duty F-15C fighter squadrons from Kadena Air Base on Okinawa and replace it with a rotational force — Demonstrations grow more violent in Iran as analysts debate longevity of the Islamic Republic — Analysis of the Biden administration's new National Defense Strategy as well as nuclear posture and missile defense reviews — Remembering the life and extraordinary legacy of the nation's 25th defense secretary, Dr. Ash Carter, who passed away of a heart attack at age 68

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on Obit-Ash Carter.

President Obama's final defense secretary Ash Carter has died here in Boston. WBZ's Drew Moholland reports.

Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman debated Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz as they vie for a critical Senate seat. The race represents the best chance for Democrats to flip a Republican-held Senate seat this year. Since Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his army mobilization for the war in Ukraine, independent media outlets, human rights activists and draftees themselves have painted a bleak picture. The Chinese city of Shanghai has started administering an inhalable COVID-19 vaccine in what appears to be a world first. The vaccine, a mist that is sucked in through the mouth, is being offered for free as a booster dose for previously vaccinated people, according to an announcement posted on an official city social media account. Los Angeles detectives are investigating whether a recording last year that captured city councilmembers' racist remarks was made illegally. Disclosure of the recording earlier this month unleashed a citywide scandal just weeks before Election Day. The Clorox Company said it has recalled its scented multi-surface cleaners and all-purpose cleaners. The recall doesn't include its iconic original pine-scented Pine-Sol, which is its only product that is registered as a disinfectant. The Suns routed the defending champs, the Pelicans won without their two biggest stars, there's a new ironman in the NHL with a milestone goal, and a new manager for the Marlins. President Joe Biden rolled up his sleeve and got his updated COVID-19 booster shot. Biden used Tuesday's White House occasion to urge everyone to get boosted to ensure they stay healthy over the holidays. A Russian court has rejected an appeal by U.S. basketball star Brittney Griner of her nine-year prison sentence for drug possession, a step that could move her closer to a possible high-stakes prisoner swap between Moscow and Washington. U.S. consumers were less confident this month as concerns about inflation took hold again after receding in recent months. Police say the 19-year-old gunman who killed a teacher and a 15-year-old girl at a St. Louis high school was armed with an AR-15-style rifle and what appeared to be more than 600 rounds of ammunition. WhatsApp said service on the popular chat app has been restored following a brief outage that left people around the world complaining that they couldn't send or receive messages. Rishi Sunak has become Britain's third prime minister this year. He is tasked with taming an economic crisis that has left the country's finances in a precarious state and millions struggling to pay their food and energy bills. The House Jan. 6 committee is interviewing Hope Hicks, a longtime aide to former President Donald Trump. That's according to a person familiar with the meeting. Ash Carter, the Obama administration defense secretary who opened military combat jobs to women, has died at age 68. Adidas has ended its partnership with the rapper formerly known as Kanye West over his offensive and antisemitic remarks. The German sportswear company said Tuesday in a statement that it “does not tolerate antisemitism and any other sort of hate speech" and called Ye's recent comments and actions “unacceptable, hateful and dangerous." Americans who live in apartments without private garages are stringing extension cords across sidewalks and waiting in line at public charging stations for hours to power up their electric vehicles. EVs are soaring in popularity amid tax incentives and high gas prices, but how and where to charge up remains a dilemma that's a barrier for most renters. —The Associated PressSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Raj Shah, Managing Partner at Shield Capital, joins Lucas Bagno and Ian Cinnamon on this episode. Takeaways:- Raj and Shield don't care whether a founding team has experience selling to government, because the firm can help with that. They evaluate the team, the market and the tech when they're looking at an investment.- Ash Carter was the first sitting Secretary of Defense to come to Silicon Valley in decades when he visited to jumpstart new initiatives to encourage startups working with government.- Raj recommends that startups work with organizations within the government that have a mandate to move quickly. - If a company decides to work with consultants, ensure that incentives are aligned such that the consultant benefits when the company benefits, rather than the consultant receiving a large payment regardless of the outcome.- Many more generalist investors have been investing in defense, but it's a very difficult space to invest in. It takes time for investors to learn the jargon and the players.- When a company is evaluating and investor, it should ask two primary questions: 1) Does this investor truly understand the customer set? 2) Can this investor be helpful in company building in the boardroom?Thanks for listening — if you like what you hear, please review us on your favorite podcast platform.Check us out on the web at www.villageglobal.vc or get in touch with us on Twitter @villageglobal.Want to get updates from us? Subscribe to get a peek inside the Village. We'll send you reading recommendations, exclusive event invites, and commentary on the latest happenings in Silicon Valley. www.villageglobal.vc/signup

Raj Shah, Managing Partner at Shield Capital, joins Lucas Bagno and Ian Cinnamon on this episode. Takeaways:- Raj and Shield don't care whether a founding team has experience selling to government, because the firm can help with that. They evaluate the team, the market and the tech when they're looking at an investment.- Ash Carter was the first sitting Secretary of Defense to come to Silicon Valley in decades when he visited to jumpstart new initiatives to encourage startups working with government.- Raj recommends that startups work with organizations within the government that have a mandate to move quickly. - If a company decides to work with consultants, ensure that incentives are aligned such that the consultant benefits when the company benefits, rather than the consultant receiving a large payment regardless of the outcome.- Many more generalist investors have been investing in defense, but it's a very difficult space to invest in. It takes time for investors to learn the jargon and the players.- When a company is evaluating and investor, it should ask two primary questions: 1) Does this investor truly understand the customer set? 2) Can this investor be helpful in company building in the boardroom?Thanks for listening — if you like what you hear, please review us on your favorite podcast platform.Check us out on the web at www.villageglobal.vc or get in touch with us on Twitter @villageglobal.Want to get updates from us? Subscribe to get a peek inside the Village. We'll send you reading recommendations, exclusive event invites, and commentary on the latest happenings in Silicon Valley. www.villageglobal.vc/signup

In a world of increasing polarization, Kelly Leonard is working to bridge the divide and bring people together by teaching the power of improv. In this episode you will learn: 1. The importance of play, especially as we get older. 2. The power of "Yes, And" to create agreement and understanding. 3. The importance of a shared humanity that includes people who may not think or vote like we do. "The world we live in right now, no one wants to work together. It's never been this bad, in my experience. If we could just enter rooms with curiosity instead of blame, if we could enter rooms with a 'Thank You, Because' orientation, I think we have a shot." - Kelly Leonard Kelly Leonard is the Executive Director of Learning and Applied Improvisation at Second City Works. His book, “Yes, And: Lessons from The Second City” was released to critical acclaim in 2015 by HarperCollins and was praised by Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair who called it “...an excellent guide to the lessons that have bubbled up in Second City's improv workshops.” Kelly is a popular speaker on the power of improvisation to transform people's lives. He has presented at The Aspen Ideas Festival, The Code Conference, TEDx Broadway, Chicago Ideas Festival, The Stanford Graduate School of Business and for companies such as Coca Cola, Microsoft, Twitter, Memorial Sloan Kettering and DDB Worldwide. Kelly co-created an initiative with the Center for Decision Research at the Booth School at the University of Chicago, The Second Science Project, that looks at behavioral science through the lens of improvisation. He also hosts the podcast, “Getting to Yes, And,” for Second City Works and WGN radio that features interviews with academics, authors and leaders such as Brene Brown, Adam Grant, Michael Lewis, Lindy West, Ash Carter and Amy Edmondson. For over twenty years, Kelly oversaw Second City's live theatrical divisions where he helped generate original productions with such talent as Tina Fey, Stephen Colbert, Amy Poehler, Seth Meyers, Steve Carell, Keegan-Michael Key, Amy Sedaris, Adam McKay and others. In 2019, Arts Alliance Illinois awarded Kelly and his wife Anne Libera with their Creative Voice Award. Twitter.com/KLSecondCity Paul Vato is an on camera and voice actor, improvisor, podcaster and entrepreneur. Connect with Paul Vato: PaulVato.com • VATO.tv • y.at/

In honor of Pride Month, first-year term member Lucas Schleusener, president and co-founder of Out in National Security (ONS), speaks with fellow term member Nayyera Haq, host of SiriusXM Radio. Luke discusses his and ONS's work to amplify LGBTQIA+ voices in the national security community. For those who do not know him yet, in addition to his advocacy work with ONS, Luke is a security fellow at the Truman National Security Project. Before this, he served on the speechwriting staff of Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, and Ash Carter. The Term Member Spotlight Series highlights individuals within the Stephen M. Kellen Term Member Program. Drawing on the enormous amount of talent and expertise within the Council's Term Member Program, this series features a term member in conversation with a fellow term member discussing their career path, how they got to where they are, the challenges they have faced along the way, and the current work they are doing. We hope this regular series will provide an opportunity for Council term members to better engage and learn from one another, draw upon shared experiences within the group, and connect across geographies.

In this episode, Anthony talks with Ash Carter, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, who was nominated by President Obama for the role in December 2014, and author of the book ‘Inside the Five-Sided Box'. The conversation begins with Ash reflecting on when he started working in the Pentagon in 1993, more specifically his work on international relations with Russia, identifying the first warning signs of Putin's aggression.Ash gives his take on whether the West was “too slow to understand the danger posed by Putin”; touching on whether the invasion of Ukraine was something that could have been avoided and whether recent NATO applications by Sweden and Finland will spark a response from Putin. Finally, Ash talks about his book, which gives the reader a bird's-eye view of what is behind the walls of the Pentagon and how it's run. They debate the importance of demystifying government agencies and whether transparency of its inner workings is vital to maintaining trust between people and their political institutions.

Ash Carter, the 25th American Secretary of Defense, joins 18th Airborne Corps Podcast host Joe Buccino from his office at the Harvard Kennedy School where he is the director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Ash, who served as President Obama's final SecDef from 2015 to 2017, gives his view of the world from his Harvard perch. Joe and Ash discuss the global security environment today. The Secretary walks our host around the world, offering insight into Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, the Indo-Pacific, and lands in the United States.  Ash was among our Nation's most consequential public servants. Under his service at the top of the Pentagon, ISIL was defeated in Mosul, the Department of Defense opened combat roles to women and the United States entered the Iran nuclear deal. In this half hour discussion, Ash reflects on his legacy and remarks on the US military today. Finally, the two discuss some of Ash's predecessors at the Pentagon and why serving as US Secretary of Defense in the best job in the world. The 18th Airborne Corps Podcast is the official podcast of the U.S. Army's XVIII Airborne Corps. Recorded on Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the program releases new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday. We ask you to tell others about the program and to please leave a five-star rating and a review on Apple podcasts.  

Meet Ash Carter, the former Secretary of Defense and current director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. Carter brings his unique perspective to everything from cybersecurity in schools, to the dangers of misinformation, to aliens.   Read more on our Shaped blog, including a full transcript and research for this episode: https://www.hmhco.com/blog/podcast-school-cyber-attacks-and-the-rise-of-misinformation-with-secretary-ash-carter

Audio of a talk given by Revd Ash Carter on 'Jesus, the Pharisees and the family likeness' from John 8:31-47 at a Christians in Parliament Chapel Service which was held by video call on Tuesday 27th April 2021.

Audio of a talk given by Revd Ash Carter on 'Jesus, the Pharisees and the abuse of power' from John 7:45-52 at a Christians in Parliament Chapel Service which was held by video call on Tuesday 20th April 2021.

Audio of a talk given by Revd Ash Carter on 'Jesus, the Pharisees and the love of God' from John 5:41-44 at a Christians in Parliament Chapel Service which was held by video call on Tuesday 13th April 2021.

Stephanie is the founder of The Verse Media. She was formerly a General Partner of growth equity firm, ABS Capital Partners, and is the wife of former Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter.  We discuss: The icing on the cake [02:20] A job that really comes along once in a lifetime [04:17] What never gets talked about when one is striving for excellence [05:33] A waste of wisdom and experience [08:04] A playbook for your second half [10:03] A humbling necessity to rewire the way you work [12:54] Why businesses undervalue giving the time to think [14:57] By grownups for grownups [16:55] Strategies to regain your agency when it gets hard [21:00] The people you would have paid $100 for an hour spent on the phone with you [25:54] At ABS, Stephanie was responsible for raising $1.6B for the firm’s funds, creating its Investor Relations function and leading all marketing, event and investment research activities. In support of the Department of Defense, she advocated for military families and veterans. She was awarded the “Distinguished Public Service Award” by the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2017. Learn more about Stephanie at http://www.theversemedia.com/ (www.theversemedia.com).

The best way we thought to celebrate the great writer Mark Harris's new book Mike Nichols: A Biography, a book about the famed director filled with the instructive anecdotes he used as tools for directing actors, was to find the best examples the public has to those anecdotes in Nichols' own voice. In the DVD audio commentaries for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, and Catch-22, all conducted by audio commentary-innovator Steven Soderbergh, Nichols masterclasses his way through his celebrated first three films as director. On today's episode, Ted Haycraft is back to discuss:- how innovative it was for a commentary to have Nichols to discuss his perceived failures on Catch-22;- if these first three films were indeed his peak, his reputation on New York stage and on film as the “Michael Jordan” of directing actors;- how he runs a rehearsal;- and what particular directing questions and techniques he reveals in these commentaries.Also:- Last year's oral-history biography Life Isn't Everything: Mike Nichols, as Remembered by 150 of His Closest Friends by Ash Carter and Sam Kashner;- Nichols's editor Sam O'Steen's great book on editing Cut to the Chase: Forty-Five Years of Editing America's Favorite Movies;- Soderbergh's other incisive commentaries for his and others' films;- how Elizabeth Taylor inspired a scene on a toilet in Catch-22;- if The Graduate is the Citizen Kane of the American New Wave;- and where Nichols stands among that New Wave.Ted Haycraft is film critic for Evansville's WFIE-14 and co-hosts Cinema Chat on its Midday show. He can also be found on Cinema Chat's Facebook page.The Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? commentary is available on Blu-ray from Warner Archive. The Graduate commentary is available from Criterion on DVD and Blu-ray. Catch-22's commentary is available from Paramount on DVD.

What should be our framework for how we think about AI and war? I heard a brilliant framework for this from Ash Carter, the former SecDef, in a conversation at Wired HQ at CES today.

What should be our framework for how we think about AI and war? I heard a brilliant framework for this from Ash Carter, the former SecDef, in a conversation at Wired HQ at CES today.

Murray Bailey joins the Chris's in this weeks WCCS chat show! His latest book SINGAPORE KILLER has been received well. This book is part of a well loves series and this is what people are saying about it. "The thrilling page-turner you've all been waiting for!" Books Beyond the Story Blog - 5 Stars A helicopter crash and burned bodies. A faceless corpse. A mysterious town. It's September 1953 and Ash Carter is drawn into a dark case from which there seems no escape. Readers are loving Singapore Killer: "Blackjack is a brilliant character and the twists had me thinking about the story for days afterwards." Readers Enjoy Authors Dreams Book Blog ***** "Singapore Killer is a fantastic thriller; dramatic, addictive and with a superb sense of place - it left me desperate for more." Goodreads reviewer ***** "The best thriller I've read this year." Surjit Parekh Reads and Recommends ***** "A wonderful mix of intriguing characters and action." The Dimension Between Worlds Blog ***** You should enjoy this insightful and emotional interview as the Chris's get personal with the wonderful Murray! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/writingcommunitychatshow/support

Owning a gym is both the most rewarding and most frustrating thing I've ever done!In todays episode I tackle a question by Ash Carter on the things I would have changed about my facility ownership journey if I could start all over. Thanks for listening!Don't forget to send me a question over at burge_ltb if you want me to tackle something on this podcast.

This week on Strength in Numbers, your host COL (R) Tim Nye and Neal Keohane talk with Corie Weathers, author of the book Sacred Spaces.Corie is not only the author of Sacred Spaces, she a licensed professional counselor who focuses on military and first responder marriages, and is the 2015 Armed Forces Insurance Military Spouse of the Year. She has a podcast as well, Lifegiver, that helps military and first responder families deal with the stressors of service life with a special focus on maintaining strong marriages. As I mentioned in our brief call, she also traveled with Ash Carter when he was Secretary of Defense to Iraq, Turkey, etc. and she wrote about this experience and how it changed her perspective in her book. The Strength in Numbers podcast is the brainchild of Neal Keohane. At the very beginning of COVID, which seemed terrifying (and still is…), he wanted to provide a resource for folks to use. We went through several iterations and after discussion, we concluded that tactical resource needs were being met but what we need more of was inspiration. Thus, Strength is focused on “together, we can overcome anything” and people who demonstrate “grit, determination, and perseverance.”Produced by B. Viral Production; create your next viral campaign and have your company Be Known, Be Seen and Become Viral. Learn more at http://www.bviralproduction.com.

Audio of a talk given by Revd Ash Carter on 'I am the True Vine' from John 15:1-8 at a Christians in Parliament Chapel Service which was held by video call on Tuesday 14th July 2020.

Meet the authors of WALK THIS WAY, Ash Carter, Ros Clarke and Lee Gatiss, as they chat about the book and answer questions from the livestream audience. WALK THIS WAY is available now from Church Society and will be available shortly on Amazon in print and digital formats. Find out more about the book here: https://churchsociety.org/blog/entry/walk_this_way Find out more about the Church Society podcast, listen to old episodes or watch the video episodes here:https://churchsociety.org/resources/page/church_society_podcast

Continuing from yesterday's episode with Ash Carter, I start to read Ash's book about a half hour in. Otherwise I just talk about stuff. But listen to whole thing because I ramble but it all heads toward context for the reading. You can also totally just listen to the reading and enjoy it on its own. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/teawithsg/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/teawithsg/support

Ash (not on social media bc) and I go back to college, but both grew up in NYC, and our parents who ran in similar circles, had weekend houses in same tiny town nobody else knew about until the last few years. Ash is one of the few friends I have whom can speak fluently on a Manhattan that is pretty much gone, or left to really old people. He's been writing and editing for a great list of magazines over the last few years, and published his first book last year on filmmaker, playwright, comedian, etc. Mike Nichols. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Isnt-Everything-Nichols-Remembered-ebook/dp/B07MMLT51Q/ref=sr_1_1?crid=4PLD2444UHOA&dchild=1&keywords=mike+nichols+life+isn%27t+everything&qid=1592580308&sprefix=mike+nichols%2Caps%2C287&sr=8-1 He's an editor at https://airmail.news, which speaks to a segment of culture that does not give a shit what is trending on the internet, and enjoys picking up physical paper stained with ink. It's a smart venture, weekly wrap up of what's going on, with in depth articles on stuff we might care about, and Cazzie David. The best part is the arts calendar. You can search a city and get listings of all the high brow stuff going on. Once I woke up to a burst pipe in my apartment, looked at https://airmail.news/arts-intel, and got on a plane to the place with the most art I wanted to see that week. We're due for a dinner uptown in the new world. I first typed post-quar, but then realized that is not a thing. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/teawithsg/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/teawithsg/support

What it is like to run the largest enterprise in the world, the U.S. Department of Defense? What are some of the challenges facing a Secretary of Defense? What leadership lessons can be learned from Ash Carter? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions with Ash Carter, former Secretary of Defense and author […]

Emmy has written for publications like Bright Wall/Dark Room, the Belladonna, CultureSonar, and more! Emmy can be found on Twitter @emmylanepotter and Instagram @emmylanepotter.Mentioned in this Episode:Mindy KalingMatt and BenMartin ScorseseThe DepartedThe Light in the PiazzaChicagoCabaretA Little Night MusicOklahoma!I’m Not at All In LoveGreat American SongbookMy Mother Was Nuts by Penny MarshallThe SouvenirNick NadalRay Bradbury short storiesTruman Capote short storiesWalking as Creative Fuel - BrainpickingsZen and the Art of Writing by Ray BradburyThe Artist’s Way by Julia CameronReese WitherspoonAva DuVernayParasiteMad MenMatt Weiner on what he learned working on The SopranosBird by Bird by Anne LamottGirl, Interrupted directed by James MangoldSee Jane Write by Sarah Mlynowski and Farrin JacobsReady Player One (movie) by Steven SpielbergReady Player One (book) by Ernest ClineGoodfellas by Martin ScorseseEnd of the F***ing World on NetflixLife Isn’t Everything: Mike Nichols, as remembered by 150 of his closest friends by Ash Carter and Sam KashnerFleabag on Amazon PrimeCall My Agent! aka Dix Pour Cent on NetflixThe Good PlaceHeartburn (movie) directed by Mike Nichols, written by Nora EphronHeartburn (book) by Nora EphronPostcards from the Edge (movie) directed by Mike Nichols, written by Carrie FisherPostcards from the Edge (book) by Carrie FisherSchitt’s CreekCluelessSuccessionOpen Book by Jessica SimpsonAngels cover by Jessica SimpsonAngels by Robbie WilliamsMiss Americana Taylor Swift documentary on NetflixGaga: Five Foot Two Lady Gaga documentary on NetflixCoal Miner’s DaughterLoretta LynnOn Becoming a God in Central Florida on ShowtimeDolly PartonBright Wall/Dark RoomA League of Their OwnAbout Us:Truer Words is created and produced by Melissa Baumgart and Kathryn Benson. Our music was composed by Mike Sayre, and our logo was designed by Marianne Murphy.You can follow us on Twitter @truerwordspod and on Instagram @truerwordspodcast. Contact us via our website, truerwordspodcast.com, or email us at truerwordspodcast@gmail.com.

Evasive, brilliant, demanding and charming – just being all of those things would consume most of us. But Mike Nichols was an acclaimed performer, writer and finally, director of stage, screen and television, a career spanning from "The Graduate" to "Angels in America". Yet he hid in plain sight, which led writers Ash Carter and Sam Kashner  to gather over one hundred of Nichols' friends and colleagues for the Mike Nichols oral history “Life Isn’t Everything” – a compelling and revealing book.

Ash Carter and Sam Kashner discuss their new book about the EGOT-winning director Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Birdcage).   They talk about his early years as one of the founders of the improv group that would become Second City, the story of how Nichols joined up with Elaine May to make comedy history, and how the creative differences that broke up Nichols and May opened the door for Mike Nichols to direct for Broadway and Hollywood.  They reveal how the first time director got the nerve to stand up to movie mogul Jack Warner during the filming of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, why Nichols originally wanted to cast Robert Redford in The Graduate, and how Orson Wells tried to usurp him as director on Catch-22.  They share stories of Nichols’ courtship and marriage of news anchor Diane Sawyer, his lavish life, his many friendships, and a lesson in how to go out in style. Order their book Life isn't everything: Mike Nichols, as remembered by 150 of his closest friends on Amazon, Audible or wherever books are sold.  Follow Sam and Ask on Twitter at @SamKashner and @Psmithjourno.  Today's episode was sponsored by Oris Watches.  Shop their selection of Swiss made mechanical watches at www.oris.ch/kick.

INSS Director Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin and former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter of Harvard's Belfer Center sat down to discuss US national security priorities, great power competition, and the “war of ideas.” In speaking about the US-China relationship, Dr. Carter noted that the rivalry with Beijing is a top priority for Washington and that it extends into the trade, diplomatic, technological, and military realms. He also explained that fatigue from “endless wars” in the Middle East is now prevalent among the US public, although the desire to disengage from the world is misguided and could have dangerous consequences. In their concluding remarks about the US-Israel relationship, Gen. Yadlin expressed his appreciation for Dr. Carter's strong commitment to Israel's security.

The singer from Roxette has passed away at 61. Elizabeth Hurley visits Andy's Clubhouse. Nene Leakes has something to say to Andy but he doesn't care. "Homeland" is coming back for it's eighth season. Kaley Cuoco 's sister joins her on her new show "The Flight Attendant". Guest is Ash Carter, co-author of "Life Isn't Everything: Mike Nichols Remembered".

On this episode of The Global Cable, we sit down with Ash Carter, U.S. Secretary of Defense from 2015 to 2017. A Philadelphia native, he trained as a physicist before starting his career with government. As Secretary of Defense, he built bridges between the military and Silicon Valley, opening Pentagon outposts in American tech hubs and establishing the Department's first Defense Innovation Board. In conversation with our host and his former chief speechwriter John Gans, Secretary Carter shares his thoughts on how to make decisions about new technology, what he's learned about management from running the world's biggest organization, and what he's reading right now – the answer might surprise you. Music & Produced by Tre Hester.

The United States is the world's undisputed superpower. But how much longer can that last? Enter: China. Ian Bremmer talks to the man who once commanded the world's most powerful military, former Defense Secretary Ash Carter.  Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

In today's Federal Newscast on Federal News Radio, former Defense Secretary Ash Carter calls the idea of a separate branch of the military devoted to space is a bad idea.  Carter says creating a space force would make the domain even more separated from the military branches than it is now. “We need to head in the direction of integration, he said speaking at Mitre's 2018 Space Computing and Connected Enterprise Resiliency Conference in Massachusetts. The Defense Department under Carter tried to do that with the creation of the Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center, which is now called the National Defense Space Center.

Tea Leaves traveled to Boston this week to meet with Ash Carter, former Secretary of Defense and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Raj Shah, who ran the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental for almost two years, is leaving his post. Federal News Radio's Scott Maucione joins Federal Drive with Tom Temin for more updates.

Ash Carter is a physicist and a defense-policy expert, having served in government periodically for decades. He was secretary of defense from 2015 to 2017. He has spent his academic career at Harvard, where he is today. In this “Q&A,” Jay asks him about some of the biggest issues: nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, the size of the U.S. military. He also asks about the relation between our... Source

In 2008, Stephen Mansfield wrote The Faith of Barack Obama. It was an international bestseller, which followed his previous worldwide hit The Faith of George W. Bush. In his groundbreaking book, Stephen argued that Obama was a Christian, but was liberal theologically and politically. In an era when nearly 30% of Americans thought Obama was a Muslim, this was controversial. Was Stephen right? Find out what he says in this week's podcast. [custom_font font_family='Open Sans' font_size='11' line_height='26' font_style='none' text_align='left' font_weight='300' color='' background_color='' text_decoration='none' text_shadow='no' padding='0px' margin='0px']CC image courtesy of Ash Carter on Flickr[/custom_font]

Rod and Karen are joined by the Sojo, Lady Buddha and Ms. Smart of Whiskey Wine and Moonshine Podcast to discuss podcasting milestones, being a guest on podcast, marriage, Sanford Rubenstein, Ash Carter, Kit Harrington, child abuse for dressing like a boy, Kit Harrington is tired of being objectified, Karen Davis, mother in law kills son in law, uber robbery, Michele Bachmann, planned parenthood closing may have lead to HIV spike, Furious 7, Chris Brown wants back in, Columbus Short on Empire, anorexic models banned in France, Jay-Z, #RaceTogether, Raven Symone, fire extinguisher, parole officer rapist, bra choker, cops running strip club and sword ratchetness. Twitter: @rodimusprime @SayDatAgain @TBGWT @WhiskeyWineMoon @ndcharp @sojoxoxo @Think_P_Smart Email: theblackguywhotips@gmail.com Blog: www.theblackguywhotips.com Voice Mail: 704-557-0186 Guest Website: http://whiskeywineandmoonshine.com/