Okay, now I want to make a little bit extension of my discussion on consumer awareness from individual company compared to national event. This is kind of a daunting task, somehow. But my reasoning is that supply chain management is about value creation, but value creation is not just about individual market. Value creation is graded with the human society, human beings or mankind. So I want to learn something from individual company case and also I want to learn something from the bigger national level issues, because the moral dimension of a leader is not limited within a company's boundary. It should go beyond that. And obviously, a truly global leader must be sensitive to the issues that have great implications for the world as a whole. So although it's kind of a tragic and somehow a little bit heavy, but I want to look at these issues in the international matters. In Time Magazine there is an article about top ten national apologies, national apologies. And in other words, the magazine looked into ten most, let's say, serious crimes committed to the mankind. So let's think about two of those cases, which permit to contrast some of the responses of the countries in dealing with wounds the countries committed to the victims. So I'll just say that there are two very good examples. One is the Holocaust, the Holocaust done by Germans. And the other one is Japanese military sexual slavery during World War II. These are the two most heinous crimes against humankind. So I would just say that here I'm not trying to look at particular country committed a particular crime. That's not my point. My point is that I just want to learn something from the history. And I happen to find the two cases, two contrasting cases. One is the Holocaust and the other one is military sexual slavery. When you go to this Time article, it says something about Holocaust. And then it says that the Germans made good responses to the crimes done by their people or their own fathers and grandfathers or whatever. So the article highlights the behavior. The behavior shown by Willy Brandt, the German leader in Germany, showed great courage to acknowledge wrongdoings and the crimes committed by Germans. And then they were very sincere. They were very sincere in acknowledging the wrongdoings and they were sincere in making their best effort to remedy all the wounds, all the atrocities committed by German people to the Jews. So it's very impressive to see that Brandt actually, when he visited the site of the Holocaust, he just knelt down and then he did not say anything. And afterwards, he said that carrying the burden of the millions who were murdered, I did what people do when words fail them. This is a very famous saying, and Germany has since paid out billions of dollars to Israel and to Jewish survivors. So this is very touching evidence and touching observation of a country. Although the people of the country did something wrong in the past, but those people recognized their wrongdoings and they were ready to accept their atrocities and they tried to remedy the wrongdoings. And they reconciled their crimes and they apologized. They made big sincere apologies. On the other hand, the responses from the Japanese is not very consistent with they way Germans did. Actually, this is the direct quote from the Time Magazine. And they actually denied a lot the existence of sex slaves in a statement on March 1st, 2007 or whatever. It's not just one time. They repeatedly denied what happened. So I think that there is a very striking contrast between these two responses, the response toward the Holocaust and response toward the Japanese military sexual slavery. The one hand, the Holocaust, the Germans' response was conscience, were pang of a conscience, true repent, and lawful compensation, and so on and so forth. And therefore, the country was able to get some true forgiveness from the victims. On the other hand, in this case, many times there were denials and even some of them ridiculed the victims and so on and so forth. So it's kind of a very sad and tragic contrast. Suppose that you are here, and everybody love and everybody respect your fathers and your grandfathers. And everybody likes or everybody loves their children, and nobody wants the children to have the burden, the burden you have right now. So you want to make sure that your children live in a better world, right? So on the one hand, you respect your father, you love your fathers, your grandfathers, and you also love your children. But let's say there is something wrong, some crimes done by your fathers. And even if some crime's done by your fathers, it's not easy to disrespect your father whom you still love. But what is the best way for you to show your love and respect for your fathers? People have two different ways to respond to this kind of situation. One is continuous denial. In other words, they deny what happened in the past. And they believe that that's the best way for your father and your grandfather, by concealing the wrongdoings or crimes done by fathers and your grandfathers. Or by deceiving or by denying. Is it truly the best way to show your love and respect for your fathers? And I think that that's exactly the opposite. I mean that by denying what happened in the past you actually deprive. You actually deprive your fathers of the chance to get forgiven, to restore their conscience and to finally rest in peace. So I'll just say that if you truly love, if you truly respect your father, then give him a chance to get forgiven. What is the best way to show your love and respect for your children? It's not just denying what happened in the past and not teaching your children about what happened in the past, but actually the best way should be the opposite. You have to educate your children about what happened. And then you have to tell your children despite what happened in the past, I respect my father and also I love my children. And that's the best way, and that's what happens when you have true confession and true repent. So help your fathers to get the chance to get forgiven, to enable your children to get the chance to make peace with the world. That's the true way to make it possible for you to love and respect your fathers and your children at the same time. It's not just denying what happened, when actually all the victims still survive. Not all the victims, but at least some of the victims are still alive. So I think that this is very much related with what happened in the business scandal case as well. The same logic applies to both business and some national matters at the same time. So we observed very different responses not only from government but also from country. And the question is, is it because of the leader himself or herself are wrong? I don't think so. The politicians in Germany are morally better than those in Japan? I don't think so. I think that the Japanese people are very morally conscious and morally responsible, and I think that the Japanese leaders are as morally right as the German politicians. But I think that the politicians behave in a way that's supported by their own constituents, their own people. So it's the people's awareness, much like consumer's awareness, okay? As long as the people in a particular country want their political leader to behave a certain way, the politician should follow the wish of his or her people. So in this case I made a good extension from business case to the national level case. Consumer awareness is very important to make sure that the companies behave in a sustainable way. And it's the same logic applied to the national level saying that it's always people in that country are aware of and very sensitive to the moral obligations and morally right directions. And the politicians and the country leaders will follow the suit. Of course, sometimes there is some mixture of those directions. Sometimes there can be a very strong ethical and morally integral, the leader with integrity will make a big change. But even in that case, if the leader believes that he or she is not supported by the majority of the people in his or her own country, then the leader cannot behave in that way. So I make a big analogy and somehow I wonder, as I told you, this is a philosophical and moral foundation of supply chain management. If we accept that supply chain management is about value creation, then I think that this issue is applicable not only to the business, individual company situation, but also to the national level as well. So I think that we can learn a lot from these cases, Volkswagen cases and also these two German and Japanese cases. We learn a lot, so my goal is not to pinpoint some of the wrongdoings done by company, done by some countries. That's not my point, I already told you. Many companies made mistakes, and many countries made lots of atrocities and committed lots of crimes. But I just want to show you that everybody has to have courage to acknowledge the wrongdoings, acknowledge the atrocities. And then truly they must have courage to fix those problems. That's important for a leader in supply chain management. That is important for a leader in national politics or international politics. So I want to make sure that, don't get me wrong, what I talked about, these examples, were not selected to blame a certain company, blame certain countries. That's not my intention. My intention was that we as human being not only as a consumer or as individual in country. I want to make sure that we become more aware of and sensitive to the moral and ethical and sustainability issues. That's my goal here. I'm not trying to blame any company, any country. That's not my goal. That's my true intention, okay? Just to learn, in order to learn something very important, I found out good cases. And now let's return to the question I asked you and I asked you to think about as a consumer. As an individual consumer, as a person in a country, can I make a difference? Can I make a difference against such a huge entity like a conglomerate, a big company, and a big government? What do you think? Can you actually make a big difference? Can I make a big difference? Can I be an important factor in this society, in this economy, in this country, in this world? What do you think? What is your answer to this question?