Of the entire lds ceremony secretly filmed by a former mormon and kept to the worst kept secret of the 1840s, never before seen videos of secret Mormon Temple rituals. So in conclusion secrets sacred ritual, ex pose i offer these words as a storey line for a minority faith in america. Years ago this was crafted as pluralism and democracy and market place making spiritual choices, but the history recounted here added to a course of dissent from those depictions. On one hand this is a story of the americanize is of mormonisms how morals have chipped away at the secrets. On the other hand it is a reminder that the keeping and telling of secrets pushes scholars on to unstable ground. How should one study or narrate what partisans either want to keep hidden as a article of faith or expose as an act of democratic righteousness. Scholars of religion, journalists and political commenters it seems to me might see the space between taboo and fetish with regard to the secrets. Ideally we steer clear of both the zealotry of secretkeeping and the zealous compulsion to expose. We should position ourselves to better explain what is at stake in the keeping and the exposing across time and in the present. Thank you. [ applause ] good morning. I continue with the theme of outsider religious candidates those from outside of the protestant mainstream and merge that line of in inquiry with a more theoretical turn in American History for the last several decades, scholars of american religious history have had a definitional crisis the challenge of defining history to metaphysical terms and just over the last few years it has occurred to scholars if religion is a slippery category and if the definition of religion seems to look different in the United States than it does in india or turkey, now what about those categories that are defined in relation to religion. So what about secularism which is defined is that a mutually category and not also variable by time and place. And so im taking these two story lines one about minority religious candidates and one about variations in secularism and want to talk about protestant secularism. I was empowered by janet jakeson and nancy pell or iny that it was universal and fully separate from christianity so i accept as my starting point today the idea that what appears universal in the United States context is actually and this is jacobson and pellig rinny words is a protestant secularism. Many scholars of history have recently offered genealogies of this john lardist secularism in america has a story from the early 19th century and Tracy Fedderson is a literary historian from the founding to the present this narrative of protestant secularism. And scholars have noted that politicians and others interested in commerce and other political stability have distinct wished between distinguished between good and bad secularism and honor internal and external action. And john kerry did this in a interview for the public life project, lumping practices together and emphasizing the distinctive work of religion happened within the walls of the individual psyche. And it doesnt have to be a religion per se, he said, it can be a philosophy of life, buddhism behind eyeism and for some it is religion or not. But whatever religion or philosophy people adopt, they almost all have a golden rule within them. And if you are legitimately practicing them and practicing them well, you will be a pretty good person and that is his words. But some may have doingg mas of their own but they transfer them into values. Adherence of religion is not a switch between the internal and external domains. Fasten don put it as unobtrusiveness, protecting a neutral space converted and unconverted in alienism. And outsider candidates in the United States history have enthusiastically supported what is a protestant system. So catholics mormons, black protestants dont always pursue their religiouses and i want to take those of festen don and others and apply them to our actors in life the president ial candidates and so the other books and scholars tend to right about either deep careful readings of literary effects or tend to work through hugely abstract analysis of new machinery and new print culture. Im saying that the story they are telling about protestant secularism is clear and revealed in the most highly studied actors in our nations history president ial candidates. All im doing is taking this narrative and applying it to a different context. And it does it with Thomas Jefferson in our context. From jefferson to other president ial hopefuls they have done a little to enforce protestant secularism, with laws memorial rhetoric and road island they have fought against any form of religious fortune and have announced a quality of opportunity for people of all faiths under a deceptive protestant shell and remains a witness that the good is in the individual conscious as an incubator of values. Jefferson said outside of protestant citizens, jefferson is already the tolerant figure in every count of churchstate since he did pen most of the First Amendment, and the statuete of the First Amendment and he was also a principal architect of protestant secularism. Well the stage of monticello mocked dog mas in priest craft, leaving many scholars to characterize jeffer as more secular and modern than his peers. He was certainly no Orthodox Christian he was an adherence to scottish [ inaudible ] and this is meaningful right against moderns who has this work happening in the 18th century instead of 3040 years earlier. Jefferson did trace a root to secular protagism with the building of new machines. He addresses moral sense as much a part of a man as his arm, through which any individual could discern fundamental selfevident truths an matters of opinion about its truth claims about philosophy and religion was a tool in which anyone could evaluate propositions. His ability to use reason to unseat all false gods and to enshrine religion was important in the religious as the secular as constituted in the United States. As evangelicals would do later in the 19th century he advocated of what we now think of as secularism not to destroy christianist but to protect the liberty of the individual to discover nates god and in an elegant side step around the state of jeffersons wall of metaphor, and explaining the subtle distinction protecting free thought for its own sake and for the sake of facilitating the spread of true or good religion. He believed protecting a wall between church and state he could protect free inquiry and aid the process by which a purified christianity housed in reason rather than faith could become the americas religion. And this followed the wall image. When jefferson offered the hope that quote adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation on behalf of the rights of conscious, i shall see with ins sear satisfaction those sentiments that tend to restore to man all of his natural rights convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. Here he showed a tennant of secularism, that true minds will discover only such religious ten meants. As a retired senior statesman he left evidence of his obsession of crafting response to christianity that indicated good citizenship. Hisso points his opoints had seized upon his published markets in the state of virginia to argument he was dangerously indifferent to protestants and he used rather Strong Language to say that the legitimate powers arin injuryus to others and almost taunting supports that, quote it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are no goes to say tlg are 20 gods. And to find even ground and for those cantankerous opponents and for what he set about for himself in answer in private how far he could take christianity by the devines. So he mailed that to Benjamin Russ in 1803 confessing to be a christian, quote in the only sense jesus wished anybody to be sincerely referenced to his doctrines, prescribing to himself in excellence and believing he claimed never other. Over the years he paged the gospel in different languages to the more robust jeffer bible he was clearly invested in discovering a way to approach to religion not leading to secular government. And jefferson personally endorsed and lent his pen to support secularism that was anything but neutral and instead he made normal protestant neutrality and emphasis on inner translation and communities of the faithful and jefferson strove to make reasonableness a gage of good and permissible religion and struck out against any attempts to strain anothers conscious. In a letter to russ he laid this out most clearly. Pledging to use all of his power if elected president to fight against attempts to introduce religious establishment he said ive sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility of tyranny over the mind of man. When subsequent candidates found themselves in the shoes of jefferson in a overwhelmingly protestant country in this protestant secularism john kerry and mitt romney and barack obama operating outside of protestant secularism embedded in american law and culture, they have used a bully pulpit or their privileged spots on the campaign trail in the 24 hour media cycle to find good religion as that which provides internal transformation and consistent with reason and not presumed to enforce any distinctive moral code. Kerry, romney and obama have delivered one landmark religion speech. Billed as such and delivered as such and analyzed as such in which they have described, religion is a private exchange which translates into politics by expanding into the public good. And more over they have offered definitions slightly more capacious than jeffersons. And well do kerry depending on time. Well do romney. No obama today. Kerry addressed this on october 24th 2004 at a time he and bush were deadlocked in the polls at 49 each. He gave his speech in Broward County, florida at the site of symbolic significance and on sunday no less. He walked a delicate type right under scoring at every turn that his religious experience was only internal and more profound impulses toward the common good were the only marker ever his faith. He prayed and wrestled with catholicism during the vietnam war but resulted in a quote, sense of hope and belief in a higher purpose. At the rhetorical center of his address, he said it is not enough to say you have faith when there are no deeds. Faith without works. And he used this for public action. For me, he went on that, means having and holding to a vision of a society of the common good where individual rights and freedoms are connected to our responsibility for others and means understanding that the role of leadership is to advance the good to all of us when we Work Together as one united community. While kennedy had dispelled protestant concerns that a Roman Catholic president would influence american politics decades before, kerry felt compelled to revisit the issue. Roman catholics were obliged to live moral lives but not enact specific policy positions advocated by Church Leaders reminding his auditors of the controversy that created ink over the summer when bishops decided whether they should bar him from communon they decided no but three or four decided he would be barred until he repented of his prochoice bogss. He said i must cast votes or take opinions on a womans right to chose or stem cell research. But then trying to adhere to the boundaries of good religion by refusing to constrain anothers conscious he demured. I love my church. I respect the bishops but i respectfully disagree. He continues my task is not to write every doctrine into law. That is not right or possible in a pluralistic society. He enforced the protestant secularism and they nominated the candidate outside of the protestant fold when they put mitt romney up for the highest office. He would revisit his religion during the campaign, so he is not completely silent, but he made a statement during the republican primary four years previous. Facing a primary feel, including mike huckabee, an outspoken baptist, he speak about his religion of church of jesus christ of latterday saints. He refused to his religion and firmly placed the latterday saints in the category of different religions. He echoed very closely all of the lines of the Broward County speech. Romney led offer his discussion of faith by assuring people of faith that he would never allow religious authorities to dictate. Let me assure you, he levels that no authorities of my church or any other for that matter will insert influence on president ial decisions. Their providence is theres and ends when the affairs of the nation begin. He further vowed he would guard against any one tradition. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of any office and the plain duty of the law he promised. Romney continued every religious has its own unique doctrines in history. This is a test of our tolerance. He returned verbatim to kerrys script at this point, almost verbatim it is kind of startling, declaring the primary purpose of faith was the sense of the common good and all of those religiouses willing to forebear at the ballot box. He declared before cataloguing what he thought were the win some features of the different religions. And while differences exist between the churches in america, we share a common creed of moral victory and there were the affairs of our nation is concerned, it is a sound rule to focus on the latter the great moral principals that urge us all on a common course. So the intention of the conversation was not to theerize state relations but the candidates, those at the center of our prominent life and the most common actors as citizens havin skriered and reinscribed the boundaries of common secularism and those outside of white protestant decisions have defended those just as energetically. Thank you. [ applause ] at this time, i would like to open up the floor for a couple of people to ask questions. I also just want to remind you that all of our speakers will be here for the entirety of the day and im volunteering them but im sure they will be willing to answer questions you dont get to ask during this formal time. And if would you like to ask a question, we have a couple of a couple of guys here who have microphones. Please allow the microphone to come to you and ask your question into the microphone so we can all hear you and the recording can also pick you up. So does anyone have would like to start with a question . We have one over here. Hi. This is a question for kate. Which i thought was a fascinating paper. And you touched on some is of the things that the people you looked at left out of their view of history. Unless i missed it in the talk, they left out the First Amendment and the religious freedom clauses which makes sense because it is a tricky thing today to deal with but they left out the great awakening which would seem to fit in with their version of history quite neatly. And then a quick followup, do these books and thinkers today looking at the founding era do they and into the colonial era, do they grapple with the problem of theocracy which is something in the people the people of the colonial era thought of, but it is prove lentz in the thought of the reformation into the 17th and 18th centuries. Thank you. Those are great questions. For the first great awakening, that just got left on the cutting room floor. That is a central moment for these thinkers. And especially George Whitfield because if the goal is to find particular men who exemplify the process, George Whitfield can play that role as the great evangelist and some pundits have argued he should be elevated to a high level and including attributing to George Whitfield the concept of the new birth which far predates George Whitfield. Some historians have come out and pushed back on that. But the great awakening and whitfield are seen as absolutely essential events. In terms of theocracy and First Amendments, those are not discussed with any significant depth and i think it is because of the focus on principal. So if liberty is the principal of the founding era it is embodied in the First Amendment, it is right and then we apply it to subsequent moments. So the complexities that might come out of what the First Amendment, the process of creating the amendment the different readings of the First Amendment those are addressed in the culture wars context and the culture wars context is usually off to the side of this discussion because it is so admittedly political. So no, it is not centrally prom prommelized. Hi. I have two questions. One for kate and one for spencer. My first question to kate is the link between im very interested in this link between moses or the ancient israelites and the may flower compact and speak how they linked them. Just curious to hear a little bit more on i dont know how much you read into this or if you know this, how they justified that link. A little more specifically, would you be curious. And then for spencer you talked about the colonization of mormons and it makes a lot of sense given theiro pressed status their history of oppression. Do still im curious has that dialogue changed as they are attempting to become the American Religion and how they talk about the oppression in the past and somehow becoming more of this allamerican sort of part of the mainstream and trying to be included sort of in that protestant mainstream. Can you speak to that a little bit. On the issue of moses and may flower compact, the immediate political context of this for those who might not know is the texas state board of education standards for 2010 which are now leading to text books which mark chancy will talk about later this afternoon, require the connecting of moses as sort of an original thinker for the creation of the United States and so this is something that texas teachers are grappling with right now, how to put moses into a process that by any reading he was very distant from. Happens in two ways. If moses is seen as a law giver and the may flower is seen as an original law that creates a union and law goes to foundational constitution and connected to our constitution. So the process is through that and not actually through any of the specific content of any of those documents. The may flower compact doesnt hold up to that kind of scrutiny if you look at the actual text. So it has to be a description of the document rather than an examination of the document. The other way this happens is through the internally referenal nature of the documents and if you dig into the footnotes and many of the books are very well foot noted they refer back to each other consistently and never to an outside academic scholarly discussion of the context of the creation of the may flower compact because they are avoiding the reading that would look at that more plotting narrative. So for people steeped in this reading of the plern founding and reiterated regularly in sermons and any number of contexts, there is a selfevident connection between moses, the may flower and the constitution and the different moments of their beginning isnt even relevant. On mine very briefly it could be a long response, but a kind of brief one is that it is a a tensionfilled modern identity for mormons given their history. In part, this history, this sense of kind of persecution in the past this tightlywoven into modern woven identity is such that they expect to be misrepresented or misunderstood in public, Something Like the book of mormon musical so them is just an eye roll of here we go again snap your tunes but it is the same old lyrics. And they expect mockery. And so that fits with the kind of representation of the past. And it might be in a kind of rise em attic way, this conserveism, this memory it becomes kind of western in a way too. Distant federal power, heavyhanded for us here, our own ways. That is kind of there, but you have to be very careful to that because too long into that story and it is about polygamy and that doesnt work very well. Because it ends up sounding a bit like a defense of polygamy which mainstream latterday saints have no interest in they have been running from polygamy for over 100 years. So they are good at that fight as well. So complicated. The end. I want to keep us on time for the rest of the day. So again, i encourage you as we take a short break between panels, find the panelists and find a question if you have one for them. But in the short break feel free to get more to eat or drink or find the restrooms out the door to the left and well convene here in just minutes for the second panel. Thank you. [ applause ] secretary of state john kerry testified on wednesday about the president s request to use military force against isis. During the Hearing Senate marco rubio of florida questioned whether the u. S. Was going soft on isis to passify iran. Here is a look at the exchange. There is no grand bargain being discussed here in the text of this negotiation. This is about a Nuclear Weapon potential. Thats it. And the president has made it absolutely clear they will not get a Nuclear Weapon. Now the presumption by people up on the hill here is that we somehow arent aware of that goal even as we negotiate that goal. Our negotiation is calculated to make sure they cant get a Nuclear Weapon. And it is really almost insulting that the presumption here is that were going to negotiate something that allows them to get a nukts nuclear well. And im not saying there is a grand bargain. But i believe our military strategy toward isis is influenced by not to cross red lines about the u. S. Military presence in the region. Absolutely not in the least. There is no consideration whatsoever as to how they or anybody else. We will do what is necessary in conjunction with our coalition remember we have 62 countries okay. I want to talk about the coalition. And five sunni countries for the First Time Ever are engaged in military action in another country in the region. And i want to touch on that point because general dempsey outlined the need to involve a broad coalition, for example the jordans, the saudis and the uae and others and they are deeply concerned about iran and is it not right they feel weve kept them in the dark about our negotiations with iran. In essence our negotiations with iran have impacted our trust lel with thur critical allies with iran. That is flat wrong. Senator, that is flat wrong. I just came back from a meeting in the gulf in riad and i meet with king salmon who agreed with what we are going to do and they all sat around the table and agreed with what we are doing and agreed we are trying to prevent them from getting a bomb diplomatically first and providing it prevents them from getting a bomb and everybody is trying to give this a grade before the test is being taken. So our allies, the sunni allies, the uae and egyptians and others are perfectly comfortable with the way things stand at this moment . I did not say that. They are not perfectly comfortable. They are nervous, they are apprehensive. Of course they are. They want to make sure that in fact, just as members of Congress Want to make sure, that the deal is struck, if one can be struck now will in fact prevent them have you shared with them the details where it stands right now. We have shared details with them and are they comfortable with that or what youve shared with them. We have shared with them. And el fazzal sat with me at a press conference in which he articulated their support for whatter doing. John kerry speaks at the Atlantic Council about climate change. His remarks live here on cspan3. And later james comey joins the heads of the atf and dea and Marshall Service to talk about the 2016 budget requests. Live coverage of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee begins at 10 00 a. M. Eastern also here on cspan3. Here are some of the our futured featured programs here on cspan. Saturday at 1 00 p. M. Eastern cspans 2 book tv is live from the university of arizonafrom tucson focusing on race in politics and civil war and callins throughout the day with authors. And sunday at 1 00 we continue our live coverage of the festival with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics and the issue of concussions in football. And saturday morning at 9 00 eastern on American History tv on cspan3 we are live from Longwood University in farmville virginia for the 16th annual civil war seminar talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. And sunday morning at 9 00 we continue our live coverage of the seminar with the remarks on the surrender confederacy. And find us on cspan. Org and let us know about the programs you are watching. Call us at 2026263400 or email us at comments at cspan. Org or join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. Former Maryland Governor Martin Omalley spoke about governing at the brooks institution. During that event he was asked about former secretary clintons use of email use. Here is a look. Im not an expert on federal requirements or state requirements and frankly im a little sick of the email drama. But in our state, whether you used a personal email or the public email or a carrier pigeon, it was all a Public Record subject to disclosure and response. Next, a look at emerging World Markets with mexicanin vertor carlos elom who forbes ranked as the richest person in the world from 20102013. From the rand set politics aside in santa monica this is an hour. Good afternoon. Im christian combar and im the director of rand population, a research division. We want to improve the socioeconomic being of people around the world. I hope that doesnt sound too narrow of a Mission Statement to you. The rapid growth of emerging economies in the last couple ever decades has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And rand is happy to contribute to understanding this unfolding story and policymaking to aid it through our work in several emerging economies. Its my pleasure today to introduce the panel this afternoon. Carlos slim alu is an entrepreneur and businessman involved in a varied group of companies. Hes honorary life chairman of grupo. Spencer fluhman and committed to development in mexico and latin america. Hes also an alumni trusty of rand. Sahd moss annie is the leading of moeby group, a Media Company focusing on ep earthing markets. They work in south and central asia and the middle east and beyond. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers in the world by Time Magazine and Foreign Policy magazines. Our moderator today is the regional editor of the americas at reuters and leads a time of 500 journal ichtists. He built the First Financial service for the middle east during the early years of the oil boom. Thank you and thank you all for participating in the panel and we look forward to a stimulating conversation. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, and to our panelists, i want to talk about changes in emerging markets but i discovered in the course of our prepanel discussions that we have a fundamental disagreement about what the title of this panel should be. So to start with carlos why do you disagree with the word or the term of emerging markets. It is not important. But i said it is more important to tell countries it is emerging markets. Emerging countries and there are some markets that are already big ones that have developed, but some countries are not developed. They grow without development or other circumstances. That was just the commentary that i make to you. Right. And more broadly speaking, the conversation around emerging markets has changed quite a bit in the last couple of years. Weve had ten years of steady growth seemingly immense opportunities for portfolio and direct investors. Sal, i would like to come to you, if i may what is the big shift that has happened in the last couple of years in termsch your view of the worlds emerging markets . Well, i mean, were in Frontier Markets because we invested in very, very difficult countries. But what weve noticed is that a lot of people in new york and london and elsewhere who would totally ignore People Like Us five or six years ago are looking at us and approaching us because i think they do see limitations in the previous emerging markets and for them the Frontier Markets provide another opportunity. And some of the markets were in are growing 20 to 30 per annum in the media sector. So there is more interest and more money and the appetite for risk nowadays. And the kind of risk that you have to take on has also changed, right mr. Slim, as a person that is a direct investor in these markets, what is your direct perception of how that has changed in latin america . I think that more than talking about risk, we need to talk about change. We are living in a new civilization, a civilization of services. A stronger change or maybe more this knowledge and information that has changed everything and we are a Service Society a [ inaudible ] society and it has changed to a new society and in that society 80 in areas, with no human rights and slavery. But in this society, in the 20th century, that begins the modern of the electricity and the internal Combustion Engine and there are managing the society with [ inaudible ], and they were very costly because they were moving without the direction and with a lot of dictatorship, et cetera, with the exception of u. S. , born with freedom and democracy. But at the end of the day including u. S. , need to have the civil war between the industrial north and the agricultural south. One sustaining the slavery and another fighting with it. Because the Industrial Society doesnt need the slaves and the Agricultural Society used to have the exploitation of people. And today we still have many societies in the agricultural age, at least in some parts, like china. China maybe has 600 or 700 people in the Agricultural Society in the rural areas or in the consumption because they need to have a different political modal that it is a modern industrial country or a technology country. Those countries are having a difference because we are getting in a new society. And it is interesting because all over the countries including the u. S. And the developing countries, but it was in the 19th century when they moved from rural and Agricultural Societies to industrial and urban societies, everybody grows. In the u. S. 170 years ago, 70 of the people were working in rural areas in agricultural and today it is maybe 2 of people working that way. And that is now being done by many countries and that is why millions of people every year many millions are getting out of poverty, because they are getting into the new societies moving to industrial societies et cetera. Mexico grow from 833 to 6. 2 every year. Because we move from a rural out of consumption to a urban and Industrial Society. That is the difference with china. They are moving from rural areas and the Agricultural Production out to consumption to a new society. And its society have different paradigms. This society has different paradigms and this new society is very very how can i say generous. Very generous because it is sustained in the welfare of the people. In the past, you need to have as much as you have land and the slaves, the better. Today, as you have more customers and more markets have bigger economies, it is better. You need that. The other people is on welfare because they will be a stronger country when you have this situation. And where do you see that debate going on in latin america now . My concern is not in latin america, it is developed countries. The leaders dont understand what is happening and they dont have a direction. It is everywhere. If you look at the books of lets say, [ inaudible ] for 45 years and the ideas of all of this concept more than 40 years and the only country moving this direction is china, it is very important that there is still much agricultural in some of the countries and they find that in some of them. I think the big challenge is cultural and the lack of leadership, who know wheres to go. Right. And in particular, a final question for you on this, in particular, do you have do you have that view of brazil as well, where youve just been through election and different debate about the as pektss of the economic model. It was not a big debate of the economic model. I think the economic model in brazil, brazil has been a government with dictators they have a very clear private investment and entrepreneurs and they have support, the development of businessmen. That is why the best Business Community in the Latin Community is brazil. It doesnt matter [ inaudible ] or the dictator, maybe they will own see and i will say it is not a good idea, but they are very protective of the economy. They are close to the economy. There are more than 200 Million People and they close the market and you need to produce things there or you pay 35 taxes. I think that should be a little but it has been done by one government or the other to have protection for the industrial and the production nationally. And sal if we come to you, your view of the challenge that has been laid out for us, the debate over the direction that essentially civilization should take is fairly pronounced in some parts of the world that you operate in. How is it affecting the way that you and your company make investment decisions, think about customers, look at opportunities . Well, for us i mean, i think we look at markets the first thing we look at is the demographic, in terms of the younger population how quickly the population is growing. I think urban rule is very important for us. We look at those sort of numbers. And barriers to entry. If the market is empty and there is an opportunity, we go in. But ill give you some examples. Afghanistan has a population of 30 million. The population is set to grow to 100 million by 2015. The 16th largest country in the world. Pakistan is 180 million set to grow to 400 Million People by the year 2015. And even if you have a bad government, even if you have high unemployment, the economy still continues to grow. And what has allowed People Like Us to go in is technology. We didnt have satellite televisions and go and compete with the state broadcasters and were going into these markets. We were a Small Company and were fairly quick to make decisions and sometimes we may not make the right decisions but we go in and take huge amounts of risk. We launched our iraqi channel on the 31st of august of this year. Now, weeks before we werent even sure if baghdad would stay in the hands of the iraqi government. We had 40 people on the ground in iraq. But we took a chance and for the benefit of hindsight it was the right decision. So we are not your Typical Company with were not that risk averse and weve taken huge amounts of risk. Our business is all about risk and high growth. And along the way, were going to lose a business or two because of Political Risk because of war, because of competition, because someone will get blown up. But i think longer term, if we have a very diverse portfolio of assets and countries, i think well be okay. At least that is the formula. But you are taking up with investments like that, and we recognize you have a high appetite for risk than most companies but you are taking a very longterm view of how the politics will play out in that region. I think Bigger Picture i think were going to be okay. I think we have a lot of challenges whether it is isis in iraq or the taliban in afghanistan and the regime in iran for example where we have a channel that goes in via satellite. If you look at afghanistan, people talk about the good old days of the 70s. Literacy was at 8 and the gdp was very low. And you fast forward to 2014 literacy is under 40 and the economy is a lot stronger. So despite 30 years of conflict, the country has actually progressed. So if you take a step back and if we look forward to say 2050 or 2100 the entire region will improve. What we are seeing today, this upheaval whether it is isis or southern movements i think ultimately it will put the region in a better place in a decade or two. We will obviously and can you elaborate and explain why. Ive never heard it quite described like that before . Because i think what is happening is that i mean, a lot of the countries, the populations were pretty much paralyzed. They couldnt think couldnt read or write, couldnt express themselves they were not participating either in business or Civil Society and so forth. You are beginning to see that. Now of course we tend to go to the extremes. And i think that but what is interesting people are questioning things. There is no lets not get too relaxed. There is a danger of the region becoming radicalized but i think longterm it will come to the middle. These are natural reactions we are seeing for people looking for answers. And before we go to questions just one thing, very important to point out. Afghanistan was under the taliban rule for five years. It is the first place that this type of regime took over. Today the talibans Approval Rating is less than 10 . Afghans dont want the taliban. They have managed to challenge the Afghan Forces but it is not what the people want. Very different from parts of the middle east. And before we go to the questions in the audience, i want to ask both of you about the opportunities and challenges in africa. Because all of the trends weve talked about are playing out in africa whether it is radicalization or lack of leadership or civilization transformation or that you talked about. Perhaps i can start with you, what is your view of africa . We like africa. In particular north africa and ethiopia. If you look at algeria, for example, the gdp about 250 billion and has 250 billion in reserves and no debt and population of 40 Million People and very controlled economy and beginning to open up. It has enormous opportunity. And multilingual and so sophisticated in their own way. And battled because of the civil war. But there is enormous opportunity for us to go into that sort of market