let's call up mark scheuer. are you here? mark? okay. i guess he's not here and i believe richard ivanhoe will not be able to come. connor super supervisor. >> london breed. >> supervisor breed's office . >> for the time being. you never know. thank you commissioners. richard ivanhoe has been serving on prozac for several years now and appointed by one of breed's predecessors and long time community activists for parks and improving access and the parks themselves and a great public servant in this capacity. i worked with your staff chair yee to schedule this and he would have to take the day off and it would be best to schedule it today and hopefully support him in absentia. thank you. >> thank you for coming on his behalf and both candidates submitted their statements. and i believe supervisor wiener is supporting mark on this. okay. any public comments on this item? seeing none public comment is now closed. [gavel] . supervisor tang. >> sure. so again these are -- both of these seats are appointments are by the very supervisors so giv

>> scheuer. >> also keep in mind that the united states and iran because of the last 35 years of tension and because of this ongoing conflict, even in areas where we have common interest, there's been a lot of common interest in afghanistan, i think afghanistan is a good example. that when they move in the direction of trying to improve relations, they permit themselves to collaborate in these areas of common interest. but when their hostility defines the relationship, even areas of common interest is turned into areas of competition and rivalry. that's certainly up in afghanistan. it is happening in iraq and to a certain extent in syria. even with common interest exists, there overtaken by the larger hostility that defines the relationship. is that larger hostility is significantly reduced as result of a nuclear deal, that's when we'll see an opportunity for the common interest to a much heavier than the hostility and provide the opportunity to utilize that, whether it is an iraq, syria, or in afghanistan. i think it's important to understand that, to fully grasp the extent to which,com

. >> scheuer.o i know that professor franks and daniel citroen come as a professor at university of maryland school of law has been working hard to feature it away to craft model legislation that would allow going after only be identified criminal activities that they want to target with the sort of law and not prevent a whole host of other speech. they are kind of key categories you have to think in this law. what kind of content is covered? the content we are talking about is generally content for tactic under the first amendment when it is created. a person taking a photo of themselves or have a partner of tears, the nude image is constitutionally protected speech and there's no crime involved in the image at the outset. so trying to define a set of how, is it sexual explicit imagery come as a imagery that reveals different or sexual activity and what is the nature of t content and it's a big difficult to define because there is afair rain of the sort of could all think of, you know, of ourselve

>> scheuer. >> also keep in mind that the united states and iran because of the last 35 years of tension and because of this ongoing conflict, even in areas where we have common interest, there's been a lot of common interest in afghanistan, i think afghanistan is a good example. that when they move in the direction of trying to improve relations, they permit themselves to collaborate in these areas of common interest. but when their hostility defines the relationship, even areas of common interest is turned into areas of competition and rivalry. that's certainly up in afghanistan. it is happening in iraq and to a certain extent in syria. even with common interest exists, there overtaken by the larger hostility that defines the relationship. is that larger hostility is significantly reduced as result of a nuclear deal, that's when we'll see an opportunity for the common interest to a much heavier than the hostility and provide the opportunity to utilize that, whether it is an iraq, syria, or in afghanistan. i think it's important to understand that, to fully grasp the extent to whichcomm

. >> scheuer, thank you again for inviting me.t our colleagues from across the atlantic. i'm sensing a lot of common thread to throughout these presentations and what i reflect on struck by the title of a well-known book on america's foreign-policy in the middle east by lawrence friedman called a choice of enemies and what i'm struck by is the fact that u.s. policy in all of these cases is a series of trade-offs. we are dealing with compromised allies and in perfect partners. we are searching for new allies and in many cases they are drawing us into very localized power struggles we do not fully understand and here i want to reference a misreading of the oooooo things in terms of a patchwork of tribes and we get drawn into the localized power struggles. i do want to maybe caviar for some of these presentations with an appreciation for the limits of u.s. policy. that u.s. was not responsible for iraq or the rise of militia politics were tribes for instance i think you can't really pinpoint a lot of that to the policies of the regim