A lot of us have been advocating for a long time that the two leaders of this government project that theyre working together and with the internal dynamics and as we say it is unlikely to have been. But there are some things regarding Strategic Communication and People Like Us point out not of government itself. What have we done and what are we attempting to do . And a lot of the frustration with this government is that it doesnt understand that sense of crisis and those uncertainties. That is what helps to power the opposition that there is a lot of politicians that are not so good but they are in the opposition and government that seems even worse. Picking up on a good point that not acknowledging the crisis that it faces of lot of president can do and quite frankly there isnt that many options but there are two issues one is out of president can strengthen the eyes of the International Community and also nearly in the eyes of his own government. To strengthen the position in the b
Called, shaping San Francisco. Thanks. Yee, welcome to cspan. Welcome to the vast audience at cspan programing across the United States and across the world. Were happy to have you all with us tonight at our shaping San Francisco talks. This talk tonight is on Synthetic Biology, diy meets big capital is the title they gave it. It is really borne out of a long interest i have had, in some ways the roots of shaping San Francisco which is Community Participatory history project but rooted in ses lendings acritical relationship to technology. We started in the mid 90s during the big boom then of interactive multimedia and kind of way before there was even web 1. 0 really. We were already working on this project. Weve gone through quite a few iterations. We all lived through endless rounds of hysteria technology will save us and take us to the Promised Land and so on and so one of the interesting topics for me is to try to think about what is the moment in history that youre living through
Hearings, investigating the intelligence activities of the cia, fbi, ins and nsa. Look for our programming every weekend on cspan3. Coming up next, a discussion with two men at the center of the events known as watergate. Alexander butter field fle flekts on the subject with bob woodward. The event was cohosted by the Harry Ransom Center in texas and the lyndon b. Johnson president ial library. Its an hour. Good evening, i want to welcome you to this conversation with Alexander Butterfield and bob woodward which will be conducted by my friend and colleague, mark updegrove. My name is steve ennis, im director of the Harry Ransom Center which is pleased to be co sponsoring this evenings progr program. Bob woodward has a special tie to the university of texas. In 2003 he and his wraug post colleague Carl Bernstein, placed their watergate papers here at the universitys Harry Ransom Center. It was a historically excite in acceptance. The identity of deep throat was made public. Many hours o
It had been successful and valuable in matters involving espionage. And that they felt that this again was given the revolutionary climate they not they needed to have the authority to do. And just before 7 00 p. M. Eastern. And she said you were chosen. She was from czechoslovakia. She was there for four years in the concentration camp. She spoke. And they asked her whats happening . Where are our parents . And she said you see that smoke . There are your parents. Holocaust survivor anna gross recalls her familys experiences in the ghettos in nazi occupied hungary in poland and forced hard labor. This event was part of the United States Holocaust Memorial museums first person series. Then at 8 00 on lectures in history. Anarchists named alexander burkeman broke into the office in nearby pittsburgh. Shot him twice and repeatedly stabbed him. Burkeman, however is one of the great failures in assassination history. Not only did he fail to kill him, he also undermined the strikers for who
So some Risk Assessment. Are calculated. And the items variy at all of them contained history and the rest simply a few different categories, and conclude and bills, education and demographic variables and particularly gender age and include psycho social and in a corrections official and they ask things et cetera. Explicit variables and rather this was not always true and many words until explicit based but the modern instruments because theyre essentially indicators of poverty and so we can expect these instruments to have a racially impact. In my view many of the variables that go into the scores are simply inappropriate and possibly illegal factors on which to base the treatment of criminal defendant. And im not saying that those things are not correlated or predictive of recidivism. Crime is obviously correlated with poverty in our society, although we should remember that the extent of that correlation may be exaggerated by what the fact the recidivism they measure getting caught