Tanvi Madan testifies before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on U.S.-China relations and its impact on national security and intelligence in a post-COVID world. Read Madan's introductory statement below, download the full testimony, or watch the live hearing.
It takes a lot to offend me. I'd like to think I've been fairly hardened through the nineteen years I've lived. I can laugh at politically incorrect stuff. I find South Park quite humorous and satirical, rather than offensive and disgusting. It takes a lot to offend me. But this movie did. Dennis Dugan, continuing on the stroll he began with Saving Silverman which contained the biggest, most concentrated amount of misogyny in a single area, brings us one of the most racist films of newer time. Only, it's not what you'd immediately think; it's not racist against black people. Nope, it's against white people instead. As if that makes it any better. Hate and fascism is bad, regardless of where it's directed, which group or person is targeted by and for it. As pointed out on the message boards for this film, every bad guy in this film is white, and Lawrence's character plays the race card every other second in this movie. Now, let me make it absolutely clear; I don't hate anyone. I don't believe in hate. I have equal respect for everyone. I would have been just as offended had this movie targeted black people instead of white(the film would also have been shot down far quicker and more broadly), or if Saving Silverman had been hateful towards men, for that matter. The plot is pitiful. There was a scene in a courthouse that downright sickened me. The crowd was cheering as a victim of false allegations was attacked verbally and sentenced to jail-time... as if they were watching a sports event. The acting is OK. The humor was offending; most of it is Lawrence victimizing himself and berating white people. Both Zahn and Lawrence have been funny... what happened? There's not much else. I barely watched this film, because whenever I looked at the screen and paid attention to what was said, I was hit with an offending remark or action and felt a strong inclination to turn away, to concentrate my attention elsewhere. One to avoid. I don't really recommend this film to anyone... except for perhaps black extremists. Even most black people will most likely find this movie embarrassing and painfully stupid. And Dugan: so much hate... so much anger... have you considered seeking professional help? It can't be healthy. 2/10
Having seen the black star in films like Blue Streak and Big Momma's House I was definitely up for seeing him in another law and crime based and easy to digest comedy, so I watched this one, from director Dennis Dugan (Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, Grown Ups). Basically Earl Montgomery (Martin Lawrence) is a brash loud-mouthed police academy cadet who gets into trouble, and Hank Rafferty (Steve Zahn) is a typical LAPD patrol police officer who has recently suffered the death of his partner Charlie (Timothy Busfield). These two character cross paths when Earl has been kicked out of the academy and is caught by Hank trying to steal a car, and a bee comes along, Earl is allergic, and Hank trying to swat it is filmed by someone on a camcorder, and the incident is mistaken for a racist beating. Six months go by, Hank served this time in prison, and the only job he can find after is becoming a security guard, much lower on the police enforcement ladder, and he comes across Earl again, who is also a security guard now, when the warehouse he guards is broken into. They may not like each other very much because of the incident and their bad luck since, but they join forces because they are both looking for the same man, Nash (Eric Roberts), Hank recognises his tattoo as he shot his partner, and Earl owes Hank for saving his life. After a cellphone is left behind by one of the criminals the two security guards have a lead to help them catch the villain, and they follow all the clues to trace and capture Nash and his gang. Earl and Hank often come into contact with Lieutenant Washington (Predator's Bill Duke) and some other higher authority figures who tell them that they are not the right rank to be carrying out the investigation they are, but they carry on despite the ranking issues and the danger. Slowly as they search for the guilty party and try to bring them to justice, the two originally hateful men become unlikely friends, there is however the obvious part when there is tension between them and an argument. In the end Earl and Hank come together, defeat Nash and his gang, and they are happy to get their rightful jobs, Hank having got his revenge is a cop again, and Earl convincing the authorities he has good tactics and can become an official cop. Also starring Colm Feore as Detective Frank McDuff, Timothy Busfield as Charlie Reed, Robinne Lee as Denise, Matt McCoy as Robert Barton, Brett Cullen as Heston and Stephen Tobolowsky as Billy Narthax. Lawrence does his usual talking himself in and trying to talk himself out of trouble character, Zahn is likable as his easily angered unlikely friend, together they make a fun opposites duo, I personally thought it wasn't too bad, it has some amusing moments, not hilarious admittedly, and there was plenty of explosions and gun play, an easy buddy movie and action comedy. Okay!
Readers may disagree with some of Valantin's opinions and analyses, but his study is a solid work on the interrelationship in the past half century of movies and American military and national security issues. Scholars of filmography will find it of value.
There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof. Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21): PPD-21 identifies 16 critical infrastructure sectors.
As a government, we have committed to spend £22 billion on research and development, and to put technology at the heart of our plans for national security. We have all seen the transformative potential of digital technologies but also, as with 5G, their potential to disrupt. Our plans for artificial intelligence and data policy will help ensure that we are on the front foot for these technologies, and the steps taken under the cyber strategy will ensure we have confidence in the security and resilience of suppliers and partners.
Exponential advances in technology combined with decreasing costs have made the world more connected than ever before, driving extraordinary opportunity, innovation and progress. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated this trend, but we are likely still in the early stages of a long-term structural shift. The global expansion of cyberspace is changing the way we live, work and communicate, and transforming the critical systems we rely on in areas such as finance, energy, food distribution, healthcare and transport. In short, cyberspace is now integral to our future security and prosperity. This offers extraordinary opportunities for technologically advanced countries like the UK to pursue their national goals in new ways.
The policy challenges presented by cyberspace are not solely technological in nature. The cyber domain is a human-made environment and is fundamentally shaped by human behaviour. It amplifies such behaviours for better or worse, the impacts of which are usually also felt in the physical world. Cyberspace is owned and operated by private companies, governments, non-profit organisations, individual citizens and even criminals. This means that any strategic response to this context must link geostrategy and national security, criminal justice and civil regulation, economic and industrial policy and requires a deep understanding of the different cultural or social contexts and value systems interacting online.
The ability to take action in and through cyberspace to support national security, economic wellbeing and crime prevention. This includes cyber operations to deliver real world effect, and to help achieve strategic advantage, and law enforcement operations and the application of cyber sanctions to bring malicious cyber actors criminals to justice and disrupt their activities
Despite these interventions the wider skills pipeline still remains a significant challenge: of the 1.32 million businesses in the wider economy, around 50% still report a basic technical cyber security skills gap.[footnote 2] And although the UK cyber security sector has grown rapidly, most companies are startups and building large scale domestic vendors remains challenging in the face of international consolidation. As the experience with 5G has shown, the UK and our allies do not have a leading position in some key areas of the wider technology industry. Countries that are able to establish a leading role in the technologies critical to cyber power will be better positioned to influence the way they are designed and deployed, more able to protect their security and economic advantage, and quicker to exploit opportunities for breakthroughs in cyber capabilities.
However, we have growing evidence of gaps in our national resilience, with levels of cyber crime and breaches affecting government, businesses and individuals continuing to rise as well as cyber-enabled crime, like fraud.[footnote 9] [footnote 10] Legacy IT systems, supply chain vulnerabilities and a shortage of cyber security professionals are growing areas of concern. Almost four in ten businesses (39%) and a quarter of charities (26%) report suffering cyber security breaches or attacks in the last year, and many organisations (especially small and medium enterprises) lack the ability to protect themselves and respond to incidents.[footnote 11] Industry tells us that many businesses do not understand the cyber risks they face, that commercial incentives to invest in cyber security are not clear, and that there is often little motivation to report breaches and attacks. 2b1af7f3a8