17 Burst results for "At"

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:18 min | 2 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Well so you're talking to someone who is levitating from the joy of having seen it power house. Take away from the limitation. Well in so. I say this filtered through that lens we know that there are some republicans who have embraced the idea of decriminalizing marijuana and as i mentioned earlier in the podcast there are couple of things that people who were kind embrace around this issue. The first being the moral part of it that we can write some of the things that we've done some of the inequities that were created by the criminalization of marijuana. But also there's the fiscal incentive there are republicans who are particularly interested in the tax base. Which is not unlike tobacco or alcohol that is taxed and so when those funds can come into the coffers. You better believe there are more people interested in legalizing known interesting. All right well. I'm going to take that as a positive sign that the morale has a shot. I wanna get at where the states currently stand post election. Twenty twenty as we do a postmortem on the election. How did marijuana fair on the state level so remarkably well in some really unexpected places like mississippi that had a ballot measure to legalize marijuana montana which was able to legalize recreational use. Of course new jersey is not as surprising as a state like mississippi. Then we had south dakota so i mean we had some states. That didn't surprise us as much but we also saw what i think is a new way of thinking toward marijuana in some really surprising places. Yeah i wanna pause on mississippi for a minute because not so long ago in two thousand eighteen. I remember working on a case where a man was arrested for having medicinal marijuana on him. He was traveling from oregon to mississippi and he got an eight year sentence for having that marijuana on him which he had the license he had all of the documentation to go from an eight year. Sentence to medicinal use being legal. That's remarkable in a very short period of time. Are you at all surprised by how quickly things are turning not just in mississippi but across the country in terms of public opinion around criminalization of drug use. I am surprise. And i'm not surprised at the same time in those of us who worked in reform for so long. We know these stories but as we see these stories begin to be highlighted and as people begin to understand the effect on real people in their lives and how draconian the cynicism can be. I think we see people saying listen. I don't wanna punish someone that long for something that they legally held in one state but because they cross state lines we can put them in prison forever. These are the kinds of stories that are turning the tide on marijuana legalization. I'm curious you have experiences. Criminal defense attorney. Do you have any stories or examples of cases where you saw firsthand the harm of the war on drugs and how conan those sentences could be just sort of. Lay the groundwork of where we're coming from. Do i has stories former trial lawyer. So most of the work that i did was in federal court. And what i can tell you. Is that the federal sentencing guidelines. Allow that on your third felony conviction for you to receive a minimum sentence of twenty years and up to life in prison and that sounds like. Oh let's put away the kingpins. Here's what that means. It means that a young person usually a young black man was caught twice by the state with a felony amount of marijuana would usually more than an ounce of marijuana on that third time the fans can come in and charge that person with having a career criminal record which means that the minimum that.

mississippi south dakota montana new jersey oregon
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:12 min | 7 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Am curious about is something that you mentioned about the visuals of federal, Asians on streets, and they're wearing army fatigues often unidentified and very heavily armed. The posture is very aggressive and I'm wondering do we have concerns around the that we're seeing you know? After. Two decades of war. We may have become desensitized to the kinds of violence that. Federal Forces military visit upon communities abroad in in Brown and black countries. But there is an intimate connection between the use of. Over militarized? Tactics, equipment. Abroad and. That, which we see happening at home. We know, for example, that there is a program called ten. Thirty three program that essentially takes what they call excess military equipment from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and transferred them to state and local police forces. Billions of dollars have been. Spent under this program and You know for Very Long Times. The discourse has been more around tinkering with this ten thirty, three program. You know what kinds of tactics, what kinds of? Military type weapons and equipment should go to particular communities. And so we see. Armored vehicles in, for example, in one example that stands out vividly for me is the streets of Queens across the river here or in other places outside the homes also immigrants that. Da. Agencies are seeking to grab you know and take away I. Mean. These are the kinds of tactics that have been have been used on black and Brown communities at home immigrant communities at home. And then they started against protesters as well, and you know the time for tinkering is done right armored vehicles on our streets. No So part of. Our colleagues on and we are calling for. And what what. So many allies movements are calling for an end to programs like this. And a point worth making too is that over the decades that we've seen ten thirty, three play out and even pretend thirty three with military esque presences domestically is that it just seems to escalate and we saw that play out in. PORTLAND. At the local law enforcement and the mayor and the governor were all asking for the federal presence to be wound down because it actually was making things worse. That's exactly right. You know just A. Few days ago. The Justice Department announced this new law enforcement initiative that they said again was aimed at quote unquote reducing violent crime in American cities and cooling this fun Operation Legend. A, and what that is is essentially looks like expansive version of the December Twenty nineteen operation. So that's exactly consistent with the constant ratcheting up instead of ratcheting down. and. You were. It looks like the operation that began in December twenty nine, which was essentially under the auspices of the justice. Department is now being joined by Homeland Security Agents, Department of Homeland Security, and that's one of the things that we in our affiliates are on the what..

Department of Homeland Securit Justice Department Federal Forces Homeland Security Agents Brown Queens PORTLAND Iraq Afghanistan
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

02:56 min | 9 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"And resources, which is what? Movement for black lives and. A bunch of other black led organizations as well as that see you are calling for right now. So by divesting from police by limiting the role of police in communities of color were able to redirect the funds which are as I've said you know extraordinary. We spend a wad of money on law. Enforcement were able to redirect all of that money to other services that allows for us to add decades of racially driven social control and oppression as well as address quality of life problems and social problems at. Roots in ways that strength then impacted communities instead of terrorizing that. And if we are thinking about divesting, obviously, if an organization has less money than they have less reach, and so I think what's implied, there is that part of what the police do is not necessary. What actions what things are we saying you could be doing less of and we would still be so safe. It would be okay to pull these things back. I. Think about you know what drives street level harassment by police, and that we need to really end that street level harassment, and then forcement offense of offenses that drive it, and so these are. No incredibly non serious offenses. I really important to note that you know the FBI has said that there are you know only five percent of crimes for which people are arrested for every year constitute what the FBI consider as the most serious crimes so ninety five percent of arrests that take place each year, which is about ten million arrests. Are for a range of non series offenses. So Offensive Lake you know drug, possession and distribution. Thinking about the criminalization of sex work, thinking about driving offenses including driving without proof of insurance, driving a vehicle with an expired sticker. These are minor criminal walls and civil infractions and. I think something that's important to point out here is that the enforcement of these minor offenses not only leads to the criminalization of black and brown communities across the nation, but also can lead to death and murder, and that is what we've seen in cases like Eric Garner, in cases like George Floyd, who was targeted for such a minor fans that turned out to not even hold up. He was targeted for forgery and he was murdered by the police for that. So we really cut, you know he's ninety five..

George Floyd FBI harassment Offensive Lake Eric Garner murder forgery
"at" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

04:52 min | 1 year ago

"at" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Didn't make any sense with Monty his team knew that AT and T. was lobbying the Federal Communications Commission which regulates the airwaves in the U. S. to give it exclusive rights to the radio spectrum it would need to put phones into millions of cars using cellular technology most read in you that if eighteen team won the monopoly then they at Motorola would lose all chance of using the network for new portable phone AT&T was the biggest company in the world by every measure they have to the lobbyist in Washington to sign to every single federal communications commissioner we have a total staff of three people AT&T had two hundred was David versus Goliath if Motorola was going to stand a chance of persuading the communications commission has multi decided they'd need something spectacular they'd have to show them the future and actually make a mobile phone there were twenty people working on the phone itself if we keep in mind loses we dated to build the radio stations in the cells as well so there were another twenty or thirty people building these stations were additional people that have to set up the demonstrations in New York and the people who made the phone worked day and night because you had just three months to do it in did you and the management of Motorola Bakshi they put a lot of money into it and what was the biggest challenges to think up until that time radio usually have one channel one radio station and we have to put hundreds of stations into a single hand held device and we have to allow this device to talk and listen at the same time up until then people push a button to talk and listen we have to be able to talk and listen at the same time we used a brand new radio frequency that had never been used before a thousand records and we have to put all of them into a package that was small enough to be able to be held in your hand the Finnish phone contains thirty circuit boards and wave the equivalent of a big bag of sugar and when he revealed it to the press in a in nineteen seventy three you had at C. two prototypes in you in case we want the broke but you didn't have many journalists turning on fifteen twenty researchers certainly didn't get the a huge amount of attention once we made the demonstration there were stories about this phone where you could talk everywhere all over the world one of the reporters there was Australia and she said can I call my mother in Australia and we still of course we have our fingers crossed and she called her mother and woke her up in the middle of the night and she was thrilled it took the federal regulators however a few more years and the intervention of president Ronald Reagan to guarantee Motorola access to the radio frequencies it needed it was only in nineteen eighty three the Motorola launched the first commercially available cellular phone book most people thought that they would never be able to afford something like this the phone costs over four thousand dollars and the service was extraordinarily expensive though at the beginning it really was a rich man's toys a big became because Michael didn't it it was I think in the film Wall Street it was so huge compared to today's phones and did to get the nickname the shoe for him well you're right at the beginning that we call the tissue full but you will know that I am an engineer what I name the phone the Donatella Donatella stood for Brits yourself a dynamic adaptive total area coverage with the other tech represented was my dream of what the ultimate phone would be that you could use a matter were you worried that what a day after the environment and they would let you talk to somebody else is though there was nothing between you and we haven't quite achieved but we're getting very close though so there are some advantages to being a dreamer when did you realize just how huge this phenomenon was going to be only after the first several years when they were competitive phones on the market when they were lines of people ordering phones when you found out that in third world countries there were more cellular phones more mobile phones than there were wired phones that's when we knew that we were right that's Marty Cooper who's still inventing he was talking to Louis C. digo and you can see Monty circa nineteen seventy three with his admittedly bulky but none the less groundbreaking mobile phone on our website search for BBC witnesses street finally it's fifty years since a group of rebel nuns broke away from the Catholic authorities and set up their own independent lake community in California the sound like something of a minor event but the move threw a spotlight on the role of religion in the modern world and the position of Catholic orthodoxy Lucy Ben's been speaking to Lucy of an written formally sister Lucia who was one of the rebels.

AT
"at" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

WIBC 93.1FM

06:34 min | 1 year ago

"at" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

"By you I is going to have all free for one week three point play he made right before the five out was on AT and a final one of all three on the right way rather than take all three the **** and then rejects the fall spring awful first apple he played very well nine point as in the end it was a huge the basketball making things happen at the office of an arm on the second he gets in the game the second half seven attacks the ran as is to be at the office needed right back into this game ten point lead for the Hoosiers comes in a mix of white when Indiana needed to be very careful while Notre Dame because you're not paying attention defensively you start making mistakes doing the things that he did that first leave mom on Franklin shows a great example of how to do it is your local choice for internet voice security and James is for more information a little longer standing out there with a last minute here we come out of there to get the troops together here is a little on good for you everybody on the same page an arm on Franklin five first fall for it is a three point play conversion and he didn't get it to drop any and all loss to Notre Dame on the rebound across the time line with a basketball outside gives the danger comes level chassis he please give is on the left side the bass is actually chassis drives it in low skill set up and couldn't get the role on the rebound comes the joy brought is it also Finnessey who drives the other way pulls up to sixteen feet and misses the jump shot rebounded John moody and movie brings it back for Notre Dame off to get to a halt brother outside the movie movie thurs and often gives gives now with a basketball the White River he throws it outside and Alicia she's hands to go left side down on the porters this time to rebels it back out front now looks tries to work on fantasy camp throws off the gives out of the corner movie for three very Sir John believes this first point to the second half which is nice movies and kind of a slow day and from the standpoint of what he normally is able to accomplish what he knocks that one data that was big for Notre Dame Indiana's lead data ten again outside here is joy broadsoft Franklin top of the queue yes the Jerome hundred to rob for the C. right C. brings it back to the left hand gives to praise Jackson Davis now outside he goes to draw water lock in fires up a three and they're going to call him for travel to pick up for hello James harden three see a lot more here in basketball college basketball is not quite a doctor the new war the NBA has when it comes to that more poorly I think that's a four shot by drummers time on the shock he's coming off the bench I think you've got to fill up a sweat a little bit before you try to take that take the shots Indians got other options all physically right now that are really clicking here this afternoon I think that's a four shot by drones to see Franklin and hunter all go to the adventurers Indiana changes a lot of again the boxes back in so is out there Justin Smith here is down in the line almost got away or did get away with a travel trace crafted out of bounds is repeated are fed outside deliciously and now they will have it on the near side live jobs almost almost travels there it's a good example of Indiana keeping the basketball in front nice defense but off the green throws it right into the hands of the shots you fires a three masted Ellery bad enjoyed drugs hands in the air here's the rain takes it to the left of the circle rose of the quarter to al dura now looks for some help he gave up the gravel gives it over to join the baseline he tries to work on building kicks it out the door drive the scoop off the glass no chip Hannibal finally bad in the movies hands he gives it to her back down the other way finds the chassis in the left side he drives inside it was blocked by trace Jackson Davis and they're going to he may have drawn a charge that was not the case yeah my his it's a little bit of clarity but that's a a position there I'll stay in there for a couple seconds has its feet and offers a player just for us right into the late shift he goes to the free throw line first free throws for him today this guy's really good shooter any very sad when he's got is nine point now you have two three is the first I've got a field goal and now free throw here in the sector and suddenly Indiana's lead ism apparated out into the single digits as he can make an eight point contest of hits the second free to ours nine forty six left this was all kinds of time for the Irish and he has the second and the standpoints Napoli chassis in Indiana he's just an eight point forty eight forty seven the Anaheim nuclear store for because the time line is just about the joy brought on the way sit inside it was kicks a little blog guy you want to balance and Hoosiers will have a down only throw basket Pflueger comes up a little gentry has he has he almost looks like he's got his head down kind of thing that looks like and now he's tries to guard the monitor is just as far as a quick three short Reebok comes long drives inside the lane try to trace Jackson Davis this was a little bit Chris could handle it in India and as for the second time here in this yeah I was a little bit low really tough for trace to come up with it Georgie Miller is in his team right now defensively in the end I need to stop right here and right now cannot allow Notre Dame to get this to this is the right side in the hands of one who goes out to John moody top of the morning there's a to give right good one good one on the way.

AT
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:26 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Myers is described the crime that precipitated the case. But I wonder if Casey you can walk us through some of the most degrees violations of Mr. Mayer's rights, as as I noted we published a long form story that sort of reads as a highlight reel of dysfunction within the Alabama Justice system. Casey. Can you help us understand the most important moments in his trial? One of the first things that Sarah did do once we got the case is investigate and find out about his intellectual disability. And without that information without that understanding there was never any real relationship between rocky and his trial counsel. I think we add. Layer of that where race is an issue. And while there's nothing that rocky whatever say a thing number one because the person that he is. But he would never say that he felt treated inappropriately by his counsel. But his council came to trial arguing emit opening statements that the place where his client lived was not habit by people that it was inhabited by drug dealers and prostitutes and referred to it as the very pit of hail and creative kind of this other ISM where the jury was clearly on one side as he continued to apologize to them about having to talk about this place where people didn't live and his client on the other. And that racism in a little small town in Alabama coming from his own lawyer played into a trial that was overseeing by a jury of eleven Caucasians and one African American where an African American male is on trial for the murder of an elderly white woman to race impacts that from the beginning. But also with an attorney who is kind of separated from his client by not really understanding everything that's going on with him. I think those are some of the initial things that caused problems in the trial and moving forward in the case that resulted in a guilty verdict alternately beyond that we know that there were witnesses who were not brought to the trial because of failures by trial counsel. We know that rocky wasn't even the first suspect in this case. There was no forensic evidence. I think they missed some opportunities to raise issues about that lack of forensic evidence. So I think definitely ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial level is one of the major issues. And then later, we know that rocky also received I think something beyond just ineffective assistance of counsel when he proceeded into his state post conviction case, can you say a little bit more about what happened with his appellate lawyer. We'll come back to some of the other issues with the child. Yes. Absolutely rocky was not appointed counsel. But a council volunteered to represent rocky in his state post conviction proceedings is name was Earl Schwartz and he came to be on Rockies case because he volunteered with the American Barra. Says. Asssociation death penalty project. He represented rocky through his appeal his conviction. But what happened in the midst of that impacted everything that happened in Rockies case afterward because he quit representing rocky. Hey file the initial appeal breif, but once the court of criminal appeals made a decision denying that appeal Mr. Schwartz never did anything else aid in let anybody know that he was not going to do anything else..

rocky Earl Schwartz of counsel Casey Alabama Myers Mr. Mayer Sarah American Barra murder attorney
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

05:04 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"You tell me a little bit about your client. Rocky myers. What was his life like before? He was arrested. Rocky grab he's one of ten children born in New Jersey, his father was a severe alcoholic a lot of abuse. Growing up in the household until the father kind of left the picture for a period of time and rocky was raised a lot by single mom who didn't have money to fade or children a lot of times. He eventually in school was put into special education. In program where he was separately schooled because of intellectual difficulties that he had when rocky moved to Alabama. He was married and had four children. But had also been struggling with a drug addiction problem. They moved to Alabama to kind of separate himself from that from the environment that he was in and his wife had family in the Decatur area. And did you have any history of violence? No, sir. Maybe can you help me understand how you came to this case, I understand that you came across this case. I I did at the office here where the we have the capital habeas unit for the federal defenders, and we were newly formed back in two thousand and three. I believe rocky had his attorney drop his case and he had another person on death row assist. Him. With reading the information that he received from the attorney general's office. They were ready to schedule an execution date for him and told him that if he wanted to file a federal habeas petition. He was going to need to find someone to represent him at that point his friend helped him and called equal Justice initiative here in Montgomery EJ. I called our office and asked us to assist in helping rocky file a federal habeas petition in that was in two thousand and four which we did. So I immediately started working on his case and investigated his case and just to clarify. What is the role of an investigator in case like this? I'm a licensed, clinical social worker and work as an investigator in this office. So what we do is. We review all of the clients cases, we investigate everything that happened that resulted in the conviction. We also investigate. Everything that happened during the sentencing part of the trial, and so after visiting with rocky in heaven and understanding that he had some intellectual difficulties one of my big part in the role of this was to try to find out the information about his learning difficulties. So I met with family members up in New Jersey. I went to the schools up there and try to get records on rocky. And so did a really big investigation into his pass -ocial history. But at the same time because there were issues with his conviction. We also looked at talking to all the witnesses that testified at core. Because so many of them changed their stories. And then we found it's called a Brady claim. So we try to figure that out and do the fact investigation to prove that well when it come back to the myriad. Issues with his conviction. But I'm interested in what kind of picture those conversations painted of rocky Myers said you spoke to a lot of folks in his family, and that he grew up with what kind of picture did they paint of rocky picture that they painted of rocky was a person who was a nice, man. Good, man. Some of what Casey didn't mention about his upbringing was that he did come from a family, very active in their church. There were several people that were gifted musicians and singers. I mean, they actually toward some of the family members as a Christian docile group. So there was a lot of discussion about his faith and his beliefs that he was a good, man. But also that he did struggle having trouble learning and understanding and comprehending things. Description would be he was slow like he was slow at school and couldn't keep up. But then as Casey. Mentioned at some point because I think of his generational family history with addiction rocky became addicted and use drugs, but rocky never was convicted of anything or involved in anything that had any sort of physical altercations or violence. Well, it's really helpful background. Both in terms of what your role is in the kind of work that you do. But also understanding a bit more about Mr..

Rocky myers Casey New Jersey Alabama attorney investigator Montgomery EJ Decatur Brady
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:49 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"And so that's a part of the movie that as we were making kept getting louder and louder seeing dick Durbin question Cavanaugh about unitary executive theory looking back at Alito being questioned about it hearing the AG has been questioned by congress. And I think this is thing that Cheney certainly stood for he always believed an expansion of executive powers, and so on a legal literal level, there's that side of the movie on an emotional storytelling level. I think it's once again, the story of we have to citizens always be checking power that if we take our eyes off the ball, even for a couple years just assume power spreading whenever we're not vigilant with it as soom it's spreading and it's becoming unchecked. And that makes it a potential danger. And we just have to always be demanding transparency. And whenever we don't have that transparency. We should be very very concerned. Well, wanted to end our dramatic in deep discussion with a couple of lighter questions one. On behalf of my dad, who's a fly fishing enthusiasts. I wanted to ask about your use of the fly fishing metaphor throughout the story. There's a scene in the midst of the post nine eleven attack chaos, a close up of a catfish. I think under the water and later on in the final credits, you use flies as the sort of visual hook so to speak. Can you talk about why you chose to fixate on the the fly fishing, and can you give my liberal dead permission to continue to engage in this? Despite the fact that Dick Cheney's favorite pastime. Well, there's a quote from Lynne Cheney, and we played with the idea of putting it in the front of the movie, but it felt too obvious. She just said, look if you want to understand my husband, you have to know one thing. He's apply. Fishermen it explains. Everything about them. There's a patience to it. There's a level of catching every detail methodical nature. And it's the thing that Dick Cheney had Donald Rumsfeld didn't have Donald Rumsfeld as much louder much more impatient Lynn to a little bit more combative, although very brilliant. And the thing that Cheney had was he knew how to take a loss like when he tried to push H W Bush and the ninety one Iraq war to not seek the approval of congress of the UN and not do a coalition H W told him, no way, you're crazy and Cheney fell into the mode of good foot soldier and did his job as secretary defense. He understood how to take losses and move on. And I think the key to the entire movie is really the conversation. He has with his daughters when they're very young early in the movie. And they say are are we tricking the fish, and he says you have to find out what the fish wants. And then you use that to catch the fish. And the daughter says a good trick replaying or a bad trick replaying. And he says it's not really either it's fishing. We catch the fish. And then our family gets to eat. So that to me is is the way Cheney views the world, it's all very methodical. It's about process it's about moving forward. There's no real good or bad to it. It's just what he does. And I think in some ways the Republican party took on as well. And that's what those fishing wars are in the end, you see that some of them are like a bible with a hook in it. Like, they'll use religion to get supporters. You see the nine eleven towers which Cheney used to gain power. That's why there's a lawyer and that you see TV with a hook. And they'll use the media to get power. You see the White House? You see a surveillance camera, and these are all the ways that they can hook power. So it's two fold. It's the lore that you use to convince people, and then it's also. Chinese personality. That's slow THAAD ical personality. It's not a good trick or a bad trick. It's fishing in the final question picks up on the of powerful people and their daughters. Why do you think Jared Kushner and vodka Trump walked out?.

Lynne Cheney dick Durbin congress Donald Rumsfeld executive Jared Kushner Alito Republican party tricking White House AG Lynn Cavanaugh W Bush Trump Iraq UN secretary H W
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

02:13 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"So when I read the whole story of Dick Cheney through the books of Barton Gilman, Jane Mayer, run suss, kind David corn is on and on and on all these great journalists. It just really struck me that in the end he inland through their daughter over that they allowed that to happen. There's no way Liz would have done that totally on her own spoken out against Mary. There's just no way not the way Liz operates. She's so connected to her mother to her father, and then two days after it happened linen. Dick, basically supported Liz with public statement. And I start band. That's he gave it all away. At that point that to me is what made it a complete and total tragedy. And that's the final kind of tally the final destructive count of power is. What he did to the country what he did to countries like Iraq punching holes in the Geneva Convention, what he did to the checks and balances of our democracy, what he did to the spirit of the American voter the spirit of the American nation. And then the final thing the tools that he'd used that the Republican party is well, the story in some ways is the story of both man and party. These tools of division that they'd use to gain power. You know, you've got a vote against gays. You've gotta vote against people with different colored skin. You've gotta vote against liberals and communists. You know? This narrative they had created to solidify their power eventually took down his own family. And by all accounts. I've heard the two daughters to this day, don't speak. I know is recent as two thousand fifteen that was the case. And there's a, you know Fisher in their family that I don't know we will ever be repaired. So to me at that point the tragedy was complete on every level personal family country. Three world. I think deep down inside. He knows he gave it all away. I don't know how much feeling is less there. But there's got to be a little part of him knows what they did was very very wrong in supporting those with that. God you brought up the issue of sort of the narrative arc in where to land and the finality of the tragedy. I don't wanna give any spoilers. But how did you decide on?.

Dick Cheney Liz Fisher David corn Republican party Jane Mayer Barton Gilman Iraq two days
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:38 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"And what that means. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice, Alito and Justice Thomas voted to uphold that restriction. We now have two new members Gorsuch and Cavagnaud. They could all votes to uphold that restriction of similar restriction without having to say that we've changed the standard without having to say, we've reversed the core decision of Roe without having to say that precedent is undone their disappointing the fax to correct. And so I think that challenge for people is to put up your intent. And look for those moves that won't have the same big headline, but actually speak to the undermining. Okay. I'm glad you mentioned the courts new members. Because I want to ask you about them when Brett Cavanaugh was on the lower court before we got onto the Supremes. He stood in the way of immigrant minor. Who was seeking an abortion? You were involved in that case, right? Can you tell us a little bit about the shores? That was the case that was known in the press is the Jane Doe case. Jane Doe was an immigrant who had come into the country. She come without parents or other families. So she was unaccompanied. She was there for in the Karen custody of the federal government. She was pregnant she was in Texas. She satisfied all the state requirements to be able to get an abortion. There were folks who are going to pay for the abortion, but the federal government student away the federal government wouldn't literally sort of open the door to let her go out to secure the abortion. The federal government said if we do that, then we're facilitating the abortion, and we shouldn't have to do that. And when the case got to the court of appeals where Ben judge Cavanaugh was sitting he issued a decision which said, well, we can just wait a little bit more. We can wait eleven more days give the government time to look for a sponsor for Jane. Doe government found a sponsor that would mean that Jane Doe would have left the government's custody in would have been with a personal actual handoff. Yes. Well, and the reason why it was fictional was because first of all she already been delayed several weeks the government theoretically was already looking for a sponsor in hadn't foul. Found one pregnancy. I understand a bit sensitive detat yet just attach. And there's nothing in the decision upholding the right? That says oh, go ahead and just keep delaying while you look for some other option. This should be your right without government obstacle without somebody just closing the door on you for some number of weeks. So that opinion was quickly reversed by that circuit court sitting what they call on Bonk, which means everybody as opposed to only the three judges who normally hear an opinion. That opinion, of course, gives us pause about where Justice cavenaugh might be as he considers cases to come before the court, and you can't help it have some concern given that President Trump while he was campaigning. And then in office said that he would appoint justices who would reverse row that he said that doesn't mean it will be true. But it is reason to sort of take pause and wonder what's going to happen. But there might be at least some evidence he's not a complete monolith. Opposed to anything abortion related because once he got onto the Supremes. He voted with the majority to allow Planned Parenthood to continue receiving Medicaid funds. Right. Well, he did not vote to hear a case. There hasn't been a decision issued by this newly constituted court on that question. There was a question presented to the court saying will you hear these cases? About whether the state could push Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid program because Planned Parenthood provides abortion outside of the Medicaid program. The court did not agree to hear those cases. And what was distinctive about the court's decision? Not to take those cases was a descent filed by three justices. If I recall correctly, saying we think you're doing this just because you're frayed of the politics. It was authored by Justice Thomas in joined by Alito and Gorsuch fascinating. So wherever Greenwich may end up were assuming he's even less friendly to abortion rights, perhaps than his new colleague, Kevin I wouldn't read too much about Justice Cavanaugh from that both because this isn't straight up about abortion second. He just got on the bench third. I think chief Justice Roberts cares about the legit..

Jane Doe federal government Doe government Chief Justice Roberts Trump Justice Thomas Supremes Justice Cavanaugh Brett Cavanaugh Alito Ben judge Cavanaugh Roe Cavagnaud Justice cavenaugh Medicaid Bonk Texas Greenwich Karen President
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:44 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"We now do I think there is a lot of increased public awareness that has led to things like the New York City Bill it's a start. But it's a start that happened. Because councilmember Baca at the time was getting a lot of Kohl's asking questions about these systems in response to news articles and awareness, raising generally, and he couldn't answer these questions, and this sort of turned into this process. So I think there's a lot of opportunity for people simply to ask, hey, where are these systems being used? How are they impacting me? Hey, tech companies were selling systems who you selling them to what are they doing? Why is it that my due process rights may be deterred by a system that identifies me as like someone else, but doesn't actually reflect me as a person my record my history? So these are all questions. That don't require technical degree that don't require that your well-versed in the latest technical jargon. And they're all really fundamental questions that I think we have to simply be requiring both governments anteks companies to answer. Clearly, I'm so glad you mentioned the tech companies because I definitely want to talk about what we've been seeing in Silicon Valley. There's been some real meaningful pushback lately. From tech workers concerned about their companies contracts with the government it started at Google in a protest. I believe you're at least somewhat involved in you can tell us where employees organized against a Pentagon contract that would use a to analyze drone footage project. Maven believe it's called and since then we've now seen similar protests popping up at Amazon, Microsoft and Salesforce, also against the use of in government contracts. So can you tell us more about what's happening in the tech sector right now? And why it's happening, right. Now, certainly I was very involved in the maven protests in my role as the leader open research Google, and I'm deeply heartened to see the rising concern and the willingness to act on that across the industry. I think part of what happened is that? There wasn't increasing dissonance between the promise of tech as a great democratize earlier and the reality of these kinds of contracts, right? There are many people who for many reasons are deeply concerned about the idea of atomic weapons. There are many people who are watching what's happening with the Trump administration and watching a human rights abuses on the border and watching the rise of authoritarianism, frankly, and recognizing that this is the moment where you make a choice. Right. This is the moment where you say, I'm either going to go with the flow or I'm going to answer the question. What would you have done in this situation? And one of the things it's heartening to me is old fashioned worker organizing works that a lot of people suddenly realize that oh, you know, what we don't actually have to align completely with our employers interest. And since we are the people were building this technology since our skills are necessary to do this. We should also be able to make a choice in what we're doing what we're not doing. So I think there's a long way to go. But frankly, if you'd asked me six months ago, four months ago, if it were even possible for a workers movement until Conversely, I would have been skeptical. So I'm hopeful simply seeing this quick emergence with such clear language and such clear demands. Even there is a long road to go to ensure that the people building the tech actually have a meaningful ethical decision in what they're building..

Kohl Google councilmember Baca New York Silicon Valley Pentagon Salesforce Amazon Microsoft four months six months
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:51 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"I want to change subject a little bit as we're winding up. So many commentators have noted the echoes to the Anita hill hearing during the confirmation, obviously, Justice Thomas. And I think those echoes are very jarring particularly in revisiting how Anita hill herself was treated at the time. Whatever happens with Kavanagh. Do you think we've made progress in nation in providing women this space and incentive to come forward? And do you think the EU's commitment to women's rights among other issues at all affected how the board received the credibility of Dr Ford's testimony and in voting to take the step he I think that certainly true. And I think that in terms of whether we as a country had made progress on listening to women, the metoo movement I think is really so important. And our women's rights project has been trying to design a current doc. It, it's activties to try to capture the moment that we're in. We're all of a sudden it does seem possible that woman will be listened to even if she doesn't have corroboration even if there's not a lot of evidence of the objective evidence of her testimony. So I think the fact that Dr Ford's testimony was so credible. I think that many members of the board wanted to stand with her into, say this very brave patriotic thing that she did to tell a intimate details of things that are really clearly traumatic for her and to tell them to the Senate committee just because she felt that it was her civic duty to give information that might be helpful to the Senate. So I think we did wanna make that statement and to disagree with those who say, well, you shouldn't pay any attention to her because you don't have objective corroboration you. You don't have her calendar saying where this happened, what the address wasn't, what time in what date and how she got home. So I think this is our statement that we do believe that women should be believed that women should be able to tell their stories back to the idea of partisanship. One thing that I said to the board at the beginning was that I thought that whether or not board members believed Dr. Ford's testimony was important question that everyone was taking about for themselves, but that that would not in itself be enough for the ACLU to decide to oppose to Cavanaugh that we think about our role as fiduciaries in our role is nonpartisan organization. And so what I has poured members to think about is one of Kavanagh had been a democratic nominee and somebody who we predicted would be very favorable in civil liberties. Would we reach the same conclusion and. Posed his nomination on the basis of these same factors on the basis of the credible allegation of sexual misconduct. But you know, show partisanship even if it been in the other direction, etcetera. And quite a number of board members were struck by that, and they said that they were quite certain and committed to the idea that this standard should apply in a nonpartisan fashion and that if there were a democratic nominee who raised the same doubts as to fitness to serve on the supreme court, we like to think they're all the same circumstances that we would take the same position. But this is not about politics. This is about an individual who the board concluded has not made the case that he is a fit person to serve on the supreme court. Susan, my last question for you is prompted in part by comments. We've gotten from some of the listeners to our podcast who say they would love to know more about how the folks we talk to got into the gigs we're talking to them about. So could you just give us a just a quick summary of how exactly one becomes president of the Saliou what I was elected president people would ask, well, how did you become a civil libertarian? And the story that I love to tell when I was inserted grade and I, I discovered that my public school library had the why new..

Dr. Ford Kavanagh Anita hill supreme court Justice Thomas Senate president EU Susan ACLU Cavanaugh
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:13 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Let's turn to the issue of temperament. Certainly what struck me most about the hearings was that judge cavenaugh came in in a mode that I would like into snarling and began with a very partisan shot across the bow about those hearings being related to Clinto Nian conspiracy the ACLU, as you mentioned, has sued about every American president in history. Did the board discuss the potential negative consequences for a legal organization that practices in front of the court after formerly opposing a nominee who may very well end up sitting on that court and who now has made plain intention to remember those who have stood against him? Well, I can say that in two thousand. And six when the board decided to drop making an exception for supreme court nominees. That's another explanation that was given that we do very frequently appeared before the supreme court, and it's very important to us that we are regarded as a neutral, new affair. Litigate. I can say that both Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have commented over time that they read a c. l. u. briefs in cases because they regard us as an honest broker, I think those risk Leo's words. So I think it's very important to us and a number of people had said, well, we don't really want to prejudge justices and Ben appear before them after we've said, we don't want you on the supreme court, right? That was one of the arguments in two thousand six when the board was just discussing whether or not to make an exception to the policy and that argument was raised in a what if we were to oppose judge Cavanaugh, would he then. Bear a grudge and vote against us just because we opposed him. And there were a lot of members of questioned how true that is impurity. I don't think we really have a lot of evidence about whether or not a judge would tend to you hold a grudge against a particular organization that had opposed him or her. And I think in some ways it may be plausible to say that maybe a judge would bend over backwards you to not show bias against you. So I think that wasn't an important part of the decision here in terms of concern. But what you're saying that temperament, I think there are two parts to temperament. One part is just our is somebody explosive. And here I saw recently somebody dug up a quote of what Senator Lindsey. Graham said about sunny soda Myer at her confirmation hearing, and he said she was so angry. She was so explosive, and she didn't have the temperament to be on the supreme court and it's standing. So I thought it was really pretty interesting that Jude Cavanaugh would be judge played a different standard and the standard that at least he applied to soda Myer. But I think that the ACLU wouldn't necessarily want to go there. So when I say temperament, I don't necessarily mean just that. You know, he has a demeanor that sometimes he might yell more if somebody else that not necessarily something that would disqualify them from being a judge. It's not good. But what in my mind, what board members were more concerned about was the part of what we're generally calling part of quote temperament but is really more about partisanship. Can that be fair up? Cheap touches Roberts famously said at his confirmation hearings that he's tested on pyre, and he just calls the balls and strikes will if you had somebody you're thinking of hiring as an empire before the bulk game, and they started screaming about yet how much they disliked one of the teams it you wouldn't hire them. So the possibility of partisanship here I think was what was a main concern to some board members. The reason I don't think we're reverting to the business of always deciding whether or not to oppose cream court justices is that. This is almost like a perfect storm. We have the credible allegations of sexual misconduct. We have the inadequate investigation where you can't really tell what evidence there is big picture. We have the additional allegations which have not been investigated or presented to the committee, and then we have judge Kavanagh's own testimony, which ethic show several different things. It does show an explosive temperament, but what worries me more is that there are suggestions that he would be going into the supreme court as partisan. And we have concerned about whether there is a bias there that would disable him from doing the job of being fair to all lit against..

judge Cavanaugh ACLU Senator Lindsey Antonin Scalia Kavanagh Clinto Nian cavenaugh president Myer Ben Roberts Graham Clarence Thomas Leo c. l. u.
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

06:40 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"I'm Lee Roland, welcome to add liberty podcast from the ACLU where we grapple with today's most pressing civil rights and civil liberties questions today. A nationwide prison strike. As wildfires raged in California this summer over two thousand of the firefighters on site where paid just one dollar per hour to battle the blaze. These firefighters were volunteers from inside of California's prison system. They're part of national workforce of incarcerated. People paid pennies per hour and sometimes nothing at all for hourly labor benefiting the US economy driven in part by demands for better working conditions and wages, incarcerated workers. Last month began a nationwide prison strike today. We're speaking with David Fati director of the ACO used national prison project to learn more about the strike and the organizers demands. David is a longtime prison rights advocate who has spent his career fighting for incarcerated people and against the policies that have given the US the highest incarceration rate in the entire world will get his thoughts on what the nationwide prison strike review. Feels about America's prison. Coulter, David, thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you for having me. Let's start with a basic primer on this summer's prison strike, what is it? And why did it begin the nationwide prison strike came about because of a level of dissatisfaction on the part of prisoners with the conditions under which the live, the United States has the world's largest prison population. Two point, three million people behind bars at any given time and the conditions under which many of them live are frankly, appalling conditions that are unhealthy dangerous and sometimes even lethal. So the prisons strike came about as a result of this disatisfaction really coming to ahead and some prisoner activists deciding that the time had come to make span, who were these prisoner activists and did they have a specific list of demands when they went. On strike. We don't know who many of them are, and that's because prisoners take tremendous risks. When they engage in this kind of peaceful protests, it's perfectly legal for you or me to participate in a sit in or a work stoppage for prisoners. It can result in solitary confinement other kinds of discipline and even a lengthening of their prison time. So some of the organizers quite understandably chose to remain anonymous in terms of demands. There is a list of ten demands that the strike is dedicated to ranging from improvement in living conditions to the right to vote in all. But two states convicted prisoners deprived of the right to vote and prison. Strikers are demanding the right to vote for all citizens, including incarcerated people. So you said prisoners take risks in engaging in strike behavior. How do we know. No, that a strike went on at all. How do we have information from what's going on inside prison walls? Well, our our information is very fragmentary because prisons are v most closed institutions in the United States, president ministers, control access. They control information and we know very little about what goes on inside our prisons and jails. But we do know that prison officials in a number of states have confirmed strike activity in their prisons. They're credible reports of strike tactician in a number of additional state. So while we don't know, precise numbers, we do know that this was a very impressive level of coordination leading to strike action in a number of states during the nationwide strike. What about media access? Does the media have the right to go into prisons and ask about strike activity, and have they media have the right to ask. They don't have the right to get answers media have no more right than anyone else to enter a prison to interview prisoners. And unfortunately, the courts of upheld some pretty strict limitations on media access to even prisoners who want to speak with the media. So for example, the courts said that a prison can ban in person media interviews with prisoners, even prisoners who want to be interviewed. The problem has at least a couple of levels. One level is that most people just don't care much about prisons and prisoners. These are people who come over whelming Lee from the poorest strata of society. They're politically unpopular because of the fact that they've been convicted of crime. So a lot of people, unfortunately, including a lot of journalists, just don't care much or pay much attention to the situation of prisoners. The second level of the problem though, and at least equally disturbing. The fact that even journalists who want to cover these issues who want very much to find out what's going on in our prisons are regularly stymied and obstructed from getting that information, even very basic information by prison officials, many of whom try to keep the media out of their prisons at all costs EV can you tell us about the basic mechanics of how prison strike works? How do prisoners communicate with each other, given the difficulty of communication inside a prison, and how do they know what to do to participate in the strike prisoners communications are extremely limited prisoners don't have access to the internet. Their access to telephones is extremely restricted. And all of their phone calls except to attorneys are recorded by the prison. Prisoners can write letters, but in many prison systems, they're not allowed to write letters to other prisoners. So. You can see that the ability of prisoners to coordinate among themselves and to organize anything is significantly restricted. And so when you have a strike that involves numerous prisoners at different prisons in multiple states,

United States David Fati Lee Roland California ACLU ACO America Coulter director president one dollar
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

07:55 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"I'm Lee Roland welcome to at liberty from the ACLU. A podcast where we discussed today's most pressing civil rights and civil liberties issues. People coming across the US border have been demonized as illegals. And criminals Trump himself has referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists and called undocumented immigrants animals. But statistics show that immigrants both undocumented and otherwise are actually less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen and crossing the border. Even without documentation is only a crime in specific circumstances. How did our American political conversations start to complete immigrants and criminals? And how has our immigration policy changed along with this rhetoric to help us answer those questions we have with us Cecilia Wong the deputy legal director of the before that she ran the ACLU's immigrant's rights project and was longtime, public defender will also hear from Ravi rug beer. An immigrant. Activists, we spoke to during his deportation fight here from New York. Cecilia welcome, and thanks for being on today. Thank you Lee. So let's start big picture. I think the interaction between immigration law and criminal law can be really confusing, particularly with the current rhetoric. Let's start with folks crossing the US border. I've heard a lot about a zero tolerance approach by the Trump administration. Can you tell us a little bit about how an win border-crossing became criminalized? I think the story that we are talking about currently is that President Trump turn general sessions and a secretary of homeland security. Kristin Nilsson have made a concerted effort to buy into a restriction est anti immigrant vision that all immigrants all migrants, whether their asylum. Seekers, or longtime green card holders present a criminal threat in the United States. And so what you see in the Trump administration do is to try to foment this false notion that immigrants and asylum seekers are here to commit crimes. And one of the things that the Trump administration has done is to ramp up the use of immigration laws that make it a crime to illegally enter the United States or to illegally reenter the United States after someone has been deported and is that in any situation where you're crossing the border without the appropriate documents, there is a federal statute that makes it a crime, denture the US without authorization. But that law does not apply to people who've crossed the border and are seeking to apply for asylum. And that's one of the fundamental problems we see with the current Trump administrator. Policy. So under US law and under international law, there's a requirement that people who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted if their return to their home country have to be given a chance to apply for asylum in the United States, and the way that congress has implemented that requirement under international law and US law is that they have everyone who has a presented themselves in the United States or out of border who says that they have a fear of being persecuted. They get the screening called a credible fear interview. And if the individual is able to persuade a US government official, an asylum officer or border official that they do have a credible fear that they're going to be subjected to persecution if their return to their home country than they are permitted to apply for a Silom in the context of deportation case, and the person can then make. Their asylum claim as defense to being deported is so this asylum policy in process as you're describing it, has it been pretty constant for the last several decades and presidential administrations? Yes. The the laws pertaining to asylum and providing four this credible fear interview screening process have been on the books in the US for many, many years. What's new about the Trump administration procedure is that they have tried to deter people from applying for Silom in particular, they've tried to deter people from Central America from coming to the United States and applying for asylum by subjecting them to criminal prosecution. And so what the Trump administration has done is to say, we believe illegally that you asylum seekers who are coming to United States, regardless of whether you are screened in regardless of whether you qualify for asylum, we are going. Going to subject you to criminal prosecution separate you from your children. If you've brought them with you in order to deter you from coming to the United States, all of those methods of deterrence are in fact illegal under both US law and international law. Is this something you've seen before in in your careerism immigrant's rights activist? Well, interestingly, the Obama administration illegally tried to deter asylum seekers from coming to the United States starting back in the summer of twenty four teen in these three Central American countries. El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala that have rampant violence as a result of gang activity and also rampant, uncontrolled domestic violence where government authorities will not intervene on behalf of women who are being abused by their domestic partners or husbands and partners, women and kid. Kids were crossing the border and then turning themselves into border patrol agents and seeking asylum, and the Obama administration, including President, Obama himself vice president Biden and then secretary of homeland security. Jay Johnson did something very similar to what the Trump administration is doing. Now, though it was less Drako Nian what the Obama administration did was to say. We are going to detain all of these asylum-seekers, and then we're going to deport them expeditiously and the administration officials went so far as to say that these folks from Central America do not qualify for asylum, which was a gross violation of the law and the US constitution. Since basically the Obama administration was prejudging the cases of all of these thousands of people. But were they also prosecuting those folks during the word dots. That's the one difference where the Trump administration has drastic. Cly ramped up these sorts of illegal deterrent type tactics against asylum-seekers where the Obama administration had been illegally using detention and declaring that people were not eligible for asylum until they were stopped through a c. l. u. litigating, the Trump administration has been piling on top of that, the zero tolerance policy, which subjects everyone to criminal prosecution and this grotesque and cruel policy of separating families of literally tearing

United States Trump administration Obama administration Trump ACLU Lee Roland Cecilia Wong President Central America Obama New York Kristin Nilsson Jay Johnson
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:03 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"I'm Lee Rowland and from the view, this is at liberty. The podcast where we discussed today's most important civil rights and civil liberties questions. On August twelfth, twenty seventeen a now infamous gathering of racists. Confederate supporters k. k. k. sympathizers and Neo Nazis gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia local resident. Jason Kessler had obtained a permit for the group to rally around a statue of confederate general. Robert Lee in the cities emancipation park the day was a disaster city officials declared the assembly unlawful before it even began dispersing the planned ralliers and an even greater number of counter protesters into the streets. Violence erupted throughout the city, and Heather higher was murdered by a man who drove his car into a crowd of anti-racists. Prior to the rally, the ACLU of Virginia had successfully represented Kessler in court in a first amendment lawsuit. When just days before the widely planned event, city officials attempted to revoke the groups permit to force them away from Manson. Patient park the ACO us representation of Kessler has renewed debate internally and externally about the ACO us role as an organization dedicated to free speech and racial Justice can organization be truly dedicated to both equality and liberty one year out from Charlottesville where in the studio with probably the two best people to have exactly that discussion, Dennis Parker is director of the sale use racial Justice program. And Ben Wisner directs the group speech privacy and technology project. And in the interest of full disclosure, I, myself was a free speech attorney at the national seal y-you for much of my career. So Ben and Dennis are both my friends and former colleagues, Dennis Ben welcome. Thank you. Thanks -ly. Before we delve into the heart of Charlottesville and the issues it raises, tell me and Dennis, maybe I'll start with you. Do you generally see your work fighting racial discrimination as fundamentally intention with the other work of the fighting for free expression? Mill? I don't think it's fundamentally intention, and in fact, much of our work is done with Ben's project, and we've been able to use their work to support the actions of communities of color, trying to protect their interests. So it's not necessarily intention. I think part of the problem has come up with internally and externally with a perception that if there is a conservative reactionary. Racist group that those are the cases that the ACLU is associated with doing. And I think part of what we have to do is to find a way to tell the whole story of what we do, but also internally, look at the way we operate to make sure that you know, we always protect the interest of the communities of color and make sure that they can exercise free speech. But that requires really a careful approach. And that's been the subject of the discussions we've had internally and and externally. And how about you? Same question. How do you see big picture the ACLU work on speech and race fitting together? I think it's an important question, and I want to say at the outset that I both understand and experience the feelings and emotions

Dennis Ben Jason Kessler Charlottesville ACLU Ben Wisner Virginia Lee Rowland Dennis Dennis Parker Robert Lee ACO Heather higher Manson k. k. k. attorney director one year Mill
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

07:32 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"The Starbucks incident is once again, perfect. They made a call and five police officers ended up surrounding those two men in a semicircle with their hands at or near their guns. Now had that been me and I got really nervous, and maybe I got angry because I hadn't done anything. And I say, what the hell is this getaway from me. Now I'm black man who is showing anger who is showing a motion, and now they may have to quote unquote, take me down. And so an incident that starts because some white person was uncomfortable ends up with me being tased on the ground or maybe worse and. So thinking about the implications before you call the police on an incident is really important. Are there any situations in which you think people should call the police on black suspects in a situation where there's say not a risk of violence, if there is not a risk of violence. I'm not sure what we're calling the police force someone breaking sense, perhaps breaking and entering. If you see someone breaking into a home, call the police. If you see someone standing by a car with a crowbar in their hand and broken window and the car radio on top of the car call the police, no question about it. But if you see me existing in a space close to you, don't call the police. If you see me having a discussion with somebody that you don't understand, don't call the police. And if my t shirt doesn't meet your standard of acceptable dress, don't call the police in a way. The answer is called the police, the same way you would call the police if it was somebody you knew. So you mentioned Starbucks, I'm glad you did because in talking about how we fix this, Starbucks has offered one potential model which. Is that they recently closed their stores for a national anti-bias trading. Is that a meaningful step? Is that the kind of thing we should be doing? Or is it just window-dressing? It's interesting because I'll say a couple things about that, and it goes both ways. Number one, many people have said it costs Starbucks millions of dollars to close down their stores for one day, and I think that's probably true. On the other hand, when you think about how much money Starbucks makes in a year millions of dollars in a day, that's the point make that up tomorrow. So given the scheme of things in terms of their whole corporate structure, you know, let's not say that they're making themselves poor by doing this. They didn't have to do this and they did it, and I have read extensively about the substance of that training, and I think there were good things about it and things that were not so good about it. Can you tell us more about that training? I think the major issue that the training leaves unaddressed is the desire to. Put everything in the context of implicit or unconscious bias, because that makes people very comfortable the the science on this is clear. And can you just explain for folks who may not be familiar with the term? What do you mean when you say implicit bias, implicit or unconscious bias has to do with bias sees that virtually every human being on the face of the earth has, but is not aware of. These are biases that come from cultural messages from where we grow up and many of them literally are occurring below the cerebral cortex, meaning you have no control over them. Can you give an example of kind of common assumption or prejudice that might be a result of implicit bias? There are many people, and this doesn't have to do necessarily with race or gender or anything. I could show you a picture of a judge in robes and you would immediately begin. To make asssociation about that picture. You might guy in my mind. I've learned TK. So you saw a white guy in your mind. You might think smart. You might think powerful. You might think all kinds of things, but you've never even met that person. You have no idea what that person is like. And so- unconscious bias simply means that these are these are assumptions we are making without being aware of them. It makes some people feel very comfortable with the issue of race because they say, if I'm not aware of my racist tendencies, then it's not my fault. You can't blame me and that is true at one level, but here's the kicker. Once you are aware of the fact of unconscious bias, once you know that it exists, that's your responsibility to do something about it because there is a critical equality between unconscious bias and deliberate racist bias. And that is for the person experiencing it. It's exactly the same, whether you meant it or not. If I don't get the job because of your bias, I'm just as on employed, whether you meant it or not. If I get arrested in Starbucks, I'm just as you million it and whether you meant it or not. If those cops beat me and kill me, I'm just as dead. I am fascinated by the fact, and I didn't realize it until just now the way you described the pair of technology and cell phones and the way you describe implicit bias have great deal in common in the sense that both deny people the luxury of denial ISM. I think you've really put your finger on something because the power of the cameras is that when we saw that Starbucks interaction, we saw white people in Starbucks going, wait a minute. They didn't do anything. And so now it's very hard to say, well, it must have been. In their attitude or their their speech or something they did because even white people are saying they didn't do anything. When you saw the video of sterling Brown in Milwaukee, you could see he got stopped for parking his car across to disabled stalls. What we didn't see and what was never dealt with is this was at two o'clock in the morning. He was in front of a twenty four hour pharmacy. The parking lot was empty. Why did the cop even stop? Why did he even engage on that incident? When if it had been a white man on the way home from a busy day and had the work in his office all night and had his tie on done and his suit on and he's coming out? Oh, I'm sorry. I just pulled in ran and ran out. It'd be good evening, having nice night. What about the police themselves? Should we be talking about the same kind of implicit bias. Training without question, because let's make one thing about Starbucks. Starbucks called the police, but Starbucks didn't tell the police, pull your guns on these guys or treat them horribly, or take them to jail for nine hours and let them sit there. So there is some accountability that Starbucks and individuals have, but the police are accountable for their own behavior and one of the things that makes police behavior so difficult

Starbucks Milwaukee twenty four hour nine hours one day