Poets Writing Prose: 2018 National Book Festival


>>Hello.>>Amy Stolls: Hello,
and welcome to the Poetry and Prose Stage which
has been supported by the National Endowment
for the Arts, the NEA since the festival began
and I’m glad to be able to say that we’re continuing
our support. My name is Amy Stolls and I
direct the Literature Program at the National Endowment
for the Arts. [ Applause ] That was the total
plan right there. We celebrate literature as an
art and an essential reflection of our nation’s rich diversity
of voices and we do this by helping writers and
translators create work and connect with
audiences through publishers and other literary organizations
and programs like this festival. So, we’re really excited to
have, I’m particularly excited because I’m such a big fan
of the three and I want to call you poets,
but then also writers and they’ll talk about that. This is a conversation we’ve
titled Poets Writing Prose and we’re going to hopefully
unpack that title for you as we discuss and maybe
theorize, reassociate, tell stories, about what exactly
we mean by poetry and prose and how we individually and collectively approach
the writing and reading and subject matter of
those genres, so I’m going to briefly introduce each
of our distinguished guests. So, I think maybe hold
your applause until we get to the end then we’ll really
give them huge applause and then we’re going to,
well it needs to be organic, but I imagine that we’ll chat
and then each of them will read for a bit then we’ll
chat some more and then we’ll entertain
questions from the audience, okay. So, let’s see, Patrick
Rosal is the author of four full-length
poetry collections. His latest book “Brooklyn
Antediluvian”, I feel like I’m going to do
do-do-do-do-do as you go down and look for the books in
the bookstore; is the author of “Brooklyn Antediluvian”,
was published in 2016 and won the Academy of American
Poets Martial Poetry Prize and was a finalist for the
Kingsley Tufts Award for poetry. His collections have been
honored with the Association of the Asian-American
Studies Book Award, the Global Filipino
Literary Award, and the Asian-American Writers
Workshop Members Choice Award. He has received a Guggenheim
Fellowship, a Fulbright, and an NEA Creative
Writing Fellowship in Prose, and his essays and reviews
have appeared in a wide variety of distinguished publications
and he’s taught and presented in many different
places and venues around the country and abroad. Currently, he calls
Philadelphia home, teaches at the M.F.A. Program
at Rutgers University in Camden, although this year now you’re
going to be at Princeton, right? And I just found out last night that also you are a
jazz musician, right? Playing instrument
with drums as well?>>Patrick Rosal: Piano, guitar
and some [inaudible], yeah.>>Amy Stolls: Camille Dungy. Camille is the author of
four collections of poetry. Her most recent and
I’m going to show this, is “Trophic Cascade”
published in 2017. It won the Colorado
Book Award, in fact, her collections have won
and/or been nominated for numerous awards. Also, in 2017, Norton
published her debut collection of personal essays, “Guidebook
to Relative Strangers; Journeys into Race,
Motherhood, and History” which was a finalist for
the National Book Critics Circle Award. She’s an editor too, has edited
several anthologies including “Black Nature; Four Centuries of African-American Nature
Poetry” published in 2009, and she’s received two Creative
Fellowships from the NEA; one in poetry and one in Prose. I should say that Patrick
got his in Prose as well. I’ll explain that in a minute. And she comes to use
from Fort Collins, Colorado where she teaches
at Colorado State University. What was that?>>Patricia Lockwood:
I didn’t know that, my husband is from Fort Collins.>>Amy Stolls: Oh. Wow.>>Camille T. Dungy:
Conversation piece.>>Patricia Lockwood:
Restore [brief laughter].>>Amy Stolls: Well, you know
I have to say I also just found out that Patrick’s
dad is an ex-priest.>>Patricia Lockwood: What?!>>Patrick Rosal: Yeah.>>Amy Stolls: Okay, wait, wait. So, this considered; this
is Patricia Lockwood. Patricia is the author of two
critically acclaimed collections of poetry; “Balloon Pop Outlaw
Black” published in 2012 and her most recent
collection is “Motherland Fatherland
Homelandsexuals” published by Penguin in 2014. It was named a best book of the
year by numerous publications as was the memoire she published
in 2017 called “Priestdaddy” which was among the New York
Times book reviews 10 best books of 2017, it was an Amazon
Best Book of the Month and was a finalist
for the Kirkus Prize. It was on the Best
of the Year list put out by the Washington Post, the
Chicago Tribune, The New Yorker, and the PR Publishes
Weekly on and on.>>Patricia Lockwood: You should
say I didn’t win any actual awards [multiple speakers].>>Amy Stolls: Oh, sweetie
I would give you an award.>>Patricia Lockwood: Thank you.>>Amy Stolls: Patricia. I’m going to get right on that? It’s also worth noting that Tricia’s writing is
hugely popular on social media and I’m saying that because
I think we’ll probably talk about that. She has more than 71,000
followers on Twitter, the Atlantic included two,
I believe of Tricia’s tweets on its list of the
best tweets of all time where she was the only
author included twice.>>Patricia Lockwood:
I didn’t know that.>>Amy Stolls: It’s
true though [laughter]. And you have, are
you in Georgia?>>Patricia Lockwood: I
am in Georgia now, yeah.>>Amy Stolls: It’s
quite the place. Welcome to D.C. everyone. Okay, now you can applaud. [ Applause ] Okay, I just; I’m going to say
one more thing then I’m going to really back off
and let you talk. Let me give you a
little background about why we’re doing
this session, and that is because it has to do with our Fellowship
Program at the NEA. We give out fellowships
in creative writing, but because we get
so many applications and we have only one person on the staff pretty much doing
this, we had to split them to per year, so one year
you can apply in poetry, the other year you can apply
in prose and that means and that means fiction
or creative nonfiction and each year we get about 1800
applications and we’re able to give out roughly about 35 to 40 fellowships
$25,000 fellowships. Well, we gave out 36 fellowships
in 2018 and we noticed that a large percentage of
the award winners in prose won for their creative nonfiction, but they actually
called themselves poets and where mostly known as poets, and we were thinking
“Wow, what happened?” They came over to prose. It’s like an infiltration
of prose for the poets and it gave us this idea to
start talking about these genres and so my first question I
suppose that I would ask you is, and I ask this of
you answered this through a blog post earlier,
which is, you know, do you see or is it fair to say that
you are poet writing prose or do you see yourself as
a writer and, you know, the deeper question is
really if this is, you know, here’s poetry, here’s prose,
are they that distinct to you or do they kind of, you know? I’m going to stop with
hand gestures sitting next to you Tricia because I feel
like that might get, yeah.>>Patricia Lockwood:
We’ll do that one again.>>Amy Stolls: Yeah.>>Patricia Lockwood:
That’s something.>>Amy Stolls: Yeah.>>Patricia Lockwood:
I know it’s something.>>Amy Stolls: Yeah.>>Patricia Lockwood:
Let me think.>>Patrick Rosal: Yeah, I it. I have to say that my, the whole
idea of sort of the separation of genres is a little
bit confusing to me for a number of reasons. One, because when I got to know
the writing of the Philippines where my parents are from, what
I realized very quickly was that writers were writers
and they wrote everything. They wrote novels, they wrote
poems, they were journalists, they were speech
writers for politicians and so this whole sort of
market division between, between genres is not universal. It’s actually an invention. And the other reason why it’s a
little bit confounding to me is that I came to books
late in life. I came to books in my 20s, I’m
a college flunky twice over and so my original
love was music. I wanted to be a
composer and a musician. I think of all of writing as
an extension really of music. So, when we’re talking about
a kind of a blurring or genre, I think that my own sort of
blurring happens across arts. That means performance,
the means theater, that means [foreign words
spoken], and that means so many of the kinds of musical
and artmaking traditions that we have in the
United States. So, it always feels funny to be
kind of, I’m also an academic and to be in a department and
a discipline that is, you know, has very specific boundaries,
it’s really just kind of an invention for
me and I navigate it but it doesn’t feel very true to
the way that I just make stuff and the real enjoyment
of making stuff which is across artmaking practices.>>Patricia Lockwood: I have
kind of a; ooh I’m sorry.>>Camille T. Dungy:
No, you can go.>>Patricia Lockwood: I
have; do we think it’s like a whole different
from the romantics because it’s a true thing
in the United States I think or in the West with
like novelists as well considering themselves
poets versus [inaudible] and I think that’s true like
a lot of English novelists, a lot of American novelists. So, I wonder if holding
that closer to like the core of identity is like a
leftover romantic ideal.>>Camille T. Dungy: The core,
holding that I’m just a writer.>>Patricia Lockwood: A
poet first and foremost. No. No the opposite. That thing where it’s
like you’ll read people who have written
like splendid novels and their poetry is
absolutely terrible and they’re like I still consider myself
a poet first and foremost and they hold it their core
in almost a romantic way. So, I wonder about
that a little bit because I feel more as you do.>>Camille T. Dungy: I think
I have thought about it as a question of marketing and
where you, where you’re going to place that book in the
library or the bookstore more than I have thought about
it as a romantic holdover or something like that. And I think as a writer
of color, part of why, part of the space for my
resistance to that segregation of various modes of writing
has to do with the fact that Black writers are so frequently separated
anyway, right? They, like I remember going to
look for Rita Dove’s newest book when she was the Poet Laureate
of the United States of America and she published a new book
and I went to go find her in the bookstore and I couldn’t
find her in the poetry section. And I was informed that she was
in African-American literature which is true about Rita Dove,
but she was the Poet Laureate of the United States, so maybe in U.S. literature
she could have been. And that kind of sense
of categorizing her based on one aspect of
her presentation, I think so many writers that I
grew up admiring wrote all kinds of things, Alice Walker. I remember the books of Alice
Walker were all over the house when I was growing up. She was a poet. She was an essayist. She was a novelist, right. She’s a writer that she wrote
what she needed to write and I think I came into writing
thinking I’ll write the thing in the mode it needs to be
written for that purpose and the world is going to do
with it what it’s going to do. Like it’s not my job to
categorize what I’m writing when it’s coming out,
because the world is going to be plenty of that
categorizing.>>Patrick Rosal: Yep.>>Patricia Lockwood:
Upon me anyway.>>Patrick Rosal: Yep.>>Patricia Lockwood: And
I guess when that’s true, as well when it’s a matter of marketing it’s also
a matter of money. A lot of people who would
consider themselves poets first and foremost that’s like the
phrase I always have it’s like etched on my mind; I
don’t know where it came from. You’re not going to
make money that way. So, yeah you’re going to
branch into other fields and I think it’s true. I think like a genre
is something that flows out of you as you’re writing. It’s like the form
comes out of you. It’s I don’t think about whether
I’m writing poetry or prose when I’m doing the
actual writing, and since as you mentioned
Twitter and things like that, on Twitter I’m known as a poet. So, when people come
to my readings and they hear me read
anything they call it a poem, because like they
think that’s what I am. I think that’s as
good as anything. I mean, that makes as
much sense, but yeah, a huge part of it is that,
you know, like we’re not going to make a ton of
money doing this. So, we’re going to have to
branch out a little bit.>>Amy Stolls: So, wait. When you set out to
write, you’re not thinking on what I’m writing,
you’re not category; really? Like you.>>Patricia Lockwood: You
know what book you’re in. That’s what’s true of me. I know what book I’m in, but
even in the midst of something like [inaudible] I’m writing
something that’s essentially along the poem, so not really.>>Amy Stolls: It’s kind of
fascinating, because you, you know, there are; I mean we
all know there are differences for example right? I mean, like for, you know,
you have we’re mostly talking about creative nonfiction, prose almost demands you
declaring it true or not because there are these
categorizations that we’ve grown up with, they’re fiction,
they’re nonfiction, you know, poetry you have a voice and
there’s a little bit more leeway in there, and of course,
there’s; you know, one of the different things.>>Camille T. Dungy: Right, but I think that in poetry
also I have a responsibility to capital T truth, not facts. That’s not what I’m
talking about. I’m talking about real
truth; is this believable to another human heart, right? And so, how is that different
than truth in nonfiction, right? So, I think there’s
different things that you’re doing with the line. That often when I start into writing nonfiction I’ve
released myself from one of poetry’s great super powers
which is that the line break at the end you have all these
opportunities for variation, but there’s really
beautiful poetry that doesn’t depend
upon the line either, so I think sometimes I
know there’s an essay at the very beginning
of “Guidebook to Relative Strangers” where
I’m at an artist colony and somebody said like
a ridiculous thing, and I it was maddening
and rather than go drink I went
and wrote about it. And so, that I knew like
I’m angry about this thing and I’m going to write into
that anger and that writing into that anger requires
some sort of [inaudible] of information and history and
context that it’s probably going to be too bulky, right, and so
as I start writing it becomes and essay and that becomes clear
as I’m writing, but mostly I was like I am filled with rage
and really practical way of dissipating that rage
is to get to the page. And so, I might have written
a poem, right with that. It’s just in this case I
was driving towards a point at length and that ended up
becoming an essay for me.>>Patricia Lockwood: There was
that funny [inaudible] a couple of years ago, where
like the it turned out The New Yorker was
still fact-checking poems and there was like a line in a Michael Robbins’
poem I think it was. It was like the Swedes invented
refrigeration and they wrote and they were like “No,
they actually didn’t.” And I think that they stopped
after that point, because I know that I had like some poems
and then after that I’m like, “Oh those are full of lies.” So, it’s good that they’re
not doing that anymore.>>Amy Stolls: So, go with
me here and imagine a world where we don’t have these
categorizations than and how, so here, you know, did
you; when you came to write and you know writing and reading
when you were a kid let’s say, did you come through poems
and then come through? No, so it really is,
you’re shaking your head.>>Patrick Rosal: I didn’t.>>Amy Stolls: Yeah, yeah.>>Patrick Rosal: I was
kind of a typical product of American education which is
to say that I was intimidated by poetry and I thought that it
was completely apart from me. It was apart from my
family as traditions. It was literary with a capital
L. It was up there and so, yeah, poems were not part
of me growing up. They were part of my entrance
as an adult into loving books, into you know, really
dedicating my life in terms of having a formal
relationship with language, but yeah poetry was not, it
wasn’t something that was sort of engrained in me
very early on.>>Camille T. Dungy: And I’m
going to say the opposite. My grandmother was
a school librarian, an elementary school librarian. Books were all around and I was
like ecumenical in my reading. I was just like there
was a book. It’s almost like
Patricia’s audiences. Like it was a book. I was just reading a book. It just could be anything
and I trapped through poetry when I started going in college
and graduate school in poetry, but even in graduate school
I remember what I was in one of those programs that
was very, very isolated. Like you were in the poetry
trap and you weren’t allowed to take any of the fiction traps and nonfiction wasn’t
even a thing that they were talking
about at that time. So, the explosion of nonfiction
is a fascinating space for a lot of us to be writing is,
but that was a trap. But I was sneaking away
writing stories and working with the fiction people and
trying to figure out how to, how to get a kind of
training in prose even when I was being disallowed
from it because I was a poet and that was what my
job was supposed to be. I think when, when my
daughter was born I found that prose was a way that I can
write because of that training. That training in poetry
I have been trained in now what I’ve come to call
the person from poor lot school of poetry where like when you
write a poem if anybody knocks on the door or interrupts
it all the poem is destroyed and you can’t, you know, then that’s why we didn’t get
the rest of Kubla Khan, right? Like, but when you have a
kid like you have the person from poor lot knocking on
your door every five minutes and because I think I
was untrained in prose, I can just keep writing
through it and around it, because I had already
fiercely figured out how to do that against all odds
and so it was a wild, but before my training in my
training in poetry was able to be overtaken again by
that freedom that I had found in prose which was
from the leftover of just you reading something
and you writing it in response.>>Patricia Lockwood:
Maybe that’s why nonfiction at the moment feels so
elastic too, if it’s true that because I don’t have
higher education, I don’t know, but what you’re saying
resonates with things I’ve heard from other people, if those
traps are so strongly defined and people want to flee
those a little bit, maybe they’ve found this other
ground or this other capacity. Maybe that is the place that we’ve taken those
things, I don’t know.>>Amy Stolls: Patricia
you had said, wrote I had asked a
question about whether poetry and prose reaches
different audiences and you said there’s a certain
percentage in my audience that considers anything I write
in poetry, because I am a poet.>>Patricia Lockwood: Yeah,
but I think that’s why, I mean, that’s okay yeah, right. It’s like it’s a matter of
how you get them in the door and then you can read
whatever you want to them and they have no control over
it, so again, it’s a book. It’s a reading. You know, what happens in it
is sort of amorphous material that the form is imposed
upon from without.>>Amy Stolls: I it’s, you’re
wrapping my world a little bit because I have a
lot of questions.>>Patricia Lockwood:
You ask the questions.>>Amy Stolls: I know,
because I have questions.>>Patricia Lockwood: You ask
the questions that interest you.>>Amy Stolls: Well,
my question is about how one informs the
other and they’ll run, and where you know, like you
know Camille had said let’s breakdown the walls and that. You know, we have prose
writers who say don’t put me on a poetry panel
because I can’t.>>Patrick Rosal: Yeah.>>Amy Stolls: Judge poetry.>>Camille T. Dungy: Well, I
mean I will say that I think that as how to train as a poet,
I have an attention to word like at the word
level and phrase level and the music level the prose
writers are not necessarily trained in.>>Patricia Lockwood:
They’re jealous about it too.>>Camille T. Dungy:
As poets, right? And so that may be what
one of the differences between poets writing
prose is that like I found when I remember like right
after graduate school I tried to write a novel and
that just didn’t work, because I was writing the novel
and then I would have to break for the day and I would go
back as I would with a poem and I would read everything
I’ve written before to get the sonic quality. Well once you hit page 10, like my whole writing session
was rereading what I had written the day before and I would
tell that to prose writers that would be like, it’s
not going to work for you. Like that’s crazy. So, and I didn’t do it with the
book of essays all the time, but there would be
some days and I know that prose writers do this, so
don’t come at me prose writers, but you don’t pay attention
to the words, but I do think that poets have been trained
usually to pay attention at the word level, the phoning
level a little bit differently than how prose writers do
and that, that may be one of the uniquenesses between
the two of us, right.>>Patricia Lockwood: I think
it may be even be inherent. I don’t know if it training. I notice that I get stuck
on words a lot more easily. I notice that there were
things when I was a kid that I did not understand
certain idioms that I would pour over and pour over
because I didn’t get them; jokes I didn’t understand. I still don’t get the chicken
butt thing and I never will. No one can explain it to me. I had a student who asked me, she was like sometimes
I read poetry and I just don’t understand
it on a basic sense level. I was like, if your
body understands it, you understand it enough. You have enough of it. You know what you need to
know and I think to be honest.>>Camille T. Dungy: For
her that’s not enough.>>Patricia Lockwood: Well, but
I think it was anxiety, yeah, so what I told her
was that it is enough. Like if your body is
responding you know something about this poem that maybe
your head doesn’t know yet. But I think it’s true maybe
that we are the people who misunderstand things,
that we misread things, that we transpose
words and a lot of times I’ll misread something
and it sounds better to me. So, I don’t know if it’s
a thing where, you know, we’re drawn to that training
because it’s something that we already kind of do,
like that might just be me, but I get stuck on stuff
in a way that is almost like a childish way and that’s
why I pay so much attention to it, because I have to. It’s just like how I’m wired.>>Amy Stolls: Why don’t
we take, I want to get into a little bit of the
subject matter that you.>>Patricia Lockwood: Sure.>>Amy Stolls: All write about, but why don’t we take a
break and do some reading.>>Patricia Lockwood: Sure.>>Amy Stolls: Can you
do; who would like to? Should we go? Patrick would you like to read?>>Patrick Rosal: I don’t
know what this is [laughter]. I’m doing work around the race
riots in Watsonville in 1930, Watsonville, California. There were Filipino
farmworkers who were dancing with White women in taxi
dance halls and they, the White community formed
posses to hunt Filipino’s down, threw them over the
Pajaro River Bridge, went out to the bunkhouse which
was four miles from downtown and one of the people from the
posses shot through the wall into the bunkhouse and killed a
young man named Fermin Tobera. So, I’m doing a cite, I
didn’t even curse yet. I’m doing a cite-specific
performance. I hope to do a cite-specific
performance out there in Watsonville, California. I’m writing around it. I’m doing drawings and all
kinds of things The only thing that you need to know about
this is that I’m an intralocular with these monomes the
Filipino farmworkers from 1930 and I don’t know who’s dead. It’s either them or me. I maybe a ghost visiting
them and one of the things that they’ve come
to do over time is to make kites inside
of this bunkhouse. “Here is a lie. The kite maker and his
companions work hard. They get up under
an orange-blue dawn. If they dream there’s no time
to think about the dreams of visions of roosters
thrashing deep in the water. The blade still tied
to their ankles. The birds aren’t drowning,
but they clearly don’t belong. They’re kicking their
feet, scratching, turning in the swirls
of undercurrent. The men always wake up before
they know if the cocks drown or grow fins or gills or
get swooped up by nets and dropped back into a yard where the animals
make more sense, into the fields,
hotter and hotter. Every day, I try to look more
carefully, see more deeply from all the way out here
this incredible distance. I’m younger than these
men after all, and yet, I’m older than them too. They are as young as
17 and one who looks like my grandfather barely 23. Sometimes I get close enough
to them I can ask questions. When they speak, it’s as if
they aren’t speaking to me, but to one another or
a lover left behind. I can’t tell if it’s because
they are too far away in time and miles or if they
just refuse to tell me about the knife they’re holding,
the sound of the blade pulling through the stalks,
what the ground tastes like when they have to
suck the blood from the cut in the thumb they
made themselves and not lose the
rhythm of reaping. I don’t blame them. There’s nothing to the
work after a while. There is no thinking. There was a time when the
men had a deliberateness and a strangeness to the
bending and cutting and pulling when they first arrived just
after White men took their names and asked them if
they could read, asked if they had
wives back home. There was a time the men,
these monomes thought about this comparing
the first lettuce to the next making sure
they got the whole head. It doesn’t take a
week to stop thinking. You’re body just goes and
your mind does other things. First it dreams of the
faces it left behind. How happy they’ll be to see you
again to build a house and buy so many fat pigs
and goats and cows. You caught me lying again. They are thinking of sleep or
they are thinking of the uncle who slapped them on the back or across their teeth the day
before they left their village, or they are thinking of
slitting the foreman’s neck. They are thinking of hanging
themselves from a tree. They are thinking of swimming
in the ocean, the water salt which is different
from the spicy, muddy salt of their
own heads and armpits. They are thinking of swimming
all the way back home. They are thinking no
will remember their names when they get back. They are thinking of
changing their names anyway. Edison is a good name. They are thinking of going
back to another province and finding a wife who will
call them Edison, a famous name as if a name could
change a face sun bait. No one weeps anymore. That’s my last lie. But this man here because he no
longer has to think about how to grip the handle or the
angle of the knife’s edge, because he is quick with
his work but not too quick. He can think of something else. He can think of making kites.” [ Applause ] Thank you. [ Applause ]>>Camille T. Dungy: Ii
must say I was to grateful when Amy invited me to
be part of this panel because I love these, she
told who was going to be on it and I love both of these
writers, and so anytime I get to be in a space with
writers who I really admire; I’ve never met you in-person.>>Patricia Lockwood:
I’ve never met you.>>Camille T. Dungy: But, but
I know her work so there we go.>>Amy Stolls: And
you’re all reading poems.>>Camille T. Dungy: That’s
the, I know that’s the beauty of about the beauty
of literature.>>Patricia Lockwood:
Back around Amy I like it. Very, very good.>>Camille T. Dungy:
So, what I’m going to do is actually read a very
short excerpt from an essay in “Guidebook to Relative
Strangers” and I’m going to read a poem from
“Trophic Cascade” and I chose these two sections
because they were written within relatively
close proximity of each other in
time in my life. And the poem, by the way,
happened to have been written after a trip home
from Washington, D.C. when I did some work with the National
Endowment for the Arts. So, it seemed like the
right poem to read. But you can kind of
just hold in mind that, that these were written within
about a month of each other, so similar concerns are
spinning through my head. “In the years before her death, my maternal grandmother told me
the story of her family’s flight from Shreveport to
Summerville, Louisiana. My great-grandfather who
owned his own sheet metal shop in that left behind town who
could read and write and figure and who understood his worth,
entered his business one morning and found his young
cousin dead on a worktable. A note pinned to the body warned
my great-grandfather to get out of town before nightfall,
but less he be killed as well. The surviving family piled
into a wagon with nothing but what the wagon could hold. ‘Imagine that’, my
grandmother said repeatedly in the last years of her life. She didn’t talk much about
the new shop or the new town and the years before
she died it was that wagon my grandmother
talked about, loaded with things her family
could haul and that life plucked from her family’s line. Most Black American
families have a story of some branch brutally
severed from their family tree. The only remarkable thing
about my grandmother’s story is that she had to reach
as far back as 1917 to encounter such a trauma. But pain is an immortal humor, lasting in a body far
longer than pleasure. Again, and again my
grandmother asked me as if I might one visit provide
some satisfactory answer, what would make a
person do that to a body? We might be playing with the
baby, grandmother’s namesake. We might be sitting in a nursing
home’s courtyard enjoying the light of the springtime sun. Once we in a communal
dining room surrounded by the dying old White Iowans with whom my grandparents
spent their final years. She looked around if startled to
find herself amongst strangers and whispered the story
of her family’s flight as if it were a story
that I that moment for my very survival
needed to hear. Grandmother’s voice shook
when she recited this story, not from age, but from the
hard-driven grief that spoke through muscle to bone,
this must be what they mean by this role of terror. My grandmother repeated
her story, because she could not
help but remember. She was there. She walked into the
shop and saw her cousin. She climbed into the wagon
and rode through the dust. She felt her father’s
fear-born defiance and caution. She saw her pregnant mother,
several siblings packed up and driven off before
the last of the light. She was there you understand
and she had to tell me. Though, she would likely have
been too young at the time to remember the incident,
this too is possible. Hers was the small body
inside her mother’s body. She might not yet have
even been conceived. This is how history
eclipses all reality. My grandmother, who could not
help but relive this trauma, was also as far away from everything I am
writing as you and as me.”>>Patrick Rosal: Very nice.>>Camille T. Dungy: Thanks. [ Applause ] Thanks. So, that was
the essay excerpt and then this is a poem called “Frequently Asked
Questions, Number 7.” Is it difficult to get away from
it all once you’ve had a child? I am swaying in the galley,
working to appease this infant who is not fussing, but will
be fussing if I don’t move. When a black steward
enters the cramped space at the back of the plane. He stands by the food
carts prepping his service. Then he is holding his throat
the way we hold our throats when we think we
are going to die. I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. He is crying. My God. What they did to us. I am swaying lest my brown baby
girl make a nuisance of herself, and the steward is
crying honest man tears. Seeing you holding your daughter
like that for the first time, I understand what
they did to us. All those women sold away from
their babies, he whispers. I am at a loss now. Perhaps I could fabricate an
image to represent this agony, but the steward has walked
into the galley of history. There is nothing
figurative about us.” [ Applause ]>>Patricia Lockwood: Since
you so generous Patrick as to read something that
you do know what it is, I will do that as well. I’ll read from what I’m
working on right now. It’s just kind of a
hybrid of everything. It’s about an idiot
on the Internet. “In childhood she had laid
awake at night on fire with a single question; ‘How
did French people know what they were saying?’ You know, when she
finally asked her mother, she didn’t know either which meant the problem
must be inherited. ‘Can’t learn’, she
Googled late at night. Can’t learn since
losing my virginity? Her most secret pleasures
were sentences that only half the percent of
people on earth would understand and that no one would be able
to decipher it all in ten years. Grizzly British witch pits, sex in the moon next
summer, what is binged? What is to be corncobbed? That’s the cost of my vegan
lunch, pan [inaudible] my wound. She could not feel
her first fingertip. This in the way that your ear
used to get soft pink compliant and the swirls of hair
around it like damp designs from talking on the telephone. A hundred years ago her cat
might have been called ‘Mittens’ or ‘Pussy willow.’ Now her cat was called
‘Dr. Butthole.’ There was no way out of it. ‘Dr. Butthole’ she called
at night almost in despair until he trotted to the door
with the bright feathers of her dignity clinging to
his lips and disappeared in his alternating
stripes over the threshold. In Bristol the sunset dripped
as if from a honeycomb. ‘This is your contribution
to society?’ a man asked holding up a print out of her most famous
post, ‘Can a dog be twins?’ [ Laughter ] ‘Yes’, Rachel peeped. She wanted to explain that she
had also popularized the concept of today’s ceiling wax
manicure where you paint it over your entire fingertip
in a big careless red blob and that this had paved
the way for 1776 Corp, an irony-based esthetic where people adopted
various visual signifiers to the founding fathers, but
he had already turned away in disgust tearing the print up
in two as he went, just as well. It probably wouldn’t be funny
to an Englishman anyway. But afterward, a boyish figure
stood in line to see her. He waited until the very end. ‘I used to read your
online diary’ he confessed when it was finally his
turn and tears sparked in her eyes instantaneously. The diary she had written before
anything had happened to her. The diary where she used
to make the sort of jokes that would get people fired now. ‘What was your name’ she
asked and he told her and mundane ecstasy began
to rush in her veins. His had been one of her
very favorite lives. She remembered it in the
minutest detail, the pine step to work, the rides back
and forth on the train, his search for ever spicier
curries, the imagined dimness of his apartment with
crates of obscure records and the green waving
gentleness of it all. She stood up and held him. She could not help it. He felt as breakable
as a link in her arms. It was hard to know
which forms of protest against the current regime
were actually useful. The day of the election
her husband had woken up with a strong urge
to get a face tattoo, ‘Either I want a teardrop under
my left eye or I want them to make my whole skull visible.’ He settled finally on
getting the words ‘Stop it’ in very small letters
right near his hairline where they could
hardly been seen. When she closed her
eyes she saw people as polka dots assembling
now into a ballet, swoop now into a battle, swoop
now as a flock of scavengers with single word like ‘garbage’
saved ever from ugliness by the swoop the wind,
the uplift in the wings which were made for this. A bear breaks into
a Colorado house and plays the piano
but not very well. A man with a self-administered
hyena haircut following a woman through a store and shouting
‘Immigrant, immigrant, immigrant, immigrant.’ In the front seat of
the police car he began to discuss World War III
and why it would begin. Why it must begin. Why it was coming. Why he would be the general
that led the first charge. Previously these
communities were imposed along with their mental weather. Now we chose them or
believe that we did. A person might join a site to
look at pictures of her nephew and five years later
believe in a flat earth. A man with a chest tattoo
that says ‘I can do all things through Christ who
strengthens me, motherfucker!’ ‘MySpace was an entire
life’ she nearly wept at a bookstore in Chicago. And the whole audience
conjured up the image of a man in a white T-shirt
grinning over his shoulder and then private music began
to autoplay for each of them. And it is lost, lost,
lost, lost. A former presidential
candidate whose face was as long a cartoon shoe, had
favored a porn in the nights. It was always thrilling
when this happened. First there was the
porn itself to dissect, in this one a red-blooded
American housewife stumbles upon her stepdaughter getting fucked
from behind by her boyfriend who seemed likely to
shoot an unbelievable load of mayonnaise into
her at the end. Twist though, the woman
in the clip who stood in a hallway theatrically
pleasuring herself while her step-daughter was
[inaudible] looking exactly like the candidate’s wife. This was somehow thrilling
too in its innocence. He would always desire her, but
at least the blonde substance that flowed through
her turn sketch. Rachel though then of the
women of separated twins. She thought of the
divergence and use between this identical beauty. I wanted to end up in a porn
clip slapped up by sexual posts and how the other had become the
wife of a man who is outspoken in his belief that people should
not manipulate their genitals. When the imagination was caught like this it was no longer
her imagination but the mom’s. Flat architects are awaken
which move through flat scenes in a cave of the mind. Torches were raised somewhere
and her blood pounded and it was the blood of the mom. She had another heart now
that beat a black shadow of her real one, but if it
ceased to be, she would die too like that security robot who
had recently committed suicide in a fountain face
down insanely funny. [ Applause ]>>Amy Stolls: I
was just transport; I didn’t even care whether
it was poetry, right? Just right?>>Patricia Lockwood: I’m
trying to imagine what it feels like being on the Internet.>>Amy Stolls: There is, I mean
I have encountered your work and felt and you know through
the page when you are looking at white space, you
know, or the display of the words it’s a
really different experience to hear you read it and
the subject and the words and what you’re saying. It’s just and then
categorization kind of, I’m also right here listening. I mean, I’m, it’s a
really moving experience. Does it feel different when
you read your, you know, if you’re reading poetry
or reading prose out loud, to yourself or an audience
versus writing it on the page?>>Patrick Rosal: I think
when you asked about kinds of the differences
between poetry and prose, what’s occurring to
me is that poetry in its tradition maybe closer to
social practices, to gathering, whereas we think of the novel as
something that you would engage in just you and the page. Now, we’ve taught poetry
as if every poet was like the archetype of
Emily Dickinson locked in one’s room writing and
then you get, it get arrives to somebody and the read
it alone in their room. Poetry is also it’s a
social art form, you know, and it brings people together
certainly for people of color. It calls back to our family
gatherings, to our social, to our social gatherings. And so, maybe there’s something
about composing in prose with this idea of people
actually being in the presence of one another, of
mourning together, of celebrating together,
of arguing together, of dancing together that,
you know, calls up the music of poetry and of all these
sorts of American traditions.>>Camille T. Dungy: I think for
me the one thing about reading; both of the books came
out in the same year and so I found myself
reading from them at the same time often, and one of the things that’s very
different is I didn’t have to do a lot of setup
for the poems. “Frequently Asked
Questions Number 7”, yes those 1 through
10 are in the book, but you don’t really need
to know 1 through 10. Like I had to come to
terms with the thing like you don’t know
anything else that happened in that essay body of evidence. That 5 paragraphs that
I read to is an excerpt of a huge long other thing
and I wrote an essay partly for the other rigging that’s
around it and then to read it to you I have to like remove all
that other rigging and get back to the thing that is that sort of image kernel right,
about one thing. And so, that is hugely
different for me coming at, coming to share prose with you
as opposed to sharing poetry, is it’s the way that it
can just be self-contained; that a poem can be
self-contained in a way that an excerpt from an essay
can’t be and yet it can be. What you’ve got is fine and
it’s self-containable and it’s, and it works, it’s just you
didn’t get a whole bunch of other stuff and I know that. So go buy the book and
they you can share it too.>>Patricia Lockwood:
Yeah, I always felt luckier as reading poems than, like
you know, the novelist, comes on after you and
he’s like “Alright, so there’s a ballet dancer.” And it’s like, I don’t have
to do any of that, you know. I just get up there
and I pop it out. If feels like you’re a little
bit of like the show pony who comes out and you do a big, cook but also universal
trick you know? That it’s like it speaks to
the human heart and all that, but you’re like still the pony
and everything and like you get to see that cool thing. And you guys there is like you,
there’s, there feels like a pop out quality like a completeness
to it that I always like, yeah when I read that.>>Amy Stolls: I guess I was
also thinking of let’s writing, let’s move to call it all
writing and when you come at a subject directly, which
as prose writer it’s more, you know, head on, right,
you’re piecing out verses through a little bit more
slanted, through metaphor, through you know
working things out and making a little bit
more; they, you know, poem sort of invites
the reader to come in and make different
interpretations like they’re like sometimes prose
doesn’t do that as much because you are saying this on
the page and so when we talk about there are hard subjects
that we are all, you know, that your work we’re talking
about you know fear and death and discrimination and misogyny
and hard, hard, hard stuff. You know, typhoons I was reading
your, but you know, so sometimes when you approach
this writing do you; how if you can riff
a little better about how you approach
sometimes the tough subjects and whether sometimes it
feels a little easier to do it through poetry or not,
because of that coming about it you know what
brings up for you?>>Patricia Lockwood:
I was telling my escort when I got here I was like,
I was looking at selections of what to read today and
I looked at “Priestdaddy” and I thought if I have to read
about the Catholic Church today, I will burst into
tears, you know, if I, if I have to talk
too much about it. If I have to go through
that, I don’t know if I would be able to do it. But I, it’s also true that
I couldn’t have written about the Catholic
Church in a poem really. I mean, I could have. I could have written
about specific moments, but like if you’re
talking about exposing like institutional abuses,
if it, some things are better to lay them out in prose
because you can really like; prose you feel like you
can really slap something down sometimes, you know? And it felt that way, but
yeah, I mean it’s one thing to be alone in room
writing these things, but it’s different sometimes
to come out and read them, you know, when the wounds are
still fresh and when it’s not as if any of the
things we’re dealing with in our work has
stopped happening. You know, the wounds
reopen every day. I mean, it’s again and again. So, as you know, we’re
reading them, as we’re talking about them, we’re
still living them.>>Camille T. Dungy: Yeah, I
mean I think writing is just a, it’s a difficult thing. You’re writing into
revelation or I am, I don’t know what you are doing. I am. I am writing into
revelation when I write and it’s always troubling and
disturbing and even when I say like I knew I was angry about
this thing that this woman said and I was going to write about
it instead of drink about it, right, that the essay then still
revealed new things, right, to me that I didn’t; I knew on
the surface why I was so angry, but spending the time writing into it I understood a whole
lot more around it or I came to and that’s, that’s one of the
scariest things about writing, but it’s also one of the
most, if you see it through, it’s also one of the most
wonderful things about writing. Is it, that you can really come
to understand not just myself, but also the world
that has created me and crated my response
systems and I don’t know that, I don’t know that I think about that differently
in poetry and prose. I think my subject matters
are, have remained consistent. I write about family,
I write about history, I write about the
world, the environment, the world that I live in. It doesn’t matter what
medium I pick up to do it.>>Patrick Rosal: Right. You know, to sort
of riff of Camille, you write you don’t just
write about difficulty. The music of the language leads
you towards the difficulty, because often if you’re
composing music rather than I want to say this fact
or convey this information, you’re thinking about the sound
and the contour and the music. You’re not controlling the
“content” of those words. It’s often times that
revelation is difficult. It’s hard. It’s painful. It’s surprising. It is unwanted and so for
me it’s I play a bunch of musical instruments. I don’t, I don’t really
consider myself a singer and I want all my writing
to sing and the singing when I’m doing it well really
leads me to something that’s, that’s difficult and I’m trying
to be a; I’m trying to learn how to be a good singer in my
writing in that regard.>>Amy Stolls: We had
a student this morning who is our Poetry
Out Loud Program. He’s now a first in college
has won a couple of times and he talked about writing
a poem in high school right after he went on a first date. And he wrote on the first date
and then he wrote this poem, you know, it was a love poem
and we all kind of gushing, and then there was only a first
date and then it got published in his local you know
publication when he wrote it in October and it got
published in December and then the girl read it and
came back and said “What?” And I thought of that
and I thought of this, our conversation and what you
write and how raw and vulnerable and you get, you know, in
your writing until you, and I almost felt like I
just want to say thank you for getting raw and vulnerable
so that we can get there too.>>Camille T. Dungy: But you
know, I mean I think part of that sense of kind of writing
towards it and around it is that you find more
interesting things. I have a similar story from my
first book and I have a poem that it became a; it
becomes a love poem between my grandparents
in the book and I, and I like by the time it’s in
the book like that’s in my mind. That is a love poem
between my grandparents. But I went and I read
it at my graduate school and the guy I had been
dating in graduate school was in the audience and
I sort of looked up and I was like, that was to him! I had completely forgotten that the poem had become
something much bigger than that dude, right? And that’s one of the really
great gifts of writing is that we can come to
knowledge that I was writing about what love could
be, now what love was between me and that dude, right? And so that, then I
can once I reached into that the poem got
better, the writing gets better if you untether it from
these little pesty details like some specific date.>>Patricia Lockwood:
Who it happened to.>>Camille T. Dungy:
Yeah, who it happened to.>>Amy Stolls: Patricia you
had said and I’m just going to ask maybe one more
question then we’ll open it up for questions
to the audience. You had, I think there
was something in prestudy where you had said, I think,
where you had said that you or feel, you know, feel stronger
on the page then sometimes in person and it got me thinking
about how, and I’ll ask you because we’re all
dealing with this, if you see yourself here you are
as writing, either, here you are in poetry and your poems,
here you are in your prose, here you are in your writing,
but here you are in person and here you are online too. And I wonder if you can just
kind of think about you, or does it you know, again, riff on how those different
parts are different, are they not different, are
they deliberately not different or different and do
you have, you know, negotiating those spaces? I mean, I’m looking at you just
because I know you, you know, but I think we all do because
it’s the reality of here we are in person like you said,
there are certain things that you don’t want to do
in person that you want to do in your writing.>>Patricia Lockwood: And it’s
because you have, it’s not just because you have more control. It’s also because I was
never the sort of person who in my life was allowed
to have the arguments that I wanted to have. Like when you talked
about, you know, instead of drinking you
know you’re going to go home and write it out, I mean
there was like a conversation that could have been had. I mean, you’re going to make
something better out of it by putting it on the page. I knew growing up that I
could not had the arguments with my family and with my
church that I wanted to have. But I knew that I could
do something on paper and there’s something that
felt very firm about them. That you had said your say,
and that you then, you know, and when people talk to
you about it and you’re like here is what I think,
because I’m not always; I’m a person who tends to
just like open my mouth and talk a little bit, you
know, but I like to be able to shape what I talk about more. I tend not to get
into fights online. Like I tend not to get mad
online because it’s really easy to say dumb stuff and it’s
easy to get drawn into it. So, I like to be in places where I have more control
before I talk apart from jokes, you know, which I probably
make because I am scared of that stuff, you know.>>Amy Stolls: I’ve
been meaning to ask you about humor with those, yeah.>>Camille T. Dungy: Yeah.>>Patrick Rosal: The parts of
being separated are the parts on the page in our
regular lives. And you’re asking if
I do it or why do it?>>Amy Stolls: Are
there is, I mean, do you see this separately? Or do you really
feel that you do?>>Patrick Rosal: It’s
hard for me to separate.>>Amy Stolls: Yeah.>>Patrick Rosal: It’s so hard. I think I was already a kind
of weirdo when I was growing up and being a writer
has sort of allowed me to affirm my weirdness. And so, like the processes
of the ways that I; the ways that I think when I
write or when I make music, I carry them into the
world you know when I, when I interact with people. I, I remember a conversation
with a colleague; I used to teach at a small
college, Springfield College and one of my colleagues Steve
Goldwin stopped me in the street and we were having
a conversation about campus politics
or something like that, and he said, he said, “You
know”, Steve’s a great guy, he was like, he’s like
“You know, men don’t get, we’re not good listeners. They don’t get taught
to be good listeners.” And I was like, “Oh my god,
I’m one of those guys.” And then, Goldwin went on to
say something other things, but I wasn’t listening
so I didn’t [laughter]. Writing and being a musician
has created a continuity between my listening as
a poet and a musician and my listening in the world. I’m so grateful that writing
and music and visual art and all of the dancing has taught me
so many kinds of listening. Not for the sake of the art
that I make, but for the sake of the time that I
spend with human beings. And so that separation
is very difficult for me, because those perceived
different lives have been so deeply mutually informative.>>Camille T. Dungy: Yeah. I think I would just add to
what Patrick said and something that Patricia said earlier about
that maybe what’s brought her to writing is just a kind
of quirk of thinking, is that I been married now for
10 years and I think so living with him he’s like seeing the
me for longer than anybody but my parents, and he will very
frequently point out the fact that I just think differently
than people do and it’s not like it’s not, he’s not saying
it in an antagonistic way or anything, but it
sometimes it’s just like “Sweetie let me just explain to
you that the way that you got to that logic point is not the
way that most of us would.” So, can you walk me through it? No you can’t. You can’t, right? And so, there’s like a way that
I think that I get from point A to point B to 4, you know, like,
like somehow just like do a leap and that that’s, that’s a
way that poetry works, right. It’s the way that we understand
poetry to work that we do, we have sinestesia so we mix,
you know, we mix some sort of sense with the taste,
with color and things like that we cross and that
we expect that of poetry, but I think it’s one of the
things that people who think about poetry and write in
poetry also can bring to prose, because rather than in an essay, rather than doing a straight
chronological narrative of the first year of
my daughter’s life, I’m able to leap around through
time and chronology in a way that I think is, sorry,
that I think is true to how we experience time. Like I actually think
we experience time in a very unchronological
way, but we’re often trained when we’re reading the
who, what, when, where, why kind of narrative. We’re often trained to read very
linearly, but with the freedom of a poet’s mind, and I
don’t know which came first, the poet’s mind or the poet,
right, I’m able to bring that into prose and so shift
what happens in my essays and untether them a little
bit from linear narrative into a kind of, I think,
real-world narrative but it’s really also just
the way I think, right. That I’m also just
writing as I see the work and as I communicate the
world and speak it out, right, and so it’s just a like
stylized version of the real me.>>Patricia Lockwood:
I mean like the joke about a poet writing a
novel or memoires that will like describe a leaf for like
20 pages, but they also tell you when we were born and get
the important facts or things like that, so when I was talking
about you know like having to make an argument in
prose things like that, it was basically painful
for me sometimes to be like this was the bishop
at the place that I was, this was the name of this,
this is what happened next, this is what happened here. Having to stick some of
that reportage in there was like difficultly, like
gut-wrenchingly painful for me, because it’s not again
I think you’re right, it’s not how I experience
the information. You know, like I would meet
a person, I would interface with them, but it’s you know
I didn’t know their Wikipedia entries or anything like that. The things that you
have to put and things that are not poetry sometimes
are painful for us to put in.>>Amy Stolls: Yeah, I will
say in preparing for this I had like an outline and then I
[multiple speakers], let it go. So, we’re not going to go there. I notice, I don’t know
that there are microphones but I think it would be great.>>Patricia Lockwood:
You can hear. Oh, there are microphones. There’s mics. There are two, two.>>Amy Stolls: Oh, there are. Do we have questions? Would anybody like to ask
these, anyone a if you do would like to ask a question
you go to the mic. Thank you, yes.>>Let’s be [multiple
speakers] to the first person.>>Amy Stolls: There
should be on this side.>>Where, where does
poetry end and prose begins?>>Patrick Rosal:
Where does poetry end?>>Camille T. Dungy:
There’s a critic and poet named James Logenbach and he has this book called
The Art of the Line or “The Art of the Poetic Line” I
think from Graywolf Press, and he has a sentence in that
book that goes something like, poetry depends; poetry is the
art of thinking in the line. And prose is the art of
thinking in the sentence, and prose poetry is what we
invented to make sense of both of those things, right, and to
refute both of those things. So, there’s this,
three is poetry that doesn’t require the line. I think there’s an easy way
of doing that delineation and saying all poetry
is lineated and all prose is unlineated, but
there’s really beautiful poetry that is not lineated and
there’s really beautiful prose that is essentially lineated
because the sentences, the paragraphs and units
of thought are cut so short that we read it almost
like lines. So, in the end, what I’m
telling you is I don’t believe in those lines, right. I believe that we
are writing towards; we’re writing towards truth,
we’re writing towards energy, and we’re writing towards
like a kind of delivery, the best delivery of
information and there are, there’s an extreme whereby
that’s in paragraphs and chapters and a great link,
and there’s another extreme that it’s a single line and
it’s crystalized and condensed and then there’s the
children of the marriage of those two extremes
who are as multi-varied as the people in this room.>>Patrick Rosal: I mean, I was just rereading
Michael Ondaatje’s “Running in the Family” this summer and
he’s got conventional chapters or essays in there and then all of a sudden you’re
reading a poem. And I guess you would find,
I suppose that you would find that book in the
Memoire section. So, for, for Ondaatje even within one book those
lines are blurred. I was a DJ for a longtime
and I think about some of these record stores that
don’t have categories for music and you would find like
Sesame Street next to a record of MLK speeches, next
to a Sly Stone record and like an old tango record, and because there were not
these clear categories, these things would fire off in
your imagination about kinds of music that you
could put together that supposedly don’t
belong together. And so, I think that having
genres is helpful in a way because it helps
us both as writers and readers approach the work
with kinds of expectations, but when we’re composing, I imagine that those
things become less useful or they’re only useful
in that we’re trying to breakdown those
very rigid categories.>>Patricia Lockwood: I think if there’s one thing the good
poetry; there’s one thing that good poetry has to have
I think a good prose doesn’t necessarily, and I think that
good poetry has to make a leap through the air of the minds. I mean you can write a novel
where that doesn’t ever happen, but I think in all good
poems there is a moment where you just fly and we
know what that moment is, like you feel it, you feel
something almost like pass through the ether in your
brain, it’s a connection, but it’s like above
the connection. And you don’t necessarily need
to have that in a narrative. So, I guess that’s how I
identify those like kind of touchy-feeling, but
that’s you know, again, we can identify it
when it happens. I think everyone knows what
I’m talking about here. You don’t always find
that in a good novel. You’ll probably always
find it in a good poem.>>Camille T. Dungy:
There was a woman there.>>Hi. Thank you for being
here in Washington today. This has been wonderful. I think that each of your
participates as editors and editorial work, can you
speak a little bit about how or whether that informs your own
writing maybe judging as well, but particularly being
editors or editorial writers of in other aspects
of your writing life?>>Patrick Rosal: Yeah. As a judge and an editor
sometimes I read some revisions I’m like ah, I wish I did that. It’s a real, it’s a real
gift because you know as wild as I try to make my imagination, if you’re when you’re judging a
contest or reading submissions for a magazine, somebody
always has an idea that you didn’t have before. And so, you know, it’s just a,
it’s probably a different part of engaging my imagination
and I haven’t thought; I’ve never stolen anything from
anybody, but it certainly fires up your imagination about
what the possibilities are and the fact that
your imagination as one person is really not
quite as good as several or a multitude of imaginations.>>Patricia Lockwood:
I’m not really an editor. I mean, I sometimes
write criticism but I don’t actually do a
whole lot of editorial work, but I do like writing
criticism because it’s like getting an assignment
that you actually want to do and I love that aspect of it. I, like you know getting to
engage on a really deep level like reading all of someone’s
books really drilling down, that to me feels like if I
could have gone to college and it had been like that,
I would have liked that. As it is probably not you know, probably would not have
done so well otherwise.>>Camille T. Dungy: I mean
I think it’s possible that, that this thinking that
have about the blurriness between poetry and prose might
have started to get codified when I was working on the
“Black Nature” anthology, each of those poetry sections
was introduced by a prose piece and many of those prose
pieces are written by people who identify as poets, honoree
Fanonne Jeffers writes one, Richard Wright has one and
you think of Richard Wright as probably as a
prose writer except for that he has this
incredible collection of haiku that are just phenomenally
wonderful and so to be able to have that haiku next to this
excerpt from this wonderful book which is also so poetic,
“Twelve Million Black Voices.” A lot of the early
African-American writers wrote in mix genre. I think Jean Toomer who is
one of the key writers of the “Harlem Renaissance”
that’s like one of the first American
hybrid text. Like what is it? Is it nonfiction? Is it poetry? Is it prose? Like we, I don’t know. And so, just the work of
really spending time with all of these writers whose
work; who I really admired and also I resisted,
I resisted a lot of the typical categorizations
when I put together that book, so I didn’t, I didn’t
organize it alphabetically. I didn’t organize
it chronologically. I organized it based on kind
of the ethos of the poems and the pieces inside them
and that kind of thinking about new ways to
categorize and combine and put things together
made me rethink the way that I was rigidly assigning my
own text along typical lines. So, I think it can help you
working through other’s work and curating other’s
work and kind of really helping other
people’s work get into the world in its best light can help you
help me think about my own work and what potentials it has.>>Yeah.>>Hi. As I’m listening to you
I hear you all very poetically speak of poetry as singing,
listening, conveying truth, which all sounds like
something a little bit less; a little bit subconscious,
a little bit less conscious than our normal conversation. Do you think that poetry
is a way to convey things that we feel kind of
behind and beneath or above? I don’t know, but behind
those conventional words that we normally cannot express? Like a way of giving vocabulary
to the things that we feel, whereas, prose is more,
a more conventional way of talking about ideas?>>Camille T. Dungy:
Audre Lorde says, “Poetry is the way we
give name to the nameless so it can be thought.” So, yeah. But I also
think prose can do it. It just, the, there are ways in. There are ways into
understanding ourselves.>>Patrick Rosal: Yeah.>>Camille T. Dungy: I
mean, Audre Lorde said that phrase in an essay.>>Patrick Rosal: Yeah. [ Laughter ]>>Patricia Lockwood: I mean, people are always
comparing things to poetry, but when it gets right down to
it we also have to compare it to something, so we’re like
singing sounds good, you know? Like music is it make sense. I think that it makes
a lot of sense.>>Amy Stolls: We have time for
one more question, go ahead. Yeah.>>Hi. I’m thinking about
how for poetry so much of it like shifts when read aloud
versus like [inaudible] on a page and how so much
of I think as a writer like reconciling that sort of
tension between how you want it to look on a page and be
read by an audience member versus like reading it aloud
and then sort of wondering how that translates into prose,
which may not have the same sort of limitations or
in other ways does and I’m curious what you
guys think about that.>>Patrick Rosal: There’s been
this sort of immense privileging of the written word over
the, over the spoken word for a very longtime
in western culture, and what we really know is the
fact is that the spoken word, the singing word, the bodies
among bodies making literature and stories and song
is much, much older and there’s a return to that. Somebody much smarter than
that coined a phrase called “The new orality” with the
Internet and performance and so forth and I know a very
few writers regardless of genre who are not engaging with their
own work or other people’s work on a stage or without
being out on stage or on a mic or out loud. So, this is a whole
other conversation, because I’m so deeply invested
in the role of performance in our culture, but I this,
I think that regardless of genre this out
loud manifestation of our literature is actually
a central part to the way that we engage with story
and song in this country.>>Patricia Lockwood: I
think that it, oh wrap it up. I think that it can.>>Amy Stolls: Bring
us home Patricia.>>Patricia Lockwood: Yes,
so I’ll bring us home. Thank you very much. When I read my first book
I definitely was in a place where I didn’t have access to
being able to do something, like you I didn’t have a
place where I could perform, no one wanted to hear
me read my poems. So, you have in first book,
you have a person at a desk, you know, writing to herself, maybe not necessarily
understanding that it going to be really fucking
hard to pronounce some of that stuff once you have to
stand up and read it later on. So, then in my next book
I’m like damn, I get it now. I know that I’m going to have
to get in front of a microphone at some point and
read this to people. So, when it got time to
actually write prose, I’m like well I know
what I can do. I can use some of
these little tips and tricks in prose as well. Basically, yeah as you’re
writing no matter how deep into it you’re getting,
always think about how it’s going to sound. And read out loud when
you’re editing always; always read out loud and change
the font so that it looks weird to you and you can
catch mistakes.>>Amy Stolls: And with
that, we’ll it’s a wrap. Thank you too, Thank you,
thank you, thank you. Thank you for coming. [ Applause ]

MLTalks: Jill Lepore in conversation with Andrew Lippman


– Good afternoon, and welcome
to the Media Lab Talks series. I’m Andy Lippman and
I’m your interlocutor, and host for the day, and I have to admit I am truly intimidated by this circumstance as
any of you who know me know I’m not usually intimidated, and what’s intimidating me
is that it’s uncommon for me to be talking with somebody who knows so much more than I know about almost anything I could say or ask. Now I spend most of my
life talking with people who know more about anything
that I could say or ask, but seldom do I admit it, so today I’m gonna freely admit it, but our guest is Jill Lepore whose a professor at Harvard, and also a staff writer
for The New Yorker. I invited Jill because she
occupies a unique place in my mind and I hope
yours and that is to say she is one of those people
who is so skilled at writing, so energetic, so knowledgeable, and so broad in her investigations that it almost wouldn’t matter
what she was writing about, when you got to the first
or past the first sentence, you would have to continue to the end, and by the time you were done you would feel intimately connected with and drawn into the topic
that she’s written about, and she’s written about things as diverse as political parties, and Barbie dolls, and Wonder Woman and stuff like that. It’s a pantheon that in my
mind is occupied by people like John McPhee who also was
a writer for The New Yorker, and it didn’t matter
whether you cared about orange trees in the
Indian River in Florida, or tugboats in Mississippi, just the skill of his
writing could draw you in, but in this case what’s
different here is that the topics are ones that I think are of great interest and
importance to all of us, and that is to say the social history and understanding of how we as people interact with each other,
learn from each other, develop ideas, communicate those ideas, and in general learn to become thinking participants in modern society. So in keeping with the
format of the way we do things for the Media Lab Talk Series, Jill will present whatever she wants for however long she wants
(Jill chuckling) on the order of half an hour or so, and then I as sort of like
the host get to ask questions, and when I’ve run out of dumb questions you guys by then will have thought of brilliant questions to ask
and so we’ll engage you. Some time during the next hour or so the network that we have
may start to work again, but in the meantime we don’t, but if it does then people will
start to tune in externally, and some of them I know are
sitting around waiting to do so, so we’ll be joined by tweets and questions from those beyond the laboratory, but for the moment it’s a
private conversation among so, and so have at. – Great, thanks, well, thanks
again for the invitation. It’s really fun to be here. I’ve never been to the Media Lab before. It occupies this very mysterious, glamorous role in my imagination so it did not disappoint walking around. It’s really fun to be here
and when I was asked to come I wasn’t entirely sure what
would be of interest to you all. One of the things that… I’m an American historian. I’m chiefly an American political and intellectual historian. I’ll really write about anything,
the history of anything, but I’m sort of fascinated, I happen to be married
to a computer scientist, but I’m sort of fascinated by in some ways the principal disavowal
or lack of attention to history in certain technical fields, and also generally I think
in scientific exploration. There seems to be a presumption that attention to older ideas
just hobbles you in thinking innovatively about your own work. So I’m trying to think about
what would be something that I could compel you with (chuckles), that actually is of
relevance to all the kind of amazing work that goes on
in this series of labs. So what I thought I would
talk a little bit about here, I’m not gonna talk for
a whole half an hour ’cause there’s a lot
that we could talk about, I’m gonna talk about a project
that I’m working on for a few years that is broadly
in the realm of a very small field known as
the History of Evidence. I teach a class at the Harvard
Law school that’s open to law school students and
undergraduates and PhD students, so it’s draws a lot of students who are doing PhDs in
scientific fields as well, where we look at the history of evidence across
four realms of knowledge: science, the law, journalism, and history across the last millennium and we look at the
evolution of ideas about how you establish whats
true and what’s not true, what counts as evidence, what are the standards and
rules by which evidence is admitted within those
realms of knowledge or rejected or excluded in
those realms of knowledge, what’s the relationship between the rules of evidence in a court of law, say, and scientific method
and the rules of evidence in bench research, for instance, what’s the difference between the rules of evidence that historians use when they work in the archives and the rules of evidence
that journalists have or the ethical questions
that journalists raise about when they’re interviewing people. Historically, all these kinds of evidence are
related to one another and their rules derive from one another, but they are also, you may have noticed, all those rules and
standards of evidence are falling apart (chuckles) at the moment, so there’s a certain urgency
in thinking through these, where we got the rules that we are now very much at risk of losing. I think one way that we
can do a better job of thinking about evidence and
how we know what’s true and how we talk to one another about
how we inquire and investigate, and then how we accept the credibility of a conclusion or the plausibility of a contention or the
probability of an explanation, we need to be able to talk better and across disciplines about those things. So I thought I’d talk a
little bit about that project and just offer up some provocations that come out of that work, that come out of teaching this class, but also my own thing about the
history of evidence. So I just have a totally measly two slides (chuckles) to talk about, but again just to offer
some provocation here. What I wanna talk about is what I think of as the evolution of the elemental
unit of knowledge across time and I’ll propose for
the sake of discussion that the elemental unit of knowledge across the last millennium has changed from the fact, to the number, to most recently data, and it’s not to say that
the one replaces the other. We obviously talk about
facts, numbers, and data. Often we mean the same thing
when we use those terms, but nevertheless I think they can be pulled apart in meaningful ways. So I’m gonna give you just a brief history of these different notions of a quantity el-uh, sort of the divisible quantity, the invisible quantity of evidence and where these ideas came
from and how they change. I should say when I talk about this, by these elemental units of knowledge, I mean largely as they are expressed and
understood in a civic sphere, in a public society, not in the realm of obscure research, but in the realm of a civic sphere. The fact has its origins in
1215 in a very precise year, not that the word fact didn’t
exist before that time, but in here 1215, the Pope abolished trial by ordeal and so you could no longer tell whether someone was guilty or innocent of a crime by subjecting that person to an ordeal, like drowning or burning
to see if they survive. That was how you test whether or not someone’s guilty or innocent. The rationale by doing trial by ordeal was there are some things that we cannot know. They’re mysteries to us. They can only be known by God. There’s a whole realm of knowledge that can only be known by God, and it is to all of us a mystery. One of those things is the guilt or innocence of most people, that mankind shouldn’t be judging other men and subjecting them to execution. Only God could make that judgment. Trial by ordeal was supposed to leave the determination of
the guilt or innocence of a accused criminal in the hands of God, but the Pope outlawed trial
by ordeal in the year 1215 ’cause it was abused and corrupted and in England, trial by ordeal was
replaced with trial by jury. This was a huge
epistemological shift because suddenly your peers were
gonna decide whether or not you are guilty or innocent and this is, think about what that means, to go from saying only God can know whether you should be hanged, to 12 of your peers can know that. Well, how are they gonna know that? So there’s this beginnings of
a whole legal apparatus around the gathering and evaluation of fact. The fact is literally
something that happened. In an elemental sense, it comes from the word, very same origins of the word feat, like a thing that happened. So a fact is just a
thing that happened that can be established as having happened, usually has to have been witnessed. There can be other forms of evidence. There can be material evidence that establish that it happened, but the role of the jury was
to decide the facts of the case and the role the judge
would be to decide the law, but the role the jury was to
decide the facts of the case. So this idea of the fact and what intellectual historians
call the culture of the fact begins in English law in the 13th century. The priority of facts is
the act of discernment, that work that you do. If you’ve ever served on a jury, you’re trying to discern from the facts the truth of the matter: did this happen, did this not happen? Is this a fact or is this not a fact? It requires this active
capacity of discernment, and in the judicial context, it requires a community of a conversation. You don’t decide alone
whether something happened. You decide it with a group of people. So that’s where the fact
comes from in our language and in our practice and
as a form of evidence. Over the centuries, it diffused across culture because all laymen, women, not women, but laymen can serve, every laymen can serve on a jury and needs to therefore learn what a fact is. So anybody who serves
in a jury helps diffuse the idea that a fact is
a thing that we can know that it happened because there’s evidence. That notion of a fact
diffuses into other realms, into what is called natural history, but we now call science
by the 16th century and animates the empiricism
of the scientific revolution. We are discerning facts and we have certain rules of evidence. So the very idea that animates the scientific revolution
really comes from the law and a lot of the standards and safeguards, you should test your hypothesis, you need to be able to
convince other people, it needs to be verifiable, well actually a lot of those
things come from trial by jury where we’re concerned about
the life-or-death decision that we mere mortals make
about other people’s lives. So there’s this diffusion
of the idea of the facts into the realm of what
comes to be science, and also into the realm of history. By the 18th century, the
first quantitative age, people talk about numbers
in the way that they used to talk about facts
for the first time. Numbers, the sort of the measurement as a unit of knowledge that
involves simply the measurement of the size of a thing,
the scale of a thing, the sound of a thing, the weight of a thing. This obviously is a crucial unit of measurement for
the scientific revolution, but it comes into the civic realm in the 18th century with the
rise of kind of democratic theory. So I really date the rise of
the number as an elemental unit of knowledge in the civic realm
with the U.S. Constitution, which is the first constitution
in the history of the, it was the first written constitution of any nation, in any case, but it also is the first, United States is the first
state to mandate a count. We count the people. It’s in the Constitution. The census is a mandated quantitative act. The state itself is formed on the act of quantification. We couldn’t have a
representative democracy if we could not count the people. Democracy depends on demography, on the science of demography. It is an expression in many
ways of the glorification of demography and of
quantitative scientific research. So there’s this sort of new, the kind of culture of the
fact is becoming replaced with the culture of numbers
by the late 18th century and there’s a lot that you
could think about in the 19th century that takes
on that same expression as democracy is extended with
the rise of industrialism, the rise of capitalism, all those forms of
bookkeeping and measurement and counting that we associate
with industrialization and with capitalism place the number at the very center as the most sort of important way of understanding the world. What can we count? So by the end of the 18th century, the birth of statistics, that is the accounting
that is done by the state, that’s where the word
statistics comes from, its numbers that the state cares about. So there’s this close
relationship between numbers and the power of the
state in the civic realm. Data really doesn’t, I think, in a sense that I mean to use it now, which is the aggregation
of numbers that are, for my purposes, I might say are too large to be counted by people, where the computational work
needs to be done by machine, that begins in 1890s with the first adding machines
and calculating machines, but I might say that I would write the beginning of data as the
elemental unit of knowledge with 1952 when the UNIVAC is calculating the 1950 federal census. It’s the first time the
census has calculated using a general-purpose computer and it accelerates the
counting of the census. It’s also used in 1952 to predict the outcome of the presidential election. So the rise of this era of
data I would really date to sort of the post World War II era. So I wanna sort of make
the argument that these elemental units of knowledge are not equivalent to one another. They’re different kinds of things, as I’ve suggested here
in this minimalist slide, that facts involve humans engaging in the act of discernment, weighing evidence to establish
a thing that happened. Numbers involve measuring, measuring things that can be
identified in the natural world in such a way that tends to be involved in some way with the power of the state, and data, computational work with numbers, is generally involved
in a kind of detection of patterns that cannot be done by humans. So these things have different purposes, I would contend here, again, attempting to offer a provocation that facts which come from the realm of the law, the end, that is the object
of working with facts, and discerning facts is truth. What happened? Are you guilty? Did you kill her? That work, that work of a jury, that active discernment of
material evidence and testimony, confessional evidence,
circumstantial evidence, whatever rules and
safeguards we wanna use, we’re trying to find out what happened. The end of knowledge is truth
in the realm of the fact. In the realm of the number, the end of knowledge, here again, as I’ve defined it, is power. It tends to be the power of the state. I can make that claim beginning with the founding of representative
democracy with the idea that the people exist and
that the people can be represented numerically with a ratio. The slave, the 3/5 slave clause
that’s in the Constitution, also a calculation. Much that is in the U.S. Constitution involves quantification and it is all about a way that the counting of people can, I’m not talking about
the state grabbing power, I’m talking about the
state exercising forms of power that it may have already had, but exercising them here, ideally, in a way that is more fair. That’s the hope of use. That’s the hope of democracy. That is why we have one person, one vote. We believe somehow that that is more fair than other systems of political expressions of power, that numbers offer this opportunity for equality. Our belief in equality
is a mathematical idea. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. We talk about equality
in this quite meaningful mathematical way in the founding
era of American history, but what we are talking about is power. Here, I don’t necessarily mean, again, the state cabining power so much as
the people claiming power. It is the power of the people that we assume in the era of numbers is being exercised and
that becomes a contest, but that’s the promise of that era. In the era of data, the end of
knowledge is prediction, which is actually, to my view, a loss because predicting what’s
gonna happen in the future seems to me significantly less valuable than truth or democracy. So I guess I put that to us as a point for conversation, what is the value of work that produces knowledge if the knowledge that it produces is prediction, which could be seen as an uncertain kind of knowledge, could be seen as a kind of knowledge that takes power away from people. There all kinds of reasons I
think to be concerned about if we are living in a realm, in a moment in which the
fact has slowly yielded to data as the elemental
unit of knowledge, the one that has the greatest authority in our society and in our politics, that’s something I think to be concerned about. So the reason that I offer
this all out in this large conceptual framework is I hope
to situate what seem to me sort of more recent moral panics about social media, or
fake news, or polling, as if these are disparate phenomenon there, actually all a consequence
of the era of data. – [Andy] Ha! (audience laughing) I have a list of questions. – Did I talk for too, ah yeah, no, I didn’t talk for too long,
– No, you didn’t at all.
– Okay. – When you tie things to the modern world of fake news and false facts, I get the idea of the
transformational impact of changing things from a trial by ordeal, which actually we still
practiced in Salem where I live today for 300 years after
the Magna Carta was signed, but to a notion of, that’s a transformational
goal, changing it to facts, but you’re teaching in the law school. If there’s one thing we know about the law school and what lawyers do, it seems to me, is that the job of a lawyer is to make sure that they present exactly the facts that
will support their case and suppress all of the facts
that won’t support their case. That’s very much different from a trial by ordeal, and God, I hope it’s better, but on the other hand, it
sure ain’t perfect, is it? – So I think that’s both right and wrong. – [Andy] Okay. – It’s right in the sense that yes, it is the job of an advocate, of a lawyer acting as an advocate
to argue a point of view, so that’s the right part. The wrong part is that that is in a system of an adversarial battle. We have replaced the battle, there’s also trial by combat, right, where you just fight it out
– Yeah, yeah. – With a battle of facts. – [Andy] Right. – Like that is actually, it’s not that the one lawyer says what she wants to say and then it’s over. – [Andy] Right. – The defendant says something and the state makes its argument. So for instance, an example of I think how
people misperceive that, did anybody listen to Serial, the podcast? (people speaking off microphone) – [Andy] Yes. – Okay. So people will say, one of the things that Serial got wrong or The Making Of A Murderer, the Netflix documentary series, is that it assumed that journalists
could act as advocates the way lawyers do when
lawyers are defending someone who’s accused of a crime. Let’s say you’re a criminal, you’re a public defender. You’re defending this guy, saying, “My client didn’t kill him,” and then you’re gonna
emphasize the evidence that exonerates your
client and you’re gonna try to explain away the evidence that implicates your client. The reason that those
two journalistic ventures fail to meet journalistic
ethics is that they have extracted from the courtroom the adversarial nature of the proceeding. In a courtroom, you don’t just get the
defense lawyer to go up and exonerate the client. Defense lawyers, in conversation, is cross-examining witnesses in conversation with the prosecutor. So that, I’m not saying, I know there’s some positivistic view of the law, I take your point, but I do think it’s important to remember that there are safeguards in a criminal trial or in a civil trial that are designed to be sure that there is a battle of evidence. – Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don’t wanna dispute. I’m not trying to be disputed.
– Yeah. – But– – You can be disputed if it’s important for people to be disputatious. – Yeah, okay, but I’m trying to map it into the world I live in
– Yeah. – Which is not the courtroom usually, unless I get caught speeding
or something like that. But I guess what I’m trying to
say is that lawyers are doing, yes, you’re right, that there’s an adversarial proceeding, and yes you’re right that the alternative to what one side presents is presented usually when it’s not suppressed, but that might be just an imperfection, but in the public sphere,
that’s less often the case, and as you say, it’s just not the case, and so the facts don’t stand alone. The facts stand in a context, and the context is the framing. So when you begin your book
with reference to Franklin, one of our earliest newspaper publishers, the thing that I read
when I saw that was that Franklin was very much like what today we would call Fox News, which is to say fair and balanced. “I’m gonna do what the court does “and present the facts on both sides, “and we present, you decide.” We’ve heard that before. Interestingly enough, I have a friend who’s a journalist and he gets the sense, this is not literal, but it’s a paraphrasing of
the way his experience was, that when he went to journalism school what he was taught was journalism was about being fair and complete. His view now is what journalism is supposed to be about is
about fair and balanced, and those two things seem to be different. You might get away with fair
and balanced in the courtroom, but do you think that you get away with it in the public sphere as well or do we have an obligation
to go and present, and I don’t wanna go as far
as the Walter Lippmann case, but to go and present those
facts in a context that is also fair?
– Yeah, yeah. So in the realm of journalism, just to establish Franklin in a context. – [Andy] Yeah. – For the overwhelming majority of American history,
the press was partisan. – [Andy] Oh. – There’s only a very brief
era in American history where we haven’t had a nonpartisan press.
– Since Oaks. – It’s really only from the 1920s to the 1980s. There’s no assumption that the
press would be nonpartisan. The idea of the press
– And it’s not suppose to be. – Is that it would be partisan. – Absolutely. – That is in fact where our notion of the freedom of the press comes from. So our tolerance for disputation in public
comes from our tolerance for what would’ve been heretical religious beliefs in earlier eras. So political tolerance in the history of our country comes from
religious tolerance. The work of religious tolerance, if you think about the writing
of someone like John Milton, Milton went to see Galileo
when Galileo was in jail. Galileo was in jail for
saying that the earth revolved around the sun
and not the reverse, and that was heresy. Milton came away from that meeting, newly committed to the idea, that there was not an opposition between freedom of thought and truth. Milton, again, he wrote a
tract about this afterward, he came to believe that
instead of suppressing people that don’t believe in the gospel, as it would’ve been the case
in the Church of England or the Church of Rome at the time or who will have heretical ideas, who challenge real religion, the people should be free to express their own ideas about religion and the truth will out. It is a notion that there
would be a battle of opinions, and that ultimately, in a fair fight, and this is where I’m getting to fair and, in a fair fight on a fair field, if truth and falsehood do battle, truth will always win. That is why we have freedom of the press. So when Thomas Jefferson writes his statement on religious
freedom in Virginia, he says, he was just basically echoes Milton, like, “If we have truth and error on a “fair field and they have a contest, “as long as the rules are
fair, truth will always win,” which is how scientific
research works as well. You could publish stuff and
it’s gonna get struck down ’cause no one can reproduce
it, replicate your work, it’s gonna be left behind and the more compelling
explanation will survive. It does come from trial by jury, but religion then enters
our political realm. It’s the foundation for
how we work as a democracy. That means, under that way of thinking, a partisan press is just fine so long as there’s plenty of presses around, so long as you have, so Benjamin Franklin starts printing in 1722. He works for a newspaper in Boston. has own newspaper by 1728, and he writes his essay about the freedom of the press in 1731. 18th century, there’s just presses in every town. There’s a press that likes the governor, press that doesn’t like the governor. They’re all four-pages long. They all print once a week. There was an equivalency, that is we later in the 20th century, sort of this fairness doctrine, that both sides should play out. When the press takes on the guys of being nonpartisan really, not until the 20th century, then there’s a new ethics around that which is really really complicated, but it becomes part of the mission of the
federal government as it comes to understand
itself during the new deal to ensure that fairness, first with radio, beginning in 1927, then with all communications, and up through the Reagan era. There are licenses and
there are requirements for broadcasters in radio and television both to accept that their
work has to be in the public interest and to
offer both sides of a story. That is just a kind of
refashioning of the idea, but that’s where you get
the sorta fair and complete. We live in a very different media environment.
– Fair and balanced. – The fair and balanced idea now, the idea that a single
publication would do all of that is an awkward idea, historically. – Oh, yeah! No, I buy that. I actually sorta date that kind of responsibility
in newspapers to Oaks buying The Times, just
like the sort of the 1880s, right?
– Yeah, yeah. – But you still had Pulitzer and Hearst. – [Jill] Yeah. – And, I don’t know. I grew up in New York. So New York at the turn of the century, when I grew up in New York, New York had four or five papers, but each one of those papers was four or five papers (chuckles) in 1900, so there was the World Telegram and Sun. So at the turn of the century in New York, there was The World, that was Pulitzer, I believe, there was The Telegram, there was The Sun, there was The Herald,
there was The Tribune, The Journal, The American, all the ones that when I was
growing up were paired up. So there were maybe 12 or 13 different papers in New York, and clearly one spoke to the Irish, another one spoke to a different
political constituency. That’s probably a good thing. When we tried to solve that problem with radio with the fairness doctrine, that always ran into trouble, and eventually, in the
Reagan era was eliminated, and
– Right, right because the assumption, the argument that conservatives
made even as early as the 30s was that
– Yeah, yeah. – That doctrine suppresses
conservative speech because it’s considered
outside the realm of the plausible two-sides. – [Andy] Right. – It’s like crazy, and that was actually a fair critique. But the thing that’s
interesting about that Oaks era, I think he buys The Times in 1896, just at that moment,
– Yeah, okay. – Is that it’s really
influenced by social science, so journalism suddenly wants to professionalize and
become a social science. That’s when journalists are like, “Whoa, “we’re gonna be objective and we’re gonna “have a lot of numbers in our stories,” and they begin to do a
lot of quantitative work. It’s like the Chicago Tribune has this wall of signs that is like, who, what, where, why, when, facts, facts, facts, facts, number, numbers, numbers, numbers, accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. That’s motto in the newsroom, which is just never been the motto before, but they’re really trying
to acquire legitimacy, that there’s borrowing from
the methods of social science, which is itself borrowing from the (chuckles) methods in
the natural sciences, which is itself borrowing from the law. So this is kind of weirdly like fourth-level derivative
version of what’s going on in journalism and that they
can’t really pull it off. – Right. The thing that starts to scare me today is that we’re getting
better at all of this. So you make reference to Walter Lippmann worrying about propaganda and the rise of the public relations industry in 1922 and Boorstin who was librarian of Congress 40 years later also worrying
about the same thing in that the emergence of mechanized publication by radio and television and by
the press in Boorstin’s mind caused there to come into existence a thing called new cycle. As a result of the
cycle needing to be fed, things that weren’t news became news, so therefore someone anticipating the news was something that was news itself, or a press conference became news itself. So what now happens is it’s not
neither a fair nor balanced, nor accurate, nor complete,
but almost synthetic. The thing that scares me about it reaching the point of that kind of syntheses, which some people think of
a celebrity versus heroism, right?
– Mm-hmm. – So it’s created by the press is now we’re getting
good at behavioral stuff. Now we’re getting good
at data and knowledge and prediction and patterns
and applying it in cases. So, in a sense, we’re not only creating information out of numbers, facts, lies, damn lies and statistics, but also making predictions about it and figuring out the right
way that those predictions can be used to manipulate most people. I.e., there was some truth to
what these people said in the past that that notion of propaganda and that notion of public relations, which we’ve always been
relatively immune to, and that is to say when
we pull a victim to it, we build up an immunity, now, we’re getting past the age where the next antibiotic will help us.
– Yeah. Yeah, so, no.
– Is that– – That’s absolutely right but I wanna try to situate that at a
– That can’t be. – Longer timeline, which is to say
– Okay. – To kinda go back to my like truth and error battling on a field. – Yeah. – Do we believe that, that truth would always win on a field? That’s one question. That is a weird ideal on which to direct a whole political whole
system and culture, but then when you believe in democracy, that the majority should
govern, then often, and this is what Lippmann
was concerned about, you get to a point, and the franchise expands and
– Right. – Everybody can vote, but what we know things
about that we have to make decisions about,
policy decisions about, are more and more obscure things. The knowledge required to make an informed decision is rising, the number of people who can be part of that
decision-making is also rising, but their inability, which means that their relative capacity to fully understand these
issues is falling as a group, not as individuals, but as a group. So this came to a head in
1925 at the Scopes trial which Lippmann was fascinated by
because the basic premise is, so Tennessee was one of many states that outlawed the teaching of evolution for interesting and much more complicated reasons than you might suppose, but the idea is if you
believe that people can govern and the people have decided
that evolution is wrong, then they can say it can’t be taught. But then how could anybody
evaluate the hypothesis of evolution if it’s
banned from being taught? But if you believe that the
people should be able to say, lik you just kind of go back and forth, you just go around in the circle. So if the people get to
decide if climate change is real ’cause we believe
that the people get to decide because we’re in a democracy, that becomes a problem. So that’s where Lippmann’s concern about the asymmetry of the
diffusion of information, especially where even what schools are allowed to teach, and the same thing’s true
with climate change science, whether there places where it’s not, or the same thing’s true with the history of slavery and civil rights movement. We have state legislatures
and school boards of education that make
decisions about what our children are allowed to hear about and that’s self-government, (chuckles) but it’s in
some tension with the idea that truth and error have
to battle their way out. You think about these more modern forms of the manipulation of public opinion, well there’s a lot of manipulation of public opinion in the 1820s as well, but I think we would all agree that it’s a lot easier to manipulate public opinion from a technological vantage in 2018 that it was in 1828. There were a lot of things you could do. You could print a lot of pamphlets saying, “Andrew Jackson is awesome,” but not everybody could even read. There’s a kind of limit and it’s quite expensive to print those pamphlets. You could do a lot, try to convince people that
Andrew Jackson was great, and he does win, so they must have succeeded, but it’s a completely different
endeavor in our moment. So the point is, it is not a fair field (chuckles). – Right. There’s a notion of friction in that. You made the point that
it costs a certain amount of money to print those
kinds of pamphlets. In the last election, for example, if you wanted to advertise on Facebook and you were the Trump campaign
or the Hillary campaign, Facebook would provide a
service for you and they’d say, “Well, give us 10 ads, “and we’ll test those 10 ads “and we’ll find out where
each one of them is effective “and we’ll apply those ads.” The Trump campaign, being
relative neophytes at this, kinda said, “Okay, sounds good to us,” gave them 10 ads, they would test those ads
and use the right ones. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, because they were professionals,
said, “No, no, no. “This is the ad we’re gonna use. “Use this ad,” and so the result was was
that their lack of friction or cost of printing that pamphlet allows you to have that
degree of freedom to be more effective. I wanna ask a different
question slightly ’cause we think about Facebook
here somewhat because it kind of impinges on the ways we think and the kinds of stuff that we do and you wrote stuff about
political parties as being malleable and
kind of fought over and from the early days,
days of the Constitution, and I began to wonder, is it possible that like, when Umberto Eco came and gave
a talk here a long time ago, and he made the analogy and said, “Well, you know, “the stained glass in church was “the television of the 15th-century.” So television is the 20th century, but the stained glass was
the TV of the 15th-century. Is it kind of remotely
possible that parties are the Facebook of the 18th-century, and that in reality it may be that the
Facebook kind of approach to things as an organizing principle can become as powerful as
parties have been in the past, that that may be one of the
things that technology does, change the notion of how we organize? – I think it is changing the notion, that how we organize. I also think it’s also
completely falling apart. So I’m not as concerned in some way.
– Which one, the parties or the Facebook?
– Facebook. I think it’s important to remember that parties are not in the constitutional, they’re not constitutional themselves.
– Right. – They were much derided
in the 18th century. The idea that people
would form associations and object to the sitting government, people were terrified of that
idea in the 18th-century. Historians, political historians who
wax patriotic will say, “The is a genius of the American system,” that in the 1790s people
decided they could get together in common and object to the government and that that would be okay. It kinda almost wasn’t
okay ’cause in 1798, John Adams’ administration
passed the sedition act and said, “No, you can’t object to the government. “We’ll put you in prison.” They put printers of opposition
newspapers in prison. Jefferson wins the election and the sedition act expires, and he says, “Every election is a contest of opinion “and this is good thing and we “should be happy to have parties.” From there on, and there are parties, and we understand that
the two-party system is foundational to our political stability, but they had a beginning,
they will have an end. There won’t always be parties, parties who have worked very differently. But the thing about parties
that is important is that they both organize and
legitimize political dissent and the legitimizing is important, but that doesn’t seem especially
in jeopardy at the moment, but the organizing of political dissent is important because you can be effective at arguing against people in power if you work collaboratively and parties make that happen. There’s a whole kind of
interesting history to parties, but as opposed to say interest group, party politics is one thing, interest group politics would be another, which we see a lot of in the 20th century. We don’t really have party politics anymore in the sense that since the early 70s, even arguably a little bit before, we had targeted advertising
to American voters that was by fairly narrow demographic. I mean this was kind of the great success of Nixon’s 1968 campaign was identifying exactly, “Okay, so we’re gonna get, “we’re gonna pull “those white “Catholics from the
– The southern strategy – “Democratic party,” in
the southern strategy, and then saying we’re
gonna, by 1978, 1976, and “We’re gonna give up women, “we’re gonna give up white women. “Let the Democrats have the white women. “We wanna make sure we
hold onto the white men. “We’re gonna get all the ex-union people.” That is identity politics. Identity politics isn’t some nefarious invention of the left. Identity politics is market research, which has been driving American
politics since the 1930s. It is now a dominant thing. I think that Facebook is a kind of, what Facebook and other forms
of social media have done is automated that form of
political polarization. It was kind of manually created. It was created by hand by people. The DNC and the RNC in the 1960s, in the early 90s,
– Yeah, yeah, yeah. – And now it’s an automated process, which is why it’s very
difficult to escape, but it is about atomizing the voter. The elemental political unit
is the individual vote caster. We were talking about the user. The user has this different thing. The user and the voter and the consumer have this weird identity
as a single thing, which is about the abdication
of family and community and all these forms of
association in that real world that social media is utterly
about the abdication of. – Right, okay, but when is ever been a
change in communication, there’s been a change in
the political organizations that have come about
– Absolutely, yeah. – So, I guess, are we now at the threshold of a change in the political organization? I understand that the roots of
the idea of identity politics and the roots of the
idea of targeted voting are earlier than modern media, but on the other hand, modern media as a change in scope and scale of such magnitude that, I guess what I’m really asking is, is that likely to generate some change in the political structure and how we do things
– Absolutely, yeah. – Going forward? – Absolutely, I mean you could say, I think you could pretty well prove, and I did attempt to demonstrate
this in an essay once, that every change in the party system, that is to say, we’ve
always had two parties, but we have had seven party systems where there were different
parties involved, these realigning elections
which created new par, every shift to a new party system is associated with a
communications revolution. That is a really interesting pattern and we’re absolutely in
the middle of both a party realignment and a communications
revolution at the moment, so just to say that I
think that’s a kind of unquestionable
– Oh. – proposition and it’s a really interesting and important one. – Remember, she said that. – But there is, what, yes, unquestionable.
– Yeah. – But another way to
think about that pattern, which is to say if you were to map out party system change, party realignment, party realignment, party realignment along a timeline, you also have communications revolution, they all map, they all line
up more or less, which I did, I made this chart (chuckles), but what you also see is that
communications revolutions almost always do the same thing, that is to say they
democratize information. – [Andy] Right. – So they take power away from elites. They dismantle an elite
monopoly on knowledge. So, that’s both liberating
and kind of anarchic. The question that I think the people are asking in the moment is like, well, do we reach equilibrium again with that or where do we land
– Oh. – When we come through the other side of this transformation? – Yeah, yeah, I don’t know. I mean, we use the word friction to, it’s a more hip word than democratize these days, right?
– Mm-hmm. So you say they’re frictionless. We’ve removed the friction
from our communication systems and utterly consumer-ized them. I’m not sure that you don’t
wanna add something back and I won’t call it friction ’cause that’s a negative connotation, but I’ll call it viscosity, something that’s a little
bit of a flywheel on, you don’t wanna consumer-ize everything. You consumer-ize nuclear weapons, you give the terrorist an advantage. You consumer-ize media with zero friction, you might give the info
terrorists an advantage, but I think the media today
is not just a realignment, as in the case of multiplicity
of different party systems, but rather it’s gonna be change in form. As we go forward, the elections that come in
the future will be done, communicated, campaigned, and fought in a different way from the way that they were done before. It won’t be targeted advertising at all. It’ll be a different mechanism
rather, brought about. But anyway, you associated these changes
and political alignments with changes in communications. I have another question, which is not a leading question. I really don’t have any
insight into the answer at all, but in reading some of what you wrote in your book on American history, it seems to me that very
often when there is a technical innovation in
communications or even otherwise, it’s followed by a rise in
fundamentalism and religion. Is that a pattern that is even really true or just
one or two special cases, like after the steam engine
or after something else? – Yeah. No, I think that is a pattern, and I think it’s
important and interesting, but another way to think about it, another pattern that maps onto
it across the same timeline is utopianism and dystopian. So if you say, you think about the steam engine, the unbearably tiresome
technological utopianism of the boosters of the steam engine, like all human suffering was gonna come to an end because we now had the steam engine is only matched by Wired
Magazine of the 1990s when (chuckles),
(audience laughing) I mean if you go back and read
Wired Magazine in the 1990s, hey, dude, we like really
reinvented fire here. It’s the most, it’s just contemptuous of everything that has ever happened ever before. It’s the most ego-driven
celebration of the genius of the entrepreneur slash
disruptive innovator and it’s like these people are dismantling the world as we know it and they’re just sitting around congratulating one another. I mean there’s literally
a piece that says, “Not since the invention of fire “has man ever been just so kick ass,” like it’s just, that is, but– – I’m so glad I invited you here. (audience laughing)
– I just mean to say, like, (audience clapping) the sort of like
macho-technological utopianism of the kind of woman-hating
Silicon Valley world from that era to our era is, there are antecedents to that as well. You can look at James
Watt or Samuel FB Morse. These people are make, like Morse says when he
uses a telegraph, like, “There will never be another war “because I invented the telegraph.” Like, look, I mean, “who’s ever gonna fight when you “could have an instant communication?” “You get into a dispute
with another country, “you just send ’em a
little message in my code “and we’ll have resolved the dispute, “so thanks everybody.” That is, so,
(woman laughing) you have that. The telegraph is an important– – People to blame for that. – [Jill] I’m, well– – The economists also thought of if we get everyone to trade together, they’ll be another war.
– Sure, but I’m just saying, like,
– So we’re not the only one. – So you get this incredible utopianism which
itself has an evangelical zeal, right?
– Right. – And then there is a reaction to it often from people who are left behind. So the era of the great utopianism, the sort of technological
sublime of the railroad is really answered by abolition. It’s to our Christian
evangelicals who are like, “Yeah, this is only gonna
make us more unequal. “What we really need to do is
think about ending slavery, “hello, “like this is our urgent concern “and your telegraph isn’t helping.” That’s not a rise of fundamentalism, but there’s often a lot of
religious fervor associated with technological fantasy that is answered by social concerns. So the same, if we get to fundamentalism in the latter part of the
19th century and populism, sort of right-wing populism
that is a response to people being left behind by
the industrial revolution, then they’re critiquing that revolution. It’s sort of the
progress-and-poverty argument of like a Henry George that discovery after discovery only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. How is that progress? The 19th-century question, with the idea of progress
is bringing about economic inequality and
widening income inequality, is a lot of that fuels fundamentalism and fundamentalists are
like, “You know what, “what we’ve forgotten is that
we are all equal before God “and so we’re going back to church.” I think that has been really left out of the story of American history. That is a really important critique of technological utopianism. It has been a big part
of American history. It has fueled the civil rights
movement in the 20th century, which is in many ways an
evangelical revival of a religious revival movement. So I think it’s important to think
about those patterns, but not to say the new machine is great and
the revival is not great. They are in conversation with one another, but I think that the revival is daring the technologist to actually think about what they’re doing. (people chattering off microphone) – Perhaps as long as
neither one goes too far, yeah, okay. I’ll sort of buy that. I’m just nervous about the
rise of fundamentalism. That seems to balance– – Yeah, that they’re, yeah.
– What we think of as democratization and yes
the ones who were left out. I think in particular one of the things that sort of troubles me is this: we have this word, religion, and the problem with it is it’s applied to two things that are
orthogonal to each other. On the one hand, it’s applied to a belief in Higher Being, which is one meaning when
we use the word religion, but in the other, it’s
also as a mode of thought, which is to say based on
faith and not on evidence or facts, and we use the same word to imply both, but the one that troubles me as a reaction to the worlds of facts and numbers of data is a return to a style of thought
that is now based on faith and that’s the balancing. It’s associated sometimes
with fundamentalism, but that I think is
one of concerns that I, you know, may be troubling.
– Yeah, no, and I share that concern, but I do think the other piece of that, I would add an element to
how we think about religion, which is religion has a place for mystery. The reign of the fact doesn’t really work. There are things that are mysterious, like how you cherish somebody, what grief feels like. There are things that I don’t actually want
neuroscientists to explain to me, that there are things in the human experience and
in the history of the world whose mysteriousness I quite cherish and I find solace in that, and that, whether that’s a secular
act, or an act of devotion, or a practice of piety, I think that is a deep and
meaningful way to be in the world and the idea that we should have contempt, that the intellectuals ought
to have contempt for that, for people who cherish the mysterious, that is a strangeness to me. It’s an artifact of
mid-20th-century liberalism. It’s among the big problems of mid-20th-century American liberalism. So I think we’re going too far
astray from what we’ve been talking about
– Yeah. – But that is a big conversation. – That’s good. I love it. I’m a fan of mihs-tur, all right. It’s your turn. Are we gonna… I believe we’re online, so I believe there is
an external audience. It may mean that some people
have been tweeting in. – I wanna be disputatious since you’re inviting us to.
– Okay. Can I just ask people
to identify themselves ’cause I don’t know who anybody is. – My name is ah-nu he-sen-brook
and I teach innovation here. I’m a lapsed historian of science. I would like to just dispute the categories. I love the three–
– Do you want me to go back to those?
– Thousand, yes please, a thousand years
– I can’t do it. – In three… (Jill laughs)
It’s wonderful, but I would like to maybe say, if you could give us the quotes
at the bottom also and the – There was one more, okay. – So the end of knowledge
is power in all three cases, in different ways. So now the end of knowledge, who’s wielding the knowledge, it’s corporate knowledge now. So the end of corporate
knowledge is prediction, which is marketing power, and it gets more and more pervasive, and so it also gets invasive, which is the unease
that you just expressed. In the middle we have
the knowledge of power. Yeah, the state power is power, taxation, doesn’t need any change. On the left, the end of knowledge, who’s wielding the power? It’s the church, or the lord, something, and it’s not at all pervasive. It’s just trying to command,
ascend a little bit, to the unruly. Citizens don’t do too much damage by anything badly. So in all cases, it’s about power, but it’s about who’s wielding it and just how intense it gets. We’re living in a time of incredibly intense wielding of power, but now by corporations, no? – [Jill] Mm-hmm. – That’s my disputation. – Okay. Thank you very much for that. I wanna know if a lapsed
historian of science is like a lapsed Catholic. I’m kinda fascinated by that. I guess I would just begin
by saying you’re right. I could have add slides up here that said these things are all about power and made that set of claims. As I tried to be careful to say, these are provocations to get us to think conceptually about evidence over time. I guess maybe to defend my
conceptualization a bit more, there’s another slide
that I didn’t show you. I have this three-hour long
lecture that I give about is, but the slide I didn’t show you, actually, relates to this previous slide about discernment, measurement,
and pattern detection, which is to say what is the object of these forms of knowledge and I had another slide that is about what are these forms of
knowledge in opposition to, which I guess I’m just gonna suggest maybe defends my other conceptualization. Facts I oppose to mystery. Fact, you should be able to find this out. We’re people. We can investigate it. There’s evidence. We can know. Mysteries are things we’re
not supposed to know, like the Mystery of Immaculate Conception or the mystery of what
happens to us after we die, in the medieval church, whatever, the mystery of generation, like we’re… Numbers, in my view,
are opposed to secrecy. The idea of a democracy, the fundamental idea of a democracy,
it needs to be public, the working of the government
needs to be publicized, the notion of transparency or what in the 18th-century like a
Jeremy Bentham called publicity, in the older sense of publicity, that numbers are opposed to secrecy. You make available to people. You figure out, you do the census and then you publish it. You have a representative,
lower house of legislature, and then you open the doors, that the reign of the number is opposed to the reign of secrecy and the secrecy of the state. The reign of data, its opposition is privacy, like what we give up in this reign is the private. So this isn’t really an
answer to your question, but I’m just trying to find a way to stand by (chuckles) my proposition here ’cause I do think there are
deeper ways to look at these. There’s also a part of me that, as a lapsed cultural historian, just rejects the idea that everything is about power ’cause it seems sort of Foucauldian to me and I
don’t buy that anymore. So I think things are about
other things than power often, but it comes down to in the kind of Bill-Clinton sense what we mean by power. (people chattering)
(audience laughing) I’m glad that some people
get the Bill Clinton joke, so…
(audience laughing) – We’ve got, you have to be holding the box.
– Yeah. – So the box will be tossed to the next person. – (mumbles) microphone. So in line of that kwuh-, so, I’m Richard. I’m a second-year PhD candidate in Applied Mathematics at MIT. I have two short questions. The first one is, in line of what the
gentlemen just mentioned, I want to say that at the end of knowledge
is actually prediction because even at the height
of scientific determinism, what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to predict what the future is
gonna look like based on the derived, the physical
laws that we have, we know everything about
every particle in this room, that if there’s moving in this direction, that with this momentum, at this point, then we know exactly what’s going to happen two seconds later. So it’s also a form of prediction
and what we’re seeing with machine learning and data science is it’s trying to bring
some form of determinism into the process of predicting, say social phenomena. – [Jill] Right. – So I wonder what’s
you’re response to that is. My second question is, you mentioned that every time there’s a technological utopianism, there’s some fundamentalist, a movement, or sometimes social policy change. So I wonder, in light of the recent scandals by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, people realize how abusive
Facebook and data companies are. So I wonder what you predict
the next social movement would be, yeah.
– Yeah, yeah. Thank you for that. That’s great, yeah. I see your point about prediction. I wanna say about that though that I think what we don’t do a very good job about at is separating out what things
we should be predicting and what things are not
that useful to predict or maybe harmful to predict, so, or maybe bad for certain groups of people for us to be involved in the predicting of. So for instance, if you take
the question of criminal law, we still understand that if someone is charged with first-degree murder, the jury has to deliver the verdict, the jury will still, the verdict, meaning the truth, the jury will still look
at the facts and decide is this person guilty or not guilty, but the judge does the sentencing. That’s fairly recent in history. Most crimes had a sentence. Everybody was killed, like everything was a
capital (chuckles) crime, or you would be maimed. If you robbed something, you’d be branded, and then if you killed somebody, you’d be killed and that was that. There was no separate
sentencing phase to a trial. So the jury was the sentencer. There was no separate role for a judge. But since we separated
out degrees of offense and we engaged in the work
of building penitentiaries and having this imprisonment regime, you could go to prison
for X amount of years and it’s a scalable thing, it’s a quantitative sentence. I mean I guess there
could be like how many times you’re gonna be lashed with a whip, but it’s a scalable thing. So that means the judge
has to make a decision about your sentence and
how long it will be. That’s a kinda thing where a lot of people doing data sciences suggested that there’s
good predictive work. They could do that, just make that decision for the judge ’cause really what that
decision should be about is whether or not the
person is likely to reoffend and that the likelihood that, if I commit a crime that I will reoffend, can be well predicted by
a whole bunch of data that their data banks that have this information about people, like me, who have committed crimes, like me, and increasingly judges are being asked to defer to the
algorithm to do the sentencing. I don’t think we have had a
conversation as a society. The algorithm is private
intellectual property that is unknowable by the public. The judge is paid by me and you. We pay for the prison
that person is going to. How can a private
corporation own an algorithm that decides whether or not that person is going to prison and for how long. That seems to be fundamentally unethical and that we are not having, I mean it’s not that there haven’t been conversations about this, we could decide, “You know what, “our best minds have
inspected the algorithm “and this is what we’re
gonna do from here on out,” ’cause if it’s better than
all judges or most judges, then maybe we should be doing it, but do we know that? That sort of, like I get, yes. We tend to believe that stuff that either, that is why the whole like data-based, based on data, like, it’s a ka-nt phrase, like
evidence-based research, like as opposed to what
other kind of research? Even journalism now, like, “Oh, we should read the
538 because that’s data “and everything else is
just opinion or fe-lih. We have a kind of cultural worship of data that the Facebook and
Cambridge Analytica-l scan, just to get to your second
part of your question, it hasn’t lifted the film from our eyes. People, like, “Oh, well, “we were about to vote Mark Zuckerberg to “be president just a couple years ago, “but now we hate him,” like it’s just like, that is totally kooky and
not at all what we should be increasingly concerned about or troubling to inform ourselves about. The bigger question is what crap you can get away with now by saying you’re working with data, I think, and what you can impose on other people, and even foot a tax
bill for by saying that. It diminishes all other ways of knowing in realms of knowledge. That is a huge crisis,
why we can’t understand, you might know more about the crime I committed by reading a poem, than working with this al-go, like we don’t think about
that as a form of knowledge, the ways in which this, the reign of data, discredits all kinds
of realms of knowledge, and among other things, the experience of women
and children and families and the intimate and the sexual and demeans the private as something they can purely just exist for commodification. There’s a whole set of
assumptions in that world that we should be talking about. I mean not to say there’s not amazing extraordinary research being done that is data-driven or that falls under
the heading of data science, but there were a lot of mistakes
made when people decided in the 1890s that social science
would solve every problem. It was kind of important
for other people to say, “You know what, “social science can’t
necessarily solve every problem. “It’s really useful, “but it’s important to think about “when we should use it and when not.” – Has there ever been a time when we have said that what we’re doing
doesn’t solve every problem? – Maybe you need more women scientists. – Ah.
(audience laughing) We’re working on it. (audience clapping) Dave. – Oh, hi. David oh-rah-num, I’m a research
affiliate here at the lab. There may be another difference about data and I’m curious whether this
resonates at all which is that in the era, should we
say of facts and truth, there was a conceit, possibly true, possibly not, that once that’s established,
it doesn’t change. You establish something and when you go back and look at it later, a historian might decide that you got it wrong
– Yeah. – But there’s a conceit that
things become inviolate, they become solid when
those things happen. In the domain of numbers, people’s behavior or future change doesn’t go back and change the laws of physics. It doesn’t change the measurement and what you did as science. What seems potentially really different about this data stuff is that the changes, the predictions actually
have a feedback cycle that changes the data and we may be entering a period where at least our thought, that we have something firm to stand on, isn’t there anymore and I’m curious if you think that’s actually something to think about or whether we didn’t actually
– Can you give me an ex – Have that even before
and we just thought we did.
– Yeah. Can you give me a
real-world example of that? – Well, if you wanna take an adversarial thing, people go into Facebook or other things and they attempt to change the statistics. They add data to the system based on their behavior that changes the predictions of the system, and that could either be
organized or unorganized. I mean the end point of that, I don’t wanna bring
science fiction into this, but most people have seen Minority Report, in which case the behavior
of people is actually heavily modified by the predictions of the system, so you create this feedback that you may have had before
– Yeah, yeah. – But there was a conceit that those were single-ended systems. You’ve finished with the truth, you’ve finished the trial, it was over, that was the truth, you’re over, move on. The data, you did the measurement, that’s what the science tells you, and you should move on.
– Yeah, yeah. – That doesn’t seem to me the case with data
– Yeah. – And prediction. – Yeah, that is a really
interesting question. (loud clanking) I don’t,
I don’t, I’m sorry, I don’t have an answer for that question. I mean I can think of
analog versions of that. We do revisit verdicts all the time. I mean the Innocence Project takes DNA, that is newly examines it and offers, asks people to re-examine a, reopen criminal cases, for instance. We have ways of reopening something. The tampering with the evidence
that you’re suggesting here, I would suggest there
analogs to that as well. You can’t work in the archival collections of any person of any importance and not notice how carefully they’ve white-washed stuff. It’s kind of amazing
when you find something you know they didn’t mean
for it to be in there. I was reading someone’s papers recently, then I found his wife’s memoir and his wife talks about spending three years preparing
the papers to give them actually to the MIT
archives, and I’m like, what takes three years? You have to bury all the bodies. It doesn’t take three year,
like if you died tomorrow, it would take three years to go through your papers and decide what could be seen? We jury rig the evidence all the time and in all kinds of realms, but
there are challenges to that. We have adopted methods
that check those things. So if you were gonna write, if you were gonna write a biography of Robert McNamara, the head of the Department
of Defense during the Vietnam War, you wouldn’t just use McNamara’s papers (chuckles). That would be, you would know, there was a lot of selection, there’s a lot of coloring been going. You’d use a lot of other evidence, you would assemble a world
of other interlocutors, forms of corroboration and
challenges to his evidence, so we have methods in other
realms for doing that. With regard to some of
this predictive stuff, I’m less worried about the tampering, then about the ways that forms of inequality are
amplified and exacerbated by predicting from the
world in which we live. We’re actually trying
to build a better world. So if we’re trying to
make predictions based on am I likely to recommit
that murder, are people, other women my age of my background recommitting murders after committing one, is that the right way to judge how long I should be in prison? That, to me, is an open and
very debatable question. So that’s where I kinda get back to why predict these things? What do we want to pre-predict and what do we not wanna predict? I think, this is just to go off-topic a little bit, but one reason we are so enamored of these forms of prediction is that they are a lot like
conspiratorial thinking. We live in a world where people have a very hard time detecting patterns. We have a surfeit of information. We used to live in a world
of information scarcity. Humans have a hard time with
a surfeit of information. With a surfeit of information,
we wanna find patterns. Either we can have a
machine find a pattern for us or we’ll find a pattern, but most people, natively
looking at the way the world, like there seems to be
a lot of conspiracies, like that is just the way we
will pull together a pattern. I think that’s a counterpart
to the conversation about machine learning and prediction, sort of like a people-learning problem. – Down there, you’re external? – Hi, I’m Agnes. I’m one of Andy’s students. I have a question kind of related to dimensionality and abstractions, kind of maybe melding a little
bit of David’s question. So in the kind of slide that you present, and also I guess when you’re talking about how these forms of communication kind of revolutionized the way we think about politics or vice versa, it strikes me that what’s
happening in each case is that the form of knowledge that
is represented is being abstracted and simplified from its representation in the real world. So a fact is linked to a physical object. Numbers are derived from kind of collections of
physical objects, and moreover, this kind of aggregation
and simplification of data, it’s one of the big problems
of algorithmic bias, the kind of murder-trial
scenario you’re talking about, is it’s taking thousands and thousands and
thousands and thousands of facts and it’s turning them into one statistic, which is then used to kind of predict. I wonder whether that kind of
reduction in information and simplification is something
you think is reversible or something that you
think is happening, A, and then also is something
you think might be reversible or kind of counter-able in the way we think about technology. – Do you have a way where you can imagine countering it if that were desirable? – [Agnes] No, and I’d like to know. – Yeah. I think that’s a pretty
urgent question though. I wish we were using our imaginations more to think about that problem ’cause I don’t have the answer either. Obviously, I don’t have the answer, and there isn’t an answer. My job, I’m a teacher, is what I do pretty
much all day is to try, like here with this tri-party concept, it’s just to say, “Hey, wait, “let’s like think about these things. “Why is this different than that “and where is this taking us?” I mean we spend a lot of time getting machines to do predictions for us, but have we really thought about what it means when we devise an algorithm to
do criminal sentencing? Has Congress had a
conversation about that? Have the Council of
Justices had a con-ver, like I just don’t know that we’ve really relieved ourselves of the burden of having these ethical conversations. – We have something from
the outside world, Janine. – Should I go? I have lots. Hi, my name is Emelia. I’m a first-year masters of
city planning student here and I wanted to return a little bit
to your conversation around kind of observation of
people’s behavior to reign in this data and how it relates to power, whether that’s state power or otherwise, and how often in the
discussion of progress we have people who are often left behind, how all those conversations
can refer back to a concept of the public and public space in particular
– Yeah. – And whether or not you
see a kind of prevailing, not necessarily a form, but like a metaphor for
form in the public space and how it can kind of defer
to these ideas in a way that also is understanding that public space is more and more of a commodified experience and that yes we have all these quantified discussions of
what’s happening online, but so much of it is also
happening in the public sphere, outside of space, and how planners and architects
are complicit in this, but at the same time beholden to it by the economic systems that they operate in, so if you have an idea moving forward on
how public space might try to in having all these ideas
and communicate them. – Yeah, that too. This question is a kind
of a great unanswered problem of a question. I think we have somewhat unknowingly
slipped into accepting the metaphor as true, that the social media
world is the public sphere. The Supreme Court recently
ruled as much in a case where I guess the guy was convicted and released and he was a sex offender and part of his condition of
release was that he was not allowed to use the Internet
as a convicted sex offender and he appealed that element
of his sentence saying that the President of the
United States is tweeting, therefore, and all members of, there’s not a single member
of congress who doesn’t tweet, and therefore Twitter
is the public sphere, and therefore you’re
denying me my rights as a citizen to participate
in the public sphere by banishing me from Twitter. The court, there was a kind of fast, did anyone read this ruling,
the opinions kind of, the whole arguments are great because the Justices are like,
“What is Twitter again? “Is that the one with the bird or “is that the one with
the like ghost or…” The Justices don’t know
what the hell anyway, but they’re like, “Okay, I
guess that you must be right. “If the President and every member “of Congress has one of these, “it is now the public square and we cannot “deny it to someone who’s a sex offender,” is a really interesting ruling. It’s like a free-speech ruling. I’m not sure that I’m totally
down with that ruling, not about what this guy should
or should not be barred from, but about I didn’t sign on to that and I don’t participate in Twitter. Does that mean that I’ve
disenfranchise myself? Should I understand that as
a form of disenfranchisement? If Twitter starts charging
people to you to have an account, then what happens, if that’s become our new public sphere? (people chattering off microphone) So I think we have ceded a lot of analytical ground inadvertently on this question too where I just, I mean I think like in places like this, you guys are having this
conversation all the time. When I say there isn’t
a conversation going, obviously you guys are
having this conversation all the time and leading
this conversation, but I mean maybe just down the road, we’re not (chuckles)
having that conversation, or at my kitchen table we’re
not having that conversation, or most kitchen tables, we’re
not having that conversation. So I do think that it took a long time to
build a public sphere and it took a long time to
democratize the public sphere and there are a lot of
critics who would say it is no longer a
democratic public sphere. That is some of the argument
about the platforming and that people wanna
argue for decentralization, that the very opposite has happened. If you look historically at the kind of sort of myth of
digital-democracy argument, it suggests just this, and in fact, predicts just this that would happen, that in fact this public sphere is actually a great narrowing
of political conversation rather than a broadening
of political conversation. – Wait, wait, wait, just to reiterate what you’re saying, whether Twitter is the
public sphere or not, I think many of us think the
Internet is the public sphere and is sort of the
fundamental right of all of us so it would be unduly restrictive to restrict somebody from the Internet, don’t you think? – I don’t think that the
Internet is the public sphere. No, I don’t (mumbles) that.
– It’s part of it. – Sure, I mean, all I was saying was that to see that that has
become the public sphere and that’s–
– I’m sorry, okay. I don’t mean to the exclusion of anything else.
– That’s the slippage that, yeah. – But I wouldn’t give you
a sentence that would say, “Well, you can’t read The New York Times.” – I’m not arguing against
that court decision. – Yeah. – But I’m just saying
it’s a landmark in how, the question was how we
think about the public and who’s responsible for that thinking, and I was suggesting
that there’s a kind of, there’s been some shifts that maybe have not gotten the attention that they deserve, yeah.
– Sure, sure. Who’s got the magic, oh Janine, let somebody outside come in. – Hi there, so I’m Janine. I’m here representing social media. So we have a couple of question
from Twitter and Facebook. I’ll start with this one
from soo-na from Turkey, asking you to speak to
what happens when data manipulates or destroys the truth. How can we defend our minds and our research against the exaggerated data? – Yeah, so, I guess one of the reasons I like studying history is I find a lot of solace in the realization that few
problems are genuinely new. So this was a big problem
in the 1930s with radio. It’s the problem that Orson Welles was trying to call attention
to when he did the War of the Worlds broadcast which was a fake radio news broadcast
of an invasion from Mars. He later said when interviewed about it, “I was tryin’ to alert
people that they shouldn’t believe everything they hear on the radio because what people had expressed a lot of concern about in the 1930s which what was then called fake news, the term was used in the 1930s to refer to Nazi shortwave broadcasts and Nazis had shortwave radios
that they were broadcasting all across the United
States and Latin America, and they would just
send false news reports. There’d be like, “News break from CBS,” just be false, they’re just fake new about Nazi success in Europe and it was especially about the number of Americans who supported Germany. People of discernment
were really concerned that Americans had been asked
to really trust the radio, especially asked by
FDR to trust the radio, who use the radio in much
the same way that Trump uses Twitter as has
been commonly observed. You just bypass Congress and the other branches of government and just talk to the American people and get support for a kind of plenipotentiary support for his agenda directly from the people and that there hadn’t been enough done to help people understand
that not everything you heard on the radio was the same. So there are really
interesting campaigns waged in the 1930s by the FCC
to address that problem and it worked. Many of those campaigns
were extremely successful ’cause they were run by
the government and because they were working to help
people see this new medium as one that would allow them to participate in the work of deliberation that is part of being a good citizen, rather than to receive opinions
passively from the radio. So one of the programs the
NBC Radio devised starting in 1935 was a show called America’s
Town Meeting of the Air. It was on every week. It was immensely popular. They would have tape it, broadcast it live and then
also broadcasted taped from a big lecture hall
in Columbia University. They bring a bunch of
policy people to the front, they fill the audience and
they would have a debate, like resolve, the United States should have universal national health insurance, and then the people would argue for or against the proposition, they take questions from the audience, and then in towns, people would have little debates that would be after the debate. The idea was you should
use the radio as a vehicle to ask people to learn
about something in order to argue about it better with one another and figure out what they believed, as opposed to do what Nazi propaganda radio would do. There was just Goebbels
at his desk with a button telling people in Germany
and Austria how to think. So it takes a lot of care, but that was a really
important innovation. If there had been an MIT Media Lab and Center
for Civic Engagement, America’s Town Hall Meeting of the Air wouldn’t be a thing
they would’ve invented. – I think it’s also interesting how people can be fooled by the form. The thing that’s striking to
me about Welles’s broadcast was broadcast radio was 10 or
11 years old at that time. It’s hard for us to think about radio as not existing forever, but broadcast radio, at
least in the United States, was not very old, and actually the notion of breaking into a program with breaking news was maybe only about a year or so old.
– Yeah, from the Munich crisis. – I mean somebody had to invent
breaking news (chuckles). Somebody had to invent
the idea of breaking into a program and giving you
an instant newscast and it might have been somewhat common over the year before that, I don’t know, but in any case, it
wasn’t a common concept. It was something that had
only recently been invented and so what Welles was able to do was to exploit your unfamiliarity with that exact style and use of the medium which is what Welles was a master of
throughout his entire career. In theater, and in radio,
and in movie making, in fact, that’s exactly what he did was he exploited your mis-familiarity or unfamiliarity with the medium in order to make his points and everything from Chimes at Midnight back. So I mean that sort of his signal thing, but the unfamiliarity
with the medium is the thing that I think was
what bollixed the people. So that’s where we have to
learn where the form is. Who else have we got? We’ve got one up here, and that may bring us to the end. – Hi, I’m sol-ten-mum. I’m a member of the public. (audience laughing) The pope may have
abolished trial by ordeal, but isn’t the sphere of
social media, the press, and the public-ish sphere of that sort of reinventing it for the modern age? I mean when you said trial by ordeal, my first association was Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign
(audience laughing) which didn’t drown her, but subjected her to a case of pneumonia that
she was going to survive and accused her of crimes
which government officials think she should be locked
up for without a trial by jury or a judge or whatever. I think the metaphor is a little bit hyperbolic, but I think it also has some truth and I’m curious what you think. – Yeah, no, that’s an interesting question. I mean I guess I would remove it from the realm of a partisan conversation and say I do think there’s probably
something to be said about the experience of say, the trolling, the callout culture, both from the far left
and from the far right, the running the gauntlet
that is the experience of engaging in public conversation
at this moment that is largely responsible for the suppression of political moderation. I mean you think about who would want, like you introduce yourself
as a member of the public, like God bless. – God bless. Well, thank you, and thank you for coming here and let’s hope we get to explore the past, present and future again.
– Thanks a lot. (audience clapping) – Thank you for joining us.

3 In 4 Economists See A Recession By End Of 2021 | Hardball | MSNBC


>>>BIG CASINO. LET’S PLAY “HARDBALL.” LET’S PLAY “HARDBALL.”>>>GOOD EVENING.>>>GOOD EVENING. I’M CHRIS MATTHEWS IN I’M CHRIS MATTHEWS IN WASHINGTON. WASHINGTON. DONALD TRUMP, WHO SAYS HIS WHOLE DONALD TRUMP, WHO SAYS HIS WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN A BET, IS GAMBLING LIFE HAS BEEN A BET, IS GAMBLING ALL HIS CHIPS ON A BOX OFFICE ALL HIS CHIPS ON A BOX OFFICE ECONOMY IN 2020. ECONOMY IN 2020. HE’S OUT THERE NOW ACCUSING HIS HE’S OUT THERE NOW ACCUSING HIS ENEMIES OF CONSPIREING AGAINST ENEMIES OF CONSPIREING AGAINST HIM, AMID MOUNTING SIGNS THAT HIM, AMID MOUNTING SIGNS THAT THE U.S. ECONOMY MAY BE ON SHAKY THE U.S. ECONOMY MAY BE ON SHAKY GROUND. GROUND. AFTER A RECORD TEN YEARS OF AFTER A RECORD TEN YEARS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, RECENT MARKET ECONOMIC GROWTH, RECENT MARKET VOLATILITY AND A TRADE WAR WITH VOLATILITY AND A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT CHINA HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A SERIOUS THE POSSIBILITY OF A SERIOUS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. YET THE PRESIDENT’S DISMISSING YET THE PRESIDENT’S DISMISSING THOSE WARNINGS AND FINDING NEW THOSE WARNINGS AND FINDING NEW TARGETS TO BLAME FOR THE TARGETS TO BLAME FOR THE ANXIETY. ANXIETY. EARLIER TODAY TRUMP ATTACKED EARLIER TODAY TRUMP ATTACKED DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS THE DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE HE APPOINTED, WRITING ON HE APPOINTED, WRITING ON TWITTER, OUR ECONOMY IS VERY TWITTER, OUR ECONOMY IS VERY STRONG, DESPITE THE HORRENDOUS STRONG, DESPITE THE HORRENDOUS LACK OF VISION BY JAY POWELL AND LACK OF VISION BY JAY POWELL AND THE FED, BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE FED, BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO WILL THE ECONOMY TO TRYING TO WILL THE ECONOMY TO CRASH FOR — NOW “THE NEW YORK CRASH FOR — NOW “THE NEW YORK TIMES” IS REPORTING IN MAKING TIMES” IS REPORTING IN MAKING THOSE ATTACKS THE PRESIDENT IS, THOSE ATTACKS THE PRESIDENT IS, QUOTE, LASHING OUT AT WHAT HE QUOTE, LASHING OUT AT WHAT HE BELIEVES IS A CONSPIRACY OF BELIEVES IS A CONSPIRACY OF FORCES AGAINST HIM. FORCES AGAINST HIM. IN PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH IN PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH AIDES AND ALLIES, TRUMP’S AIDES AND ALLIES, TRUMP’S INSISTING THAT HIS CRITICS ARE INSISTING THAT HIS CRITICS ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY WHAT HE SEES TRYING TO TAKE AWAY WHAT HE SEES AS HIS CALLING CARD FOR AS HIS CALLING CARD FOR RE-ELECTION. RE-ELECTION. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS EVEN THAT THE PRESIDENT IS EVEN WONDERING IF THE MEDIA AND WONDERING IF THE MEDIA AND ESTABLISHMENT FIGURES ARE ESTABLISHMENT FIGURES ARE MANIPULATING THE DATA TO MAKE MANIPULATING THE DATA TO MAKE HIM LOOK BAD. HIM LOOK BAD. ACCORDING TO TWO REPUBLICANS ACCORDING TO TWO REPUBLICANS CLOSE TO HIM. CLOSE TO HIM. THIS COMES AS A NEW SURVEY TODAY THIS COMES AS A NEW SURVEY TODAY BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BUSINESS ECONOMICS FINDS THAT, BUSINESS ECONOMICS FINDS THAT, QUOTE, 74% OF ECONOMISTS PREDICT QUOTE, 74% OF ECONOMISTS PREDICT THE NEXT RECESSION WILL HIT BY THE NEXT RECESSION WILL HIT BY THE END OF 2021. THE END OF 2021. IN OTHER WORDS, MORE THAN TWO IN OTHER WORDS, MORE THAN TWO YEARS FROM NOW, YET TRUMP IS YEARS FROM NOW, YET TRUMP IS DOWNPLAYING THE CHANCES THAT AN DOWNPLAYING THE CHANCES THAT AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN IS EVEN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN IS EVEN POSSIBLE. POSSIBLE. HERE’S HOW HE RESPONDED HERE’S HOW HE RESPONDED YESTERDAY WHEN ASKED IF HIS YESTERDAY WHEN ASKED IF HIS ADMINISTRATION HAS A PLAN TO ADMINISTRATION HAS A PLAN TO DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL RECESSION SHOULD ONE OCCUR. RECESSION SHOULD ONE OCCUR.>>ARE YOU DOING ANY PLANNING OR>>ARE YOU DOING ANY PLANNING OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE DIRECTING ARE YOU GOING TO BE DIRECTING YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO PLAN FOR YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO PLAN FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A RECESSION? THE POSSIBILITY OF A RECESSION?>>I DON’T SEE A RECESSION.>>I DON’T SEE A RECESSION. I MEAN, THE WORLD IS IN A I MEAN, THE WORLD IS IN A RECESSION RIGHT NOW. RECESSION RIGHT NOW. AND ALTHOUGH THAT’S TOO BIG A AND ALTHOUGH THAT’S TOO BIG A STATEMENT. STATEMENT. HONESTLY, I’M PREPARED FOR HONESTLY, I’M PREPARED FOR EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. I DON’T THINK WE’RE HAVING A I DON’T THINK WE’RE HAVING A RECESSION. RECESSION. WE’RE DOING TREMENDOUSLY WELL. WE’RE DOING TREMENDOUSLY WELL. OUR CONSUMERS ARE RICH. OUR CONSUMERS ARE RICH. I GAVE A TREMENDOUS TAX CUT. I GAVE A TREMENDOUS TAX CUT. THEY’RE LOADED UP WITH MONEY. THEY’RE LOADED UP WITH MONEY.>>LOADED UP WITH MONEY.>>LOADED UP WITH MONEY. I LOVE THE WAY HE TALKS, GROSSLY I LOVE THE WAY HE TALKS, GROSSLY CONVERSATIONAL THERE. CONVERSATIONAL THERE. ASIDE THAT ROSY OUTLOOK, ASIDE THAT ROSY OUTLOOK, PRIVATELY TRUMP IS GROWING PRIVATELY TRUMP IS GROWING INCREASINGLY WORRIED THE ECONOMY INCREASINGLY WORRIED THE ECONOMY WON’T LOOK SO GOOD COME ELECTION WON’T LOOK SO GOOD COME ELECTION DAY. DAY. I’M JOINED NOW BY FORMER U.S. I’M JOINED NOW BY FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN BARNY FRANK OF CONGRESSMAN BARNY FRANK OF MASSACHUSETTS. MASSACHUSETTS. THE WHITE HOUSE REPORTER FOR NPR THE WHITE HOUSE REPORTER FOR NPR AND CHARLIE SYKES IS EDITOR AND AND CHARLIE SYKES IS EDITOR AND CHIEF OF THE BULWARK. CHIEF OF THE BULWARK. I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT, THE BUREAU OF LABOR ABOUT, THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, THE CONGRESS STATISTICS, THE CONGRESS DEPARTMENT RUN BY HIS FRIEND DEPARTMENT RUN BY HIS FRIEND WILBUR ROSS, WHERE ARE THESE WILBUR ROSS, WHERE ARE THESE PHONY NUMBERS COMING FROM? PHONY NUMBERS COMING FROM?>>WELL, DONALD TRUMP ALWAYS>>WELL, DONALD TRUMP ALWAYS WANTS TO HAVE HIS OWN REALITY, WANTS TO HAVE HIS OWN REALITY, RIGHT? RIGHT? AND, UNFORTUNATELY, HE KNOWS HE AND, UNFORTUNATELY, HE KNOWS HE OWNS THE ECONOMY. OWNS THE ECONOMY. THIS IS THE STRONGEST CARD HE THIS IS THE STRONGEST CARD HE HAS FOR RE-ELECTION. HAS FOR RE-ELECTION. HOW ELSE IS HE GOING TO EXPLAIN HOW ELSE IS HE GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS EXCEPT THERE ARE PEOPLE THIS EXCEPT THERE ARE PEOPLE PLOTTING AGAINST HIM. PLOTTING AGAINST HIM. DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR EYES ARE TELLING YOU, LISTEN TO EYES ARE TELLING YOU, LISTEN TO WHAT I AM SAYING. WHAT I AM SAYING. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE SITUATION FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO INSISTS ON UNITED STATES WHO INSISTS ON HAVING HIS OWN ALTERNATIVE HAVING HIS OWN ALTERNATIVE REALITY. REALITY. OF COURSE YOU HAVE THE COGNITIVE OF COURSE YOU HAVE THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. DISSONANCE. IF THERE IS NO RECESSION, WHY IS IF THERE IS NO RECESSION, WHY IS HE PRESSURING THE FED FOR 100 HE PRESSURING THE FED FOR 100 BASIS POINT RATE CUT? BASIS POINT RATE CUT? WHY ARE HIS STAFFERS NOW TALKING WHY ARE HIS STAFFERS NOW TALKING ABOUT PROPOSING A POSSIBLE ABOUT PROPOSING A POSSIBLE PAYROLL TAX CUT? PAYROLL TAX CUT? SO HE HASN’T GOTTEN HIS STORY SO HE HASN’T GOTTEN HIS STORY STRAIGHT YET, HAS HE? STRAIGHT YET, HAS HE?>>WELL, AISHA, YOU KNOW THE>>WELL, AISHA, YOU KNOW THE STORY. STORY. IS HE AWARE THAT THE ECONOMIC IS HE AWARE THAT THE ECONOMIC NEWS IS REAL? NEWS IS REAL?>>WELL, I DON’T KNOW — I WOULD>>WELL, I DON’T KNOW — I WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THINK THAT THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THE ECONOMIC NEWS IS REAL. THE ECONOMIC NEWS IS REAL. IT’S COMING FROM HIS OWN IT’S COMING FROM HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION. ADMINISTRATION. IT’S COMING FROM THE FEDERAL IT’S COMING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT. BUT WHAT I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT WHAT I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS TO TRY TO DO NOW IS TRY TO WANTS TO TRY TO DO NOW IS TRY TO PUT THE ATTENTION ON SOMEONE PUT THE ATTENTION ON SOMEONE ELSE AND SAY THAT IF THERE IS ELSE AND SAY THAT IF THERE IS BAD NEWS, IT’S NOT MY FAULT, BAD NEWS, IT’S NOT MY FAULT, IT’S JAY POWELL’S FAULT, IT’S IT’S JAY POWELL’S FAULT, IT’S THE FAULT OF THE MEDIA, IT’S THE THE FAULT OF THE MEDIA, IT’S THE DEMOCRATS AGAINST ME — DEMOCRATS AGAINST ME –>>YEAH, BUT IS THE FAULT FOR>>YEAH, BUT IS THE FAULT FOR THERE BEING A REAL ECONOMIC THERE BEING A REAL ECONOMIC RECESSION COMING OR SOMEBODY RECESSION COMING OR SOMEBODY SAID THERE IS ONE COMING? SAID THERE IS ONE COMING? BECAUSE WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT STARTS BECAUSE WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT STARTS TO RISE AGAIN, WHICH IT TO RISE AGAIN, WHICH IT APPARENTLY WILL AT SOME POINT. APPARENTLY WILL AT SOME POINT. IT’S A LAGGING INDICATOR. IT’S A LAGGING INDICATOR. THAT’S REAL. THAT’S REAL.>>AND THAT’S THE ISSUE.>>AND THAT’S THE ISSUE. BECAUSE YOU CAN’T TALK YOUR WAY BECAUSE YOU CAN’T TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT AND YOU CAN’T JUST OUT OF THAT AND YOU CAN’T JUST BLAME SOMEONE ELSE IF THERE ARE BLAME SOMEONE ELSE IF THERE ARE REAL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. REAL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. IT DOES SEEM LIKE THIS IT DOES SEEM LIKE THIS ADMINISTRATION IS TAKING IT ADMINISTRATION IS TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. SERIOUSLY. NOW, I TALKED TO A WHITE HOUSE NOW, I TALKED TO A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO SAID THEY’RE NOT OFFICIAL WHO SAID THEY’RE NOT CONSIDERING A PAYROLL TAX CUT CONSIDERING A PAYROLL TAX CUT RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY ARE CONSIDERING PUSHING OTHER TAX CONSIDERING PUSHING OTHER TAX CUTS RIGHT NOW. CUTS RIGHT NOW. SO THAT TO ME SOUNDS LIKE AN SO THAT TO ME SOUNDS LIKE AN ADMINISTRATION THAT’S CONCERNED ADMINISTRATION THAT’S CONCERNED ABOUT THE ECONOMY. ABOUT THE ECONOMY.>>CONGRESSMAN FRANK, WHAT DO>>CONGRESSMAN FRANK, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS WITH TRUMP? YOU THINK ABOUT THIS WITH TRUMP? I DIDN’T KNOW THIS WAS COMING. I DIDN’T KNOW THIS WAS COMING. ALL OF A SUDDEN A CUP OFOUPLE OF ALL OF A SUDDEN A CUP OFOUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WE HEAR LEADING WEEKS AGO WE HEAR LEADING INDICATESERS OF TROUBLE. INDICATESERS OF TROUBLE. HE IS DENYING THE RED FLAGS OR HE IS DENYING THE RED FLAGS OR BLAMING THEM ON SOMEBODY ELSE. BLAMING THEM ON SOMEBODY ELSE.>>THE SOMEBODY ELSE, BY THE>>THE SOMEBODY ELSE, BY THE WAY, IS NOT CHAIRMAN POWELL. WAY, IS NOT CHAIRMAN POWELL. HE HAS APPOINTED SEVERAL FED HE HAS APPOINTED SEVERAL FED GOVERNORS. GOVERNORS. HE OWNS THE FED. HE OWNS THE FED. HE’S APPOINTED SEVERAL PEOPLE HE’S APPOINTED SEVERAL PEOPLE THERE. THERE. OF COURSE IT’S A PATTERN WHERE OF COURSE IT’S A PATTERN WHERE DONALD TRUMP CLAIMING TO BE THE DONALD TRUMP CLAIMING TO BE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE. CHIEF EXECUTIVE. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WANT FROM ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WANT FROM AN EXECUTIVE IS TO APPOINT GOOD AN EXECUTIVE IS TO APPOINT GOOD PEOPLE. PEOPLE. BY DONALD TRUMP’S JUDGEMENT, HE BY DONALD TRUMP’S JUDGEMENT, HE HAS APPOINTED INCOMPETENT PEOPLE HAS APPOINTED INCOMPETENT PEOPLE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE ECONOMY, IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE ECONOMY, NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES. STATES. THOSE ARE ALL PEOPLE HE THOSE ARE ALL PEOPLE HE DENOUNCES HAVING APPOINTED. DENOUNCES HAVING APPOINTED. I THINK WHAT HE’S DOING IS KIND I THINK WHAT HE’S DOING IS KIND OF TRICKY FOR HIM. OF TRICKY FOR HIM. IF YOU LOOK AT WHO IS NOW IF YOU LOOK AT WHO IS NOW TALKING IN A WAY THAT SUGGESTS TALKING IN A WAY THAT SUGGESTS THERE’S WEAKNESS IN THE ECONOMY, THERE’S WEAKNESS IN THE ECONOMY, NUMBER ONE IS DONALD TRUMP. NUMBER ONE IS DONALD TRUMP. THERE IS NO WAY YOU WOULD BE THERE IS NO WAY YOU WOULD BE BANGING AWAY AT YOUR OWN BANGING AWAY AT YOUR OWN APPOINTEES AT THE FEDERAL APPOINTEES AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE SUBSTANTIALLY TO REDUCE RESERVE SUBSTANTIALLY TO REDUCE INTEREST RATES AND MAYBE BACK ON INTEREST RATES AND MAYBE BACK ON THE QUANTITATIVE EASING IF YOU THE QUANTITATIVE EASING IF YOU DIDN’T THINK THERE WAS TROUBLE DIDN’T THINK THERE WAS TROUBLE COMING. COMING. NOW HE’S GOT THIS DILEMMA NOW HE’S GOT THIS DILEMMA BECAUSE HE IS, IN FACT, BY BECAUSE HE IS, IN FACT, BY BANGING AWAY AT THE FED BANGING AWAY AT THE FED CONTRIBUTING TO THIS NOTION, BUT CONTRIBUTING TO THIS NOTION, BUT HE’S TAKING OUT RECESSION HE’S TAKING OUT RECESSION INSURANCE. INSURANCE. I THINK IT’S PRETTY CLEAR THAT I THINK IT’S PRETTY CLEAR THAT TRUMP IS BEING WARNED THAT THE TRUMP IS BEING WARNED THAT THE RUSH THAT WE GOT FROM HIS TAX RUSH THAT WE GOT FROM HIS TAX CUT FOR THE VERY RICH IS CUT FOR THE VERY RICH IS PIDDLING OUT AND THAT THINGS ARE PIDDLING OUT AND THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO START TO TURN DOWN AND GOING TO START TO TURN DOWN AND HE’S DESPERATELY TRYING TO BLAME HE’S DESPERATELY TRYING TO BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE WHEN THE BAD NEWS SOMEBODY ELSE WHEN THE BAD NEWS COMES. COMES.>>CHARLIE, HERE’S MY QUESTION.>>CHARLIE, HERE’S MY QUESTION. THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, LIKE AN THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, LIKE AN HISTORIC TAX CUT. HISTORIC TAX CUT. IT WAS WRONG — WRONG IN ITS IT WAS WRONG — WRONG IN ITS VALUES, WRONG IN ITS VALUES, WRONG IN ITS DISTRIBUTION, EVERYTHING IS DISTRIBUTION, EVERYTHING IS WRONG ABOUT IT. WRONG ABOUT IT. I DON’T KNOW ANY REGULAR PEOPLE I DON’T KNOW ANY REGULAR PEOPLE WHO GOT ANYTHING OUT OF IT. WHO GOT ANYTHING OUT OF IT. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT HAD NO MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT HAD NO MACRO ECONOMIC JUICE TO IT. MACRO ECONOMIC JUICE TO IT. NOTHING REALLY GOT GOING WITH NOTHING REALLY GOT GOING WITH THE ECONOMY. THE ECONOMY. IT WASN’T A SUPPLY SIDE OR ANY IT WASN’T A SUPPLY SIDE OR ANY KIND OF TENSION CUT THAT BROUGHT KIND OF TENSION CUT THAT BROUGHT LONG TERM — NOW THEY’RE LONG TERM — NOW THEY’RE WHISPERING ABOUT A PAYROLL TAX, WHISPERING ABOUT A PAYROLL TAX, WHICH BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE WHICH BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN UNDERFUNDED MEDICARE HAVE AN UNDERFUNDED MEDICARE ACCOUNT, SOCIAL SECURITY AND ALL ACCOUNT, SOCIAL SECURITY AND ALL THAT STUFF, BUT TO JUST START THAT STUFF, BUT TO JUST START PLAYING AROUND WITH A LITTLE CAP PLAYING AROUND WITH A LITTLE CAP PISTOL LIKE THAT THAT HAS A PISTOL LIKE THAT THAT HAS A SHORT-TERM IMPACT. SHORT-TERM IMPACT. TEMPORARY CUT IN PAYROLL TAX TEMPORARY CUT IN PAYROLL TAX SOUNDS LIKE A BAND-AID. SOUNDS LIKE A BAND-AID. WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT DO YOU THINK?>>IT’S DEFINITELY A BAND-AID.>>IT’S DEFINITELY A BAND-AID. HERE’S THE PROBLEM, THEY FIRED HERE’S THE PROBLEM, THEY FIRED ALL THE BULLETS THEY WOULD HAVE ALL THE BULLETS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD. HAD. WE’VE HAD VIRTUALLY ZERO WE’VE HAD VIRTUALLY ZERO INTEREST RATES FOR SO LONG AND INTEREST RATES FOR SO LONG AND THE TAX CUT HAS CREATED A THE TAX CUT HAS CREATED A TRILLION A YEAR DEFICIT. TRILLION A YEAR DEFICIT. IF THE COUNTRY DOES PLUNGE INTO IF THE COUNTRY DOES PLUNGE INTO A RECESSION, HOW IS CONGRESS AND A RECESSION, HOW IS CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT GOING TO BE ABLE THE PRESIDENT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH IT? TO DEAL WITH IT? ARE THEY GOING TO EXPAND THE ARE THEY GOING TO EXPAND THE DEFICIT BEYOND $1 TRILLION? DEFICIT BEYOND $1 TRILLION? ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE A MASSIVE ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE A MASSIVE SPENDING PROGRAM, MORE TAX CUTS? SPENDING PROGRAM, MORE TAX CUTS? THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, THAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE THAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE COMPLETELY LIMITED HERE. COMPLETELY LIMITED HERE.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. BARNY, THAT’S THE SAME THING I BARNY, THAT’S THE SAME THING I KEEP THINKING ABOUT, A KEEP THINKING ABOUT, A TRILLION-DOLLAR DEFICIT TO START TRILLION-DOLLAR DEFICIT TO START WITH. WITH. WHAT’S LEFT IN YOUR TOOLBOX WHEN WHAT’S LEFT IN YOUR TOOLBOX WHEN YOU’RE REALLY FACING A HORROR? YOU’RE REALLY FACING A HORROR?>>YOU’RE RIGHT.>>YOU’RE RIGHT. I MEAN, TRUMP RETIRES THE TROPHY I MEAN, TRUMP RETIRES THE TROPHY AS THE UBER KINGSIAN OF ALL AS THE UBER KINGSIAN OF ALL TIME. TIME. HE HAS DONE MORE TO STIMULATE IN HE HAS DONE MORE TO STIMULATE IN THE SHORT TERM THE ECONOMY WITH THE SHORT TERM THE ECONOMY WITH FISCAL DEFICITS AND TAX CUTS. FISCAL DEFICITS AND TAX CUTS. AND HERE’S THE PROBLEM. AND HERE’S THE PROBLEM. ONE LOGICAL THING TO DO RIGHT ONE LOGICAL THING TO DO RIGHT NOW WOULD BE TO BEGIN TO NOW WOULD BE TO BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT A GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENT A GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM. PROGRAM.>>YEAH.>>YEAH.>>TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT.>>TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT. TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT TO PEOPLE TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT TO PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T NECESSARILY GO TO WHO DIDN’T NECESSARILY GO TO COLLEGE. COLLEGE. TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVITY. TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVITY. THE PROBLEM — THE FUNDAMENTAL THE PROBLEM — THE FUNDAMENTAL PRE-EMPT PRE-EMPT PROBLEM IS HE SPENT THE PROBLEM IS HE SPENT THE INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY ON THE TAX INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY ON THE TAX CUT FOR THE VERY RICH. CUT FOR THE VERY RICH.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>THE ARGUMENT WAS THIS WOULD>>THE ARGUMENT WAS THIS WOULD IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY. IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY. THEY’VE GONE AWAY FROM THAT. THEY’VE GONE AWAY FROM THAT. REMEMBER, THE ARGUMENT WAS IF WE REMEMBER, THE ARGUMENT WAS IF WE GET THE TAX CUT FOR GET THE TAX CUT FOR CORPORATIONS, WE’LL GET 3% CORPORATIONS, WE’LL GET 3% GROWTH. GROWTH. NO ONE THINKS THAT’S COMING. NO ONE THINKS THAT’S COMING. SO THE FUNDAMENTAL CURSE THAT SO THE FUNDAMENTAL CURSE THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION INFLICTED ON THIS ADMINISTRATION INFLICTED ON ITSELF WAS IN THE FIRST YEAR TO ITSELF WAS IN THE FIRST YEAR TO TAKE THE MONEY THAT SHOULD HAVE TAKE THE MONEY THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE FOR A SENSIBLE GONE FOR A SENSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM, THERE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A BIPARTISAN COULD HAVE BEEN A BIPARTISAN ONE, AND PUT IT INTO A TAX CUT ONE, AND PUT IT INTO A TAX CUT FOR THE RICH WHICH HAD A FOR THE RICH WHICH HAD A SHORT-TERM EFFECT AND NO SHORT-TERM EFFECT AND NO LONG-TERM BENEFIT. LONG-TERM BENEFIT.>>AYESHA, THE SAME WAY THE>>AYESHA, THE SAME WAY THE FORMER CONGRESSMAN PUTS IT, I FORMER CONGRESSMAN PUTS IT, I THINK YOU ONLY HAVE A FEW TOOLS THINK YOU ONLY HAVE A FEW TOOLS IN YOUR CHEST. IN YOUR CHEST. YOU CAN CUT SPENDING. YOU CAN CUT SPENDING. RAISE INFLATION. RAISE INFLATION. CUT TAXES DURING A POTENTIAL CUT TAXES DURING A POTENTIAL RECESSION YOU CAN WORK MONETARY RECESSION YOU CAN WORK MONETARY POLICY TO SOME EXTENT TO CREATE POLICY TO SOME EXTENT TO CREATE MORE MONEY. MORE MONEY. IF IT’S GOING TO BE INVESTED. IF IT’S GOING TO BE INVESTED. RIGHT NOW I’M HEARING THE RIGHT NOW I’M HEARING THE COUNTRY, THE RICH PEOPLE ARE COUNTRY, THE RICH PEOPLE ARE SWILLING, SWIRLING WITH CASH. SWILLING, SWIRLING WITH CASH. THEY DON’T WANT TO INVEST IT. THEY DON’T WANT TO INVEST IT. THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN IT. THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN IT. THEY DON’T WANT BELIEVE IN THIS THEY DON’T WANT BELIEVE IN THIS ROCK ’EM SOCK ’EM ECONOMY OF ROCK ’EM SOCK ’EM ECONOMY OF TRUMP’S. TRUMP’S. THEY BOUGHT BACK STOCK AT THE THEY BOUGHT BACK STOCK AT THE CORPORATE LEVEL. CORPORATE LEVEL. THEY BENEFITTED FROM IT IN TERMS THEY BENEFITTED FROM IT IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN WEALTH. OF THEIR OWN WEALTH. YOU BUY BACK STOCK, YOU OWN YOU BUY BACK STOCK, YOU OWN MORE, RIGHT? MORE, RIGHT?>>YEAH.>>YEAH.>>EVERYTHING WORKED OUT FOR>>EVERYTHING WORKED OUT FOR THEM. THEM. NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WITH NO NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WITH NO MORE TOOLS. MORE TOOLS. FACING PERHAPS ECONOMIC TROUBLE. FACING PERHAPS ECONOMIC TROUBLE.>>AND THAT’S THE FEAR, IS WHAT>>AND THAT’S THE FEAR, IS WHAT HAPPENS NOW IF THERE IS A HAPPENS NOW IF THERE IS A RECESSION, IS PRESIDENT TRUMP, RECESSION, IS PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THIS ADMINISTRATION READY FOR IS THIS ADMINISTRATION READY FOR IT? IT? AND THIS IS NOT AN AND THIS IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS BEEN GREAT WITH CRISES AND USUALLY GREAT WITH CRISES AND USUALLY IT’S CREATING THE CRISIS ON THE

Ben Shapiro & Tucker Carlson Compete for Dumbest Take of Day


We had a very special moment in right-wing
propaganda yesterday. Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson both had clips that are top entries
into dumbest take of the day. I’m going to play both of the clips for you. I want you
to decide which is the dumber take of the two videos I’m going to play for you today. We have exhibit a, exhibit a is a clip from
the Tucker Carlson program on Fox News interviewing. I guess he still is considered comedian Adam
Carolla and they talk about political correctness around gendering people. And I actually can’t
tell if the clip is comedy or political commentary. It’s either really unfunny comedy or really
stupid political commentary that’s clip number one. Now, on a normal day, that clip, which
I’ll show you in a second, would be the dumbest take of the day from right wing media. But
then incomes, Ben Shapiro, who claimed that anyone who has a second job simply has failed
themselves. It’s poor people’s fault that their one job doesn’t pay enough and that
they need a second job and it’s their fault. So we have a competition here for dumbest
clip of the day. Yesterday, first Tucker and Adam take a look and I would say drop them off at a business
and let him be, uh, what they used to call me on the construction site. Start off as
a glorified boomer, which is low man on the totem pole. Ooh, can we say low man anymore?
No. Low. What? W I, I don’t wanna I don’t want to use a pejorative here and assign ready
answered right now the Pronoun is day low. They [inaudible] not on the totem pole because
that’s cultural appropriation point low. They on the Barbara poll, no low they on the flag
pole. No, definitely not of the flag pole on the utility pole low. They are on the telephone
pole. Yeah. So the premise here is, oh, isn’t college
a scam? And then they’re getting into, are you allowed to say low man on the totem pole?
Because everyone on the left and everyone in colleges is so politically correct. Again,
is this comedy? It’s so, it’s just not funny. Is this political commentary? If so, it’s
really stupid. So that’s option a. All right, let’s now look at option B for dumbest take
of the day from yesterday. Here’s Ben Shapiro on people who have jobs that don’t pay well
and on people who have two jobs. Well, the fact is that if you had to work
more than one job to have a roof over your head or food on the table, you probably shouldn’t
have taken the job. That’s not paying you enough. That’d be a you problem. Also, it
is not true that the vast majority of people in the United States are working two jobs.
It just is not true. According to the census statistics, a small but steady number of American
workers have more than one job because either they need extra income or because they want
to gain more experience or explore different interests. There’s a recently released us
Census Bureau report and apparently what it found is that approximately 8.3% as of 2013
so it’s actually lower now, 8.3% of workers had more than one job. That was as of 2013
it’s a lot lower now, so this notion that there are just tons and tons of people who
are working multiple jobs. It is not really true. It’s not actually the
reality. In May, 5% of Americans had multiple jobs, 5% that’s really what’s bringing down
the unemployment rate is those 5% of workers who have multiple jobs. Hey, for all of the
talk about people working at Uber, it’s, it’s held to that range actually. Really since
2009 it’s always been a very, very low number. So this again is just a lie. It is also this
bizarre idiocy that you can dictate to the economy what the economy ought to do every
time everybody tries to dictate to the economy what it ought to do to the economy, fights
back because it turns out the aggregate knowledge of the market economy knows more than you
do. I know. Shocking. How is it an individual person’s job that,
uh, or set a different way because I don’t want to use the term job in both cases. How
is it an individual person’s fault that most jobs don’t pay that? Well, in the bottom half
of the economy and that wages have been stagnant for the bottom half of workers for decades,
Ben is right about one thing. The number of people actually working two jobs is pretty
small, but it’s still bigger than he wants to admit. I mean, 5% is still one out of 20.
If you go to the supermarket, uh, and there are, you know, a hundred people there, five
of those people are likely working two jobs. That’s not nothing. Okay, but it’s not huge.
I will give them that, but the really dumb part of it is if you had to work more than
one job, it’s your fault that your main job doesn’t pay enough, even though you have no
control over the distribution of jobs and the wages that are available in the economy. If there are only so many jobs that pay well,
you can’t control that. Right? This is actually the epitome of that cartoonish, Childish Libertarian
idea that a 16 year old here’s about iron rand reads one book and now believes this,
even though they don’t really understand anything about how the economy or the world works combined
with the sort of abject cruelty of modern conservatism, it’s the kind of delusional
worship of free markets and liberty that these people fall into. Typically before they know
anything. Ben Shapiro comes from a relatively, you know, upper-middle-class family thinks
that even if he didn’t, he would still have found a good job period. Simply because he’s
determined to do it. The idea that you might have to choose from the available jobs even
if it’s a job that doesn’t pay well or even if it’s two jobs that don’t pay well because
you’ve got to pay your bills and you have no parents to bail you out. That doesn’t even enter into Ben Shapiro’s
mind. I actually don’t think he’s being disingenuous here. I think this is a combination of his
personal privileged position in society combined with cartoonish, right wing economic ideas
combined with a complete lack of empathy. I think that that’s what it is. I don’t believe
he’s being deliberately disingenuous. I think he’s just clueless and somehow hasn’t got
gotten out of those childish Libertarian ideas that 16 year olds often pick up and then lose
by the time they get to college and learn how the world actually works. This is what
I call right wing politics brought to you by a privileged upbringing and a complete
lack of empathy. That’s how you get to this. So my question to you is, which is the worst
take? Is it Tucker Carlson and Adam Corolla or is it Ben Shapiro? I think that the Tucker
one is more cartoonishly stupid, but the Ben Shapiro one is more dangerous because represents
a common American conservative worldview that’s completely disconnected from reality and it
gets people supporting bad policy. It gets people seeing the world in a way that
is totally unrealistic and thinking that really bad ideas are actually really good ideas.
So I think if I had to vote cartoonishly stupid Adam Corolla again, you know, I don’t have
to get back into it. Dangerous when it comes to actually making political progress in this
country, Ben Shapiro and the ideas that he puts out there, particularly because he puts
them out there by talking really quickly and confidently as we’ve analyzed before in a
way that people hear it and they’re just overwhelmed by what seen seems like just crystal clear
and perfect logic. Let me know what you think and make sure that you are following the David
Pakman show on Instagram at David Pakman show. While you’re there, follow me on Instagram
at David Dot. Tacton. We’ll take a quick, uh, a quick break. Not a quick, we’ll take
a quick break. A lot more coming up today

Donald Trump And America’s Waning Global Influence | Deadline | MSNBC


“DEADLINE: WHITE HOUSE” STARTS NOW. NOW.>>>HI, EVERYONE, IT’S 4:00 IN>>>HI, EVERYONE, IT’S 4:00 IN NEW YORK. NEW YORK. WITH WARNING SIGNS FLASHING RED WITH WARNING SIGNS FLASHING RED THAT THE ECONOMY COULD BE HEED THAT THE ECONOMY COULD BE HEED FOR TURMOIL. FOR TURMOIL. THE DOW CLOSING OVER 800 POINTS THE DOW CLOSING OVER 800 POINTS DOWN TODAY AS DONALD TRUMP’S DOWN TODAY AS DONALD TRUMP’S POLITICAL WEAKNESS, FOREIGN POLITICAL WEAKNESS, FOREIGN POLICY CLUELESSNESS AND POLICY CLUELESSNESS AND ABDICATION OF AMERICAN ABDICATION OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ON THE WORLD STAGE IS LEADERSHIP ON THE WORLD STAGE IS ON FULL AND STARK DISPLAY. ON FULL AND STARK DISPLAY. THE WORLD’S EYES ON HONG KONG. THE WORLD’S EYES ON HONG KONG. PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTESTERS SPILLED PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTESTERS SPILLED THE STREETS ON THE FOURTH DAY OF THE STREETS ON THE FOURTH DAY OF ESCALATING TENSIONS THERE. ESCALATING TENSIONS THERE. THE KIND OF STANDOFF AMERICA THE KIND OF STANDOFF AMERICA USED TO TAKE A CLEAR STAND ON USED TO TAKE A CLEAR STAND ON THE SIDE OF PRO-DEMOCRACY THE SIDE OF PRO-DEMOCRACY FORCES. FORCES. TODAY IT’S UNCLEAR WHERE THE TODAY IT’S UNCLEAR WHERE THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT COMES DOWN. AMERICAN PRESIDENT COMES DOWN. POLITICO REPORTS THIS — POLITICO REPORTS THIS — LAWMAKERS AND GOVERNMENT LAWMAKERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACROSS WASHINGTON, OFFICIALS ACROSS WASHINGTON, INCLUDING SON INCLUDING SON INCLUDING SOME OF PRESIDENT’S INCLUDING SOME OF PRESIDENT’S DONALD TRUMP’S ADVISERS ARE DONALD TRUMP’S ADVISERS ARE GROWING INCREASINGLY ALARMED GROWING INCREASINGLY ALARMED WITH WHAT’S DPG ONGOING ON IN HO WITH WHAT’S DPG ONGOING ON IN HO KONG. KONG. MORE THAN THE MOST, INCLUDING MORE THAN THE MOST, INCLUDING TRUMP. TRUMP. UNLIKE MOST PRESIDENTS HE SHOWS UNLIKE MOST PRESIDENTS HE SHOWS FONDNESS FOR AUTHORITARIAN FONDNESS FOR AUTHORITARIAN LEADERS AND LITTLE INTEREST FOR LEADERS AND LITTLE INTEREST FOR PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS OR PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS OR DEMOCRACY. DEMOCRACY. “THE NEW YORK TIMES” WRITES, “THE NEW YORK TIMES” WRITES, VIOLENCE CASE LATES AND OLD VIOLENCE CASE LATES AND OLD ANIMOSITIES REKINDLED ACROSS ANIMOSITIES REKINDLED ACROSS ASIA, WASHINGTON HAS CHOSEN ASIA, WASHINGTON HAS CHOSEN INACTION AND GOVERNMENTS ARE INACTION AND GOVERNMENTS ARE IGNORING THE TRUMP IGNORING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S MILD ADMONITION ADMINISTRATION’S MILD ADMONITION AND CALLS FOR CALM. AND CALLS FOR CALM. THE INABILITY OR UNWILLINGNESS THE INABILITY OR UNWILLINGNESS OF WASHINGTON TO HELP DEFUSE THE OF WASHINGTON TO HELP DEFUSE THE FLASH POINTS IS ONE OF THE FLASH POINTS IS ONE OF THE CLEAREST SIGNS YET OF THE CLEAREST SIGNS YET OF THE EROSION OF AMERICAN POWER AND EROSION OF AMERICAN POWER AND GLOBAL INFLUENCE UNDER MR. GLOBAL INFLUENCE UNDER MR. TRUMP, WHO HAS STUCK TO HIS TRUMP, WHO HAS STUCK TO HIS AMERICA FIRST IDEA OF AMERICA FIRST IDEA OF DISENGAGEMENT. DISENGAGEMENT. HERE’S THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION HERE’S THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION TO WHAT ADDTRATION OFFICIAL TO WHAT ADDTRATION OFFICIAL DESCRIBES TO POLITICO AS, QUOTE, DESCRIBES TO POLITICO AS, QUOTE, AS CLOSE TO A TIANANMEN SQUARE AS CLOSE TO A TIANANMEN SQUARE POTENTIALLY THAT YOU’RE BOGGOING POTENTIALLY THAT YOU’RE BOGGOING GET IN A MODERN AGE. GET IN A MODERN AGE.>>IT’S A VERY TRICKY SITUATION.>>IT’S A VERY TRICKY SITUATION. I THINK IT WILL WORK OUT AND I I THINK IT WILL WORK OUT AND I HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR LIBERTY. HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR LIBERTY. I HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR I HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR EVERYBODY, INCLUDING CHINA. EVERYBODY, INCLUDING CHINA. I WORK IT WORKS OUT EQUALLY. I WORK IT WORKS OUT EQUALLY. I HOPE NOBODY GETS HURT. I HOPE NOBODY GETS HURT. I HOPE NOBODY GETS KILLED. I HOPE NOBODY GETS KILLED.>>VERY TRICKY SITUATION.>>VERY TRICKY SITUATION. I HOPE NOBODY GETS KILLED. I HOPE NOBODY GETS KILLED. MY, HOW FAR WE’VE COME FROM A MY, HOW FAR WE’VE COME FROM A SHINING CITY ON A HILL. SHINING CITY ON A HILL. AND YESTERDAY HIS FIRST PUBLIC AND YESTERDAY HIS FIRST PUBLIC EVENT SINCE TENSIONS IN HONG EVENT SINCE TENSIONS IN HONG KONG ERUPTED, THE PRESIDENT HAD KONG ERUPTED, THE PRESIDENT HAD A LOT OF THINGS OTHER THAN THE A LOT OF THINGS OTHER THAN THE PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTEST ON HIS PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTEST ON HIS MIND. MIND.>>I THINK WE’RE LOOKING DID ALL>>I THINK WE’RE LOOKING DID ALL OVER IN OHIO, IN NORTH CAROLINA, OVER IN OHIO, IN NORTH CAROLINA, IN SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA. IN SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA. WE JUST GOT NUMBERS IN FLORIDA. WE JUST GOT NUMBERS IN FLORIDA. LOOKING FANTASTICALLY GOOD. LOOKING FANTASTICALLY GOOD. I GOT SUED ON A THING CALLED I GOT SUED ON A THING CALLED EMOLUMENTS. EMOLUMENTS. EVER HEARD OF IT? EVER HEARD OF IT? NOBODY HEARD OF IT BEFORE. NOBODY HEARD OF IT BEFORE. NOBODY LOOKS AT OBAMA GETTING NOBODY LOOKS AT OBAMA GETTING $16 MILLION FOR A BOOK. $16 MILLION FOR A BOOK. EVEN THOUGH NOBODY IN HISTORY EVEN THOUGH NOBODY IN HISTORY GOT THAT MUCH FOR A BOOK. GOT THAT MUCH FOR A BOOK. THEY SAID DON’T WORRY ABOUT THE THEY SAID DON’T WORRY ABOUT THE RAIN. RAIN. DO WE HAVE UMBRELLAS? DO WE HAVE UMBRELLAS? UMBRELLAS WORK VERY WELL. UMBRELLAS WORK VERY WELL. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY’RE MADE IN ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY’RE MADE IN AMERICA. AMERICA. I ALWAYS LOVE TRUCKS. I ALWAYS LOVE TRUCKS. I STILL DO. I STILL DO. NOTHING CHANGES. NOTHING CHANGES. SOMETIMES YOU MIGHT BECOME SOMETIMES YOU MIGHT BECOME PRESIDENT BUT NOTHING CHANGES. PRESIDENT BUT NOTHING CHANGES. I STILL LOVE TRUCKS. I STILL LOVE TRUCKS.>>WORLD IS ON FIRE AND TRUMP IS>>WORLD IS ON FIRE AND TRUMP IS MUSING PUBLICLY ABOUT HIS POLL MUSING PUBLICLY ABOUT HIS POLL NUMBERS IN BATTLEGROUND STATES, NUMBERS IN BATTLEGROUND STATES, HIS LOVE OF UMBRELLAS AND TRUCKS HIS LOVE OF UMBRELLAS AND TRUCKS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S BOOK DEAL. AND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S BOOK DEAL. THAT’S WHERE WE START WITH SOME THAT’S WHERE WE START WITH SOME OF OUR FAVORITE REPORTERS AND OF OUR FAVORITE REPORTERS AND FRIEND. FRIEND. THE WHITE HOUSE REPORTER FOR THE WHITE HOUSE REPORTER FOR “L.A. TIMES,” RICK STENGEL WHO “L.A. TIMES,” RICK STENGEL WHO WORKED IN PRESIDENT OBAMA’S WORKED IN PRESIDENT OBAMA’S STATE DEPARTMENT AND FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT AND FORMER MANAGING EDITOR AT “TIME” MANAGING EDITOR AT “TIME” MAGAZINE, EUGENE ROBINSON FROM MAGAZINE, EUGENE ROBINSON FROM “THE WASHINGTON POST,” AND ALSO “THE WASHINGTON POST,” AND ALSO JOINING US FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF JOINING US FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENTS JOE BIDEN, AL TO VICE PRESIDENTS JOE BIDEN, AL GORE. GORE. I HAVE TO START WITH YOU, RICK I HAVE TO START WITH YOU, RICK STENGEL. STENGEL. SO MUCH OF WHAT TRUMP DOES I SO MUCH OF WHAT TRUMP DOES I WOULD PUT IN THE CATEGORY OF WOULD PUT IN THE CATEGORY OF STUPID HUMAN TRICKS. STUPID HUMAN TRICKS. HE SAYS SUCH DUMB THINS BUT HE SAYS SUCH DUMB THINS BUT THERE ARE NOT LIVES AT STAKE OR THERE ARE NOT LIVES AT STAKE OR CONSEQUENCES. CONSEQUENCES. THIS IS A MOMENT EVERY AMERICAN THIS IS A MOMENT EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT, I WOULD THINK, IF YOU PRESIDENT, I WOULD THINK, IF YOU JUDGE THEIR RECORDS AND THE WAY JUDGE THEIR RECORDS AND THE WAY THEY RESPONDED, WOULD BE THEY RESPONDED, WOULD BE STANDING UP MORE FORCEFULLY IN STANDING UP MORE FORCEFULLY IN THE WAY THE OTHER DEMOCRATS IN THE WAY THE OTHER DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS HAVE BEEN DOING WITH CONGRESS HAVE BEEN DOING WITH THE PRO-DEMOCRACY FORCES. THE PRO-DEMOCRACY FORCES. THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE BACK IN THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE BACK IN THE SITUATION ROOM, NOT GIVING A THE SITUATION ROOM, NOT GIVING A CAMPAIGN RALLY. CAMPAIGN RALLY.>>YES, YOU KNOW, POLITICAL>>YES, YOU KNOW, POLITICAL SCIENTISTS TALK ABOUT FOREIGN SCIENTISTS TALK ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY ALONG A CONTINUUM BETWEEN POLICY ALONG A CONTINUUM BETWEEN REALISM AND IDEALISM. REALISM AND IDEALISM. JOHN ADAMS WAS THE ORIGINAL JOHN ADAMS WAS THE ORIGINAL REALIST. REALIST. WE DON’T GO IN SEARCH OF WE DON’T GO IN SEARCH OF MONSTERS THAT DESTROY. MONSTERS THAT DESTROY. EVER SINCE BILL WILSON WAS EVER SINCE BILL WILSON WAS PRESIDENT, EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT, EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT HAD TO INCORPORATE PRESIDENT HAD TO INCORPORATE IDEALISM IN THEIR FOREIGN IDEALISM IN THEIR FOREIGN POLICY. POLICY. SO WHEN SOMETHING IS HAPPENING SO WHEN SOMETHING IS HAPPENING IN HONG KONG, EVERY AMERICAN IN HONG KONG, EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT UNTIL NOW WOULD SAY WE PRESIDENT UNTIL NOW WOULD SAY WE SIDE WITH THE PEOPLE OF HONG SIDE WITH THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG IN THE PURSUIT OF LIBERTY KONG IN THE PURSUIT OF LIBERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS. AND HUMAN RIGHTS. THAT WAS THE CITY ON A HILL THAT THAT WAS THE CITY ON A HILL THAT AMERICA REPRESENTED FOR PEOPLE AMERICA REPRESENTED FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. AROUND THE WORLD. AS MY OLD BOSS JOHN KERRY USED AS MY OLD BOSS JOHN KERRY USED TO SAY, PEOPLE DON’T WAKE UP AT TO SAY, PEOPLE DON’T WAKE UP AT NIGHT WORRIED THAT WE’RE NIGHT WORRIED THAT WE’RE INVOLVED. INVOLVED. THEY WAKE UP AT NIGHT WORRYING THEY WAKE UP AT NIGHT WORRYING WE’RE NOT INVOLVED. WE’RE NOT INVOLVED. IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD AND IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD AND WHEREVER WE LEAVE AND WITHDRAW, WHEREVER WE LEAVE AND WITHDRAW, AS WE ARE DOING NOW, THEY’RE AS WE ARE DOING NOW, THEY’RE NEVER REPLACED BY A BETTER NEVER REPLACED BY A BETTER ACTOR. ACTOR.>>LET ME STOP YOU.>>LET ME STOP YOU. IS THAT STILL TRUE? IS THAT STILL TRUE?>>I THINK IT IS TRUE.>>I THINK IT IS TRUE. THERE ARE NO OTHER ACTORS, NOT THERE ARE NO OTHER ACTORS, NOT BETTER ACTS. BETTER ACTS. WHEN WILBUR ROSS SAID IT’S AN WHEN WILBUR ROSS SAID IT’S AN INTERNAL MATTER THE FOREIGN INTERNAL MATTER THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF RUSSIA AND CHINA MINISTER OF RUSSIA AND CHINA WERE DANCING UP AND DOWN. WERE DANCING UP AND DOWN. WHAT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT, BECAUSE WHAT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT, BECAUSE TRUMP DOESN’T UNDERSTAND T. HE’S TRUMP DOESN’T UNDERSTAND T. HE’S MOVING US TO A SPHERE OF MOVING US TO A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE WORLD. INFLUENCE WORLD. THAT’S THE 19th CENTURY WHERE NO THAT’S THE 19th CENTURY WHERE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DID WAS ODIOUS MATTER WHAT YOU DID WAS ODIOUS OR AGGRESSIVE, IN YOUR SPHERE OF OR AGGRESSIVE, IN YOUR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, WE’RE NOT GOING TO INFLUENCE, WE’RE NOT GOING TO MESS IT. MESS IT. WE’RE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT. WE’RE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT. THAT’S TRUMP AND WHAT RUSSIA AND THAT’S TRUMP AND WHAT RUSSIA AND CHINA WANT AND WILBUR ROSS SAY CHINA WANT AND WILBUR ROSS SAY WE DO TODAY. WE DO TODAY. EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT SINCE EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT SINCE WILSON WAS HAVING A HEART ATTACK WILSON WAS HAVING A HEART ATTACK TODAY AND IT’S NOT WHAT AMERICA TODAY AND IT’S NOT WHAT AMERICA SHOULD REPRESENT AROUND THE SHOULD REPRESENT AROUND THE WORLD. WORLD. THERE AND IT ENDS UP IN WORLD THERE AND IT ENDS UP IN WORLD WAR I, WHERE IT HAD. WAR I, WHERE IT HAD. AND IN ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION, AND IN ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION, AS YOU SAID, THE ADMINISTRATION AS YOU SAID, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED A RESPONSE. WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED A RESPONSE. FIRST OF ALL, THERE WOULD HAVE FIRST OF ALL, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN DAILY WHITE HOUSE BEEN DAILY WHITE HOUSE BRIEFINGS. BRIEFINGS. WITH THE BRIEFINGS THE PRESS WITH THE BRIEFINGS THE PRESS SECRETARY WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED SECRETARY WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE HONG KONG ABOUT THE HONG KONG DEMONSTRATIONS. DEMONSTRATIONS. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CAREFULLY WRITTEN AND MODULATED CAREFULLY WRITTEN AND MODULATED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HUMAN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. RIGHTS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROCESS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROCESS. EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT IT WAS, WHAT THE IT WAS, WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION’S POSITION WAS. ADMINISTRATION’S POSITION WAS. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN STATED BY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN STATED BY THE PRESS SECRETARY OR PERHAPS THE PRESS SECRETARY OR PERHAPS BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. THIS IS JUST, TWEET THIS, BABBLE THIS IS JUST, TWEET THIS, BABBLE THAT. THAT. IT’S INCREDIBLE. IT’S INCREDIBLE.>>IT’S WORSE THAN THAT.>>IT’S WORSE THAN THAT. THE REPORTING THAT I CITED SITES THE REPORTING THAT I CITED SITES POMPEO, OUR COUNTRY’S SECRETARY POMPEO, OUR COUNTRY’S SECRETARY OF STATE, WHO SHOULD BE IF OF STATE, WHO SHOULD BE IF NOTHING ELSE A SAFETY NET FOR NOTHING ELSE A SAFETY NET FOR OTHER WORLD LEADERS AND OTHER WORLD LEADERS AND COUNTRIES IN CRISIS, HE WAS, COUNTRIES IN CRISIS, HE WAS, QUOTE, AFRAID TO GET AHEAD OF QUOTE, AFRAID TO GET AHEAD OF TRUMP. TRUMP. IT’S NOT EVEN THAT. IT’S NOT EVEN THAT. IT’S ACCOMMODATING TRUMP’S IT’S ACCOMMODATING TRUMP’S AFFINITY FOR DICTATORS AS THE OR AFFINITY FOR DICTATORS AS THE OR THING SUGGESTS. THING SUGGESTS.>>HE HAS AN AFFINITY FOR>>HE HAS AN AFFINITY FOR DICTATORS AND SEEMS NOT TO CARE DICTATORS AND SEEMS NOT TO CARE IF JOHNNY COMES IN AND MOWS DOWN IF JOHNNY COMES IN AND MOWS DOWN THE PROTESTERS AND GENERALLY THE PROTESTERS AND GENERALLY THINK THAT’S AN INTERNAL MATTER THINK THAT’S AN INTERNAL MATTER FOR CHINA TO DEAL WITH HOWEVER FOR CHINA TO DEAL WITH HOWEVER IT CHOOSES. IT CHOOSES. IT’S A SCARY THING TO THINK IT’S A SCARY THING TO THINK THAT’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE THAT’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BELIEVES AND TENDS UNITED STATES BELIEVES AND TENDS TO ACT ON BUT IT DOES SEEM TO BE TO ACT ON BUT IT DOES SEEM TO BE WHAT HE BELIEVES. WHAT HE BELIEVES.>>ELI, I’M SO RELUCTANT TO SORT>>ELI, I’M SO RELUCTANT TO SORT OF ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE FRAME OF ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE FRAME OF THE LOWERING OF THE BAR BUT OF THE LOWERING OF THE BAR BUT I’M GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY. I’M GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY. YESTERDAY OSTENSIBLY AN EVENT YESTERDAY OSTENSIBLY AN EVENT ABOUT ENERGY, CLEARLY HE’S NOT ABOUT ENERGY, CLEARLY HE’S NOT CAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING AN CAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING AN EVENT IS OSTENSIBLY ABOUT. EVENT IS OSTENSIBLY ABOUT. HE STANDS UP AND OPENS HIS MOUTH HE STANDS UP AND OPENS HIS MOUTH AND WHAT STILL IS VOWED IS AND WHAT STILL IS VOWED IS WHAT’S ON HIS MIND, POLL WHAT’S ON HIS MIND, POLL NUMBERS, OBAMA’S BIG BOOK DEAL, NUMBERS, OBAMA’S BIG BOOK DEAL, UMBRELLAS AND TRUCKS. UMBRELLAS AND TRUCKS. IS ANYTHING ELSE — AM I MISSING IS ANYTHING ELSE — AM I MISSING ANYTHING? ANYTHING? IS ANYTHING HAPPENING BACK AT IS ANYTHING HAPPENING BACK AT THE WHITE HOUSE? THE WHITE HOUSE?>>YOU KNOW WHEN YOU TALKED>>YOU KNOW WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT EVERYBODY THAT WORKS IN ABOUT EVERYBODY THAT WORKS IN THE BUILDING WHO IS JUST THERE THE BUILDING WHO IS JUST THERE TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. THEY RECOGNIZE THAT AND THAT THEY RECOGNIZE THAT AND THAT MEANS NOT CONFLICTING WITH HIM MEANS NOT CONFLICTING WITH HIM OR GIVING HIM ADVICE OR OR GIVING HIM ADVICE OR CONSTRUCTION HE CONSTRUCTION HE INSTRUCTION HE DOESN’T WANT TO INSTRUCTION HE DOESN’T WANT TO HEAR. HEAR. RACKS BY THE RACKS BY THE REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON ECONOMY AND MANUFACTURING, AS ECONOMY AND MANUFACTURING, AS BELIEVABLE AS INFRASTRUCTURE BELIEVABLE AS INFRASTRUCTURE WHEN THEY THREW THAT TERMINOLOGY WHEN THEY THREW THAT TERMINOLOGY AROUND. AROUND. BUT THAT’S HOW THE PRESIDENT IS, BUT THAT’S HOW THE PRESIDENT IS, HIS STREAM OF CONSCIOUS. HIS STREAM OF CONSCIOUS. IT’S ABOUT HIM. IT’S ABOUT HIM. LAST WEEK I WAS ON AIR FORCE ONE LAST WEEK I WAS ON AIR FORCE ONE IN THE POOL AND WE WENT TO IN THE POOL AND WE WENT TO DAYTON AND EL PASO WITH THE DAYTON AND EL PASO WITH THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. WE DIDN’T SEE A LOT OF HIM UNTIL WE DIDN’T SEE A LOT OF HIM UNTIL THE END BUT YOU COULD JUST TELL THE END BUT YOU COULD JUST TELL AFTER THE FACT WHAT HE SAID TO AFTER THE FACT WHAT HE SAID TO US ON THE PLANE OFF THE RECORD US ON THE PLANE OFF THE RECORD AND FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AND FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REPORTING THAT’S COME OUT AT THE REPORTING THAT’S COME OUT AT THE END THAT WAS A DAY AND WHAT WAS END THAT WAS A DAY AND WHAT WAS ON THE PRESIDENT’S MIND WAS NOT ON THE PRESIDENT’S MIND WAS NOT CONSOLING THE COMMUNITY AS MUCH CONSOLING THE COMMUNITY AS MUCH AS HOW HE WAS RECEIVED BY THE AS HOW HE WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNITIES. COMMUNITIES. THAT’S WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT. THAT’S WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT. THAT’S THE FIRST THING HE SAID THAT’S THE FIRST THING HE SAID WHEN ASKED BY OUR REPORTER, WHAT WHEN ASKED BY OUR REPORTER, WHAT HAS TODAY BEEN LIKE? HAS TODAY BEEN LIKE? THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS RESPECT THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENCY. FOR THE PRESIDENCY. HE’S ALWAYS THE CENTRAL HE’S ALWAYS THE CENTRAL CHARACTER IN HIS DRAMA HE’S CHARACTER IN HIS DRAMA HE’S TALKING ABOUT AND THAT’S THE TALKING ABOUT AND THAT’S THE SAME WAY HE APPROACHES FOREIGN SAME WAY HE APPROACHES FOREIGN POLICY. POLICY. THERE’S A CRISIS IN KASHMIR THERE’S A CRISIS IN KASHMIR BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN SIMMERING AND THE PRESIDENT SIMMERING AND THE PRESIDENT THINKS HE CAN MODERATE THIS. THINKS HE CAN MODERATE THIS. HE THINKS IF HE’S INVOLVED, CAN HE THINKS IF HE’S INVOLVED, CAN HE SOLVE ANY GLOBAL PROBLEM, HE SOLVE ANY GLOBAL PROBLEM, WHETHER IT’S TENSIONS IN THAT WHETHER IT’S TENSIONS IN THAT REGION. REGION. WHETHER IT’S GETTING KIM JONG-UN WHETHER IT’S GETTING KIM JONG-UN TO GIVE UP HIS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. TO GIVE UP HIS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. HE BELIEVES IF HE’S INVOLVED, HE HE BELIEVES IF HE’S INVOLVED, HE CAN FIX IT LIKE TRADE WARS HE CAN FIX IT LIKE TRADE WARS HE SAID ARE GOOD AND EASY TO WIN. SAID ARE GOOD AND EASY TO WIN. IF HE’S NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, IF HE’S NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, HE DOESN’T SEEM THAT INTERESTED HE DOESN’T SEEM THAT INTERESTED OR CONCERNED. OR CONCERNED. YESTERDAY HE’S SAYING, WHY ARE YESTERDAY HE’S SAYING, WHY ARE THEY BLAMING ME FOR THE CRISIS THEY BLAMING ME FOR THE CRISIS IN HONG KONG? IN HONG KONG? HE’S FORGETTING JUST A FEW WEEKS HE’S FORGETTING JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO IN LATE JULY HE SPOKE ABOUT AGO IN LATE JULY HE SPOKE ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE AND SAID WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE AND SAID CHINA’S GONE EASY ON THEM. CHINA’S GONE EASY ON THEM. CHINA COULD DO A LOT MORE. CHINA COULD DO A LOT MORE. THEY COULD BE A LOT STRONGER. THEY COULD BE A LOT STRONGER. WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AS A WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AS A TACIT GREEN LIGHT TO XI TO GO IN TACIT GREEN LIGHT TO XI TO GO IN FORCEFULLY TO THESE FORCEFULLY TO THESE PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTESTERS AND PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTESTERS AND THAT’S A WORLD VIEW OF TRUMP’S THAT’S A WORLD VIEW OF TRUMP’S WE’VE SEEN THAT’S CONSISTENT WE’VE SEEN THAT’S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE SAID FOR YEARS WITH WHAT HE SAID FOR YEARS ABOUT AUTOCRATS AND STRENGTH, ABOUT AUTOCRATS AND STRENGTH, HIS IDEA OF STRENGTH. HIS IDEA OF STRENGTH. IT’S HARD POWER. IT’S HARD POWER. DOESN’T BELIEVE IN SOFT POWER, DOESN’T BELIEVE IN SOFT POWER, HE BELIEVES IN HARD POWER. HE BELIEVES IN HARD POWER.>>RON KLAIN, SOMEBODY RAN>>RON KLAIN, SOMEBODY RAN AGAINST DONALD TRUMP IN THE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP IN THE PRIMARIES AND SAID THE MOMENT HE PRIMARIES AND SAID THE MOMENT HE WAS MOST VULNERABLE WHEN HE WAS WAS MOST VULNERABLE WHEN HE WAS OUTED TO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE OUTED TO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR TRY ADWAS. NUCLEAR TRY ADWAS. TO THE DEGREE HE HAS NO SHAME ON TO THE DEGREE HE HAS NO SHAME ON HIS STUNNING KNOWLEDGE ON HIS STUNNING KNOWLEDGE ON FOREIGN POLICY, WHAT IS IT — BE FOREIGN POLICY, WHAT IS IT — BE TAKE YOUR SOURCE’S WORDS FOR TAKE YOUR SOURCE’S WORDS FOR THAT. THAT. THIS IS SOMEONE DEFEATED BY THIS IS SOMEONE DEFEATED BY DONALD TRUMP AND EXAMINING THE DONALD TRUMP AND EXAMINING THE MOLTS TRUMP IS MOST VULNERABLE, MOLTS TRUMP IS MOST VULNERABLE, I ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION THAT WAS I ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. ONE OF THEM. IF YOU TAKE THAT AND TAKE ALL OF IF YOU TAKE THAT AND TAKE ALL OF THE REPORTING ABOUT BASICALLY THE REPORTING ABOUT BASICALLY EVERY INSULT’S ALREADY BEEN EVERY INSULT’S ALREADY BEEN LOBBED AT DONALD TRUMP, AND HE’S LOBBED AT DONALD TRUMP, AND HE’S STILL STANDING. STILL STANDING. YOU KNOW HAVE PRO-DEMOCRACY YOU KNOW HAVE PRO-DEMOCRACY FORCES AS EVERYONE HAS SAID, ANY FORCES AS EVERYONE HAS SAID, ANY OTHER AMERICAN WOULD BE STANDING OTHER AMERICAN WOULD BE STANDING UP FOR BECAUSE LIVES ARE ON THE UP FOR BECAUSE LIVES ARE ON THE LINE. LINE. NOT JUST IN FOREIGN POLICY THAT NOT JUST IN FOREIGN POLICY THAT AFFECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BUT AFFECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BUT LIVES OF THE PRO DEMOCRACY LIVES OF THE PRO DEMOCRACY PROTESTERS. PROTESTERS. WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE ANY WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE ANY CRITIC, NOT JUST A DEMOCRAT, BUT CRITIC, NOT JUST A DEMOCRAT, BUT ANY CRITIC OF DONALD TRUMP’S ANY CRITIC OF DONALD TRUMP’S CONDUCT OVER THE LAST FOUR DAYS CONDUCT OVER THE LAST FOUR DAYS TO DO AND SAY IN. TO DO AND SAY IN.>>LOOK, NICOLLE, IT LOCKS LIKE>>LOOK, NICOLLE, IT LOCKS LIKE THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE NO THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE NO LONGER JUST THE KBUN CONTROLGUN LONGER JUST THE KBUN CONTROLGUN POLICY OF THE TRUMP POLICY OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. ADMINISTRATION. HE’S STANDING ON THE TARMAC HE’S STANDING ON THE TARMAC SAYING I HOPE IT WORKS OUT OKAY, SAYING I HOPE IT WORKS OUT OKAY, PEACEFUL AND WHATEVER. PEACEFUL AND WHATEVER. FOR HIS CRITICS, REPUBLICAN FOR HIS CRITICS, REPUBLICAN CRITICS AND DEMOCRATIC CRITICS, CRITICS AND DEMOCRATIC CRITICS, AN AMERICA ABSENT FROM THE WORLD AN AMERICA ABSENT FROM THE WORLD STAGE AND ABSENT FOR STANDING STAGE AND ABSENT FOR STANDING FROM DEMOCRACY GOES TO RICK’S FROM DEMOCRACY GOES TO RICK’S POINT OF IDEALISM AND REALISM. POINT OF IDEALISM AND REALISM. THERE’S AN IDEALISTIC ELEMENT, THERE’S AN IDEALISTIC ELEMENT, AMERICANS STANDING FOR DEMOCRACY AMERICANS STANDING FOR DEMOCRACY BUT REALISTIC ELEMENT. BUT REALISTIC ELEMENT. ONE COUNTRY’S GOING TO WRITE THE ONE COUNTRY’S GOING TO WRITE THE RULES FOR THE 21st CENTURY, RULES FOR THE 21st CENTURY, EITHER THE UNITED STATES OR EITHER THE UNITED STATES OR CHINA. CHINA. IF AMERICA DOESN’T LEAN FORWARD, IF AMERICA DOESN’T LEAN FORWARD, WE ARE BASICALLY CEDING THE WE ARE BASICALLY CEDING THE ENTIRE PACIFIC TO CHINA. ENTIRE PACIFIC TO CHINA. THAT’S NOT ONLY BAD FOR THAT’S NOT ONLY BAD FOR DEMOCRACY, IT’S BAD FOR OUR DEMOCRACY, IT’S BAD FOR OUR ALLIES THERE AND COUNTRIES LIKE ALLIES THERE AND COUNTRIES LIKE SOUTH KOREAN AND JAPAN, IT’S BAD SOUTH KOREAN AND JAPAN, IT’S BAD FOR AMERICAN INTERESTS AND TRADE FOR AMERICAN INTERESTS AND TRADE AND JOBS. AND JOBS. I THINK WHAT TRUMP’S CRITICS I THINK WHAT TRUMP’S CRITICS HAVE TO HIT ON IS THE PASS HAVE TO HIT ON IS THE PASS SIEVETY, IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE SIEVETY, IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE BY TRUMP THAT IS PUTTING OUR BY TRUMP THAT IS PUTTING OUR IDEALS AT RISK, ECONOMY AT RISK IDEALS AT RISK, ECONOMY AT RISK AND NATIONAL SECURITY AT RISK. AND NATIONAL SECURITY AT RISK. AND I THINK THAT’S THE CRITIQUE AND I THINK THAT’S THE CRITIQUE THAT NEEDS TO COME AT TRUMP. THAT NEEDS TO COME AT TRUMP.>>ELISE, LET ME HAVE YOU TEE UP>>ELISE, LET ME HAVE YOU TEE UP ON ALL OF THIS AND GIVE YOU ONE ON ALL OF THIS AND GIVE YOU ONE MORE REPORTING FROM “THE NEW MORE REPORTING FROM “THE NEW YORK TIMES.” YORK TIMES.” WANING OF AMERICAN POWER TRUMP WANING OF AMERICAN POWER TRUMP STRUGGLES OF AN ASIA CRISIS. STRUGGLES OF AN ASIA CRISIS. BY FAILING TO ACT AND ASSUME BY FAILING TO ACT AND ASSUME LEADERSHIP IN THE REGION, TRUMP LEADERSHIP IN THE REGION, TRUMP IS ALLOWING LONG, COMPLICATED IS ALLOWING LONG, COMPLICATED HISTORY TO FALL BACK AS HISTORY TO FALL BACK AS TRADITIONAL RIVALS. TRADITIONAL RIVALS. THE MORE THEY FEEL UNITED STATES THE MORE THEY FEEL UNITED STATES IS AN UNRELIABLE PARTNER, THE IS AN UNRELIABLE PARTNER, THE MORE THEY WILL DEFEND MORE THEY WILL DEFEND THEMSELVES. THEMSELVES. I’M HEARING GROWING CALLS IN I’M HEARING GROWING CALLS IN SOUTH KOREA FOR THEIR OWN SOUTH KOREA FOR THEIR OWN NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THAT IS AN EXPERT AT THE WILSON THAT IS AN EXPERT AT THE WILSON CENTER. CENTER. DO YOU AGREE? DO YOU AGREE?>>I DO.>>I DO. AND I THINK THAT GOES TO RON’S AND I THINK THAT GOES TO RON’S POINT. POINT. IT’S GOOD TO TALK ABOUT AMERICAN IT’S GOOD TO TALK ABOUT AMERICAN VALUES AND AMERICAN IDEALS BUT VALUES AND AMERICAN IDEALS BUT THIS IS BECOMING AN ISSUE OF THIS IS BECOMING AN ISSUE OF NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE U.S. WHEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN ARE WHEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN ARE FIGHTING OVER KASHMIR, NOW PACK FIGHTING OVER KASHMIR, NOW PACK STAJ STAJ STAN STAN PAKISTAN IS THREATENING ITS PAKISTAN IS THREATENING ITS SUPPORT FOR THE AFGHAN DEAL. SUPPORT FOR THE AFGHAN DEAL. NOW JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA ARE NOW JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA ARE REKINDLING THEIR OLD TRADE REKINDLING THEIR OLD TRADE RIVALRIES. RIVALRIES. THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT ENDING AN THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT ENDING AN YENS PARTNER SHN THAT THE U.S. YENS PARTNER SHN THAT THE U.S. NEEDS FOR SURVEILLANCE ON NORTH NEEDS FOR SURVEILLANCE ON NORTH KOREA. KOREA. YOU LOOK AROUND AND NORTH KOREA YOU LOOK AROUND AND NORTH KOREA TESTED FIVE SHORT-RANGE MISSILES TESTED FIVE SHORT-RANGE MISSILES AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE TALKING AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW HIM AND KIM JONG-UN ABOUT HOW HIM AND KIM JONG-UN LOVE EACH OTHER. LOVE EACH OTHER. IT’S NOT ONLY LACK OF INTEREST IT’S NOT ONLY LACK OF INTEREST AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT THE AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT THE MORE THE PRESIDENT RETREATS, MORE THE PRESIDENT RETREATS, OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA AND CHINA, THERE ARE COUNTRIES THAT CHINA, THERE ARE COUNTRIES THAT ARE GOING TO FILL THAT VACUUM. ARE GOING TO FILL THAT VACUUM. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO DO IT IN A THEY’RE NOT GOING TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT THE U.S. WANTS. WAY THAT THE U.S. WANTS. PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES HAVE SOME PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES HAVE SOME ADVISERS, YOU KNOW, MATT ADVISERS, YOU KNOW, MATT POTTINGER ON ASIA OR EVEN JOHN POTTINGER ON ASIA OR EVEN JOHN BOLTON, WHO BEHIND THE SCENES BOLTON, WHO BEHIND THE SCENES ARE TRYING TO MAKE SOME ARE TRYING TO MAKE SOME MANEUVERS. MANEUVERS. BUT WHEN YOU FAIL TO SEE SOME BUT WHEN YOU FAIL TO SEE SOME KIND OF HIGH-LEVEL INTEREST AND KIND OF HIGH-LEVEL INTEREST AND ENGAGEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT, A ENGAGEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT, A WARNING, FOR INSTANCE TO CHINA, WARNING, FOR INSTANCE TO CHINA, HE’S SAYING THAT HE HOPES NO ONE HE’S SAYING THAT HE HOPES NO ONE GETS KILLED, BUT HE’S NOT MAKING GETS KILLED, BUT HE’S NOT MAKING A STARK WARNING TO CHINA, YOU A STARK WARNING TO CHINA, YOU ABOUT BETTER STAND DOWN. ABOUT BETTER STAND DOWN. INSTEAD HE’S SAYING I HOPE THIS INSTEAD HE’S SAYING I HOPE THIS WORKS OUT FOR CHINA. WORKS OUT FOR CHINA. HE DOES SEEM A LITTLE MORE HE DOES SEEM A LITTLE MORE INTERESTED IN THE TRADE DEAL INTERESTED IN THE TRADE DEAL WITH CHINA THAN CRACKING DOWN ON WITH CHINA THAN CRACKING DOWN ON HUMAN RIGHTS. HUMAN RIGHTS. I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT FEELS VULNERABLE ABOUT PRESIDENT FEELS VULNERABLE ABOUT HIS LACK OF FOREIGN POLICY HIS LACK OF FOREIGN POLICY GRAVITAS AND BE DIPLOMATIC ABOUT GRAVITAS AND BE DIPLOMATIC ABOUT IT, IF THERE’S A SERIOUS IT, IF THERE’S A SERIOUS TIANANMEN-TYPE CRACKDOWN IN HONG TIANANMEN-TYPE CRACKDOWN IN HONG KONG, I THINK THAT COULD BE ONE KONG, I THINK THAT COULD BE ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S STINGING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S STINGING FOREIGN POLICY LEGACIES. FOREIGN POLICY LEGACIES. SO I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THE SO I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT HIS ADVISERS AROUND REASONS THAT HIS ADVISERS AROUND HIM ARE VERY CONCERNED. HIM ARE VERY CONCERNED.>>AND, LISTEN, I DON’T WANT TO>>AND, LISTEN, I DON’T WANT TO HOLD THE POSITION, RICK, THAT HOLD THE POSITION, RICK, THAT HAVING A LEARNING CURVE IS A HAVING A LEARNING CURVE IS A POLITICAL VULNERABILITY. POLITICAL VULNERABILITY. WE WOULD NEVER NOMINATE OR ELECT WE WOULD NEVER NOMINATE OR ELECT GOVERNORS. GOVERNORS. WE WOULD NOT ELECT HALF OF THE WE WOULD NOT ELECT HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN CONGRESS AND WE WOULD PEOPLE IN CONGRESS AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE ELECTED DONALD TRUMP. NOT HAVE ELECTED DONALD TRUMP. BUT I GUESS THE TOXICITY IS BUT I GUESS THE TOXICITY IS AROUND THE COMBINATION, THE AROUND THE COMBINATION, THE IMPULSE AND INSTINCT AS A HUMAN IMPULSE AND INSTINCT AS A HUMAN BEING ARE TOLD AUTOCRACYth BEING ARE TOLD AUTOCRACYth THERE’S NO INTELLECTUAL THERE’S NO INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY AND NO STAFF. CURIOSITY AND NO STAFF. I REMEMBER SAYING — I THINK I REMEMBER SAYING — I THINK SOME OF YOU WERE HERE THE DAY SOME OF YOU WERE HERE THE DAY MATTIS RESIGNED OVER HIS MATTIS RESIGNED OVER HIS DISAGREEMENTS WITH DONALD TRUMP DISAGREEMENTS WITH DONALD TRUMP ON SYRIA POLICY, IT WAS A ON SYRIA POLICY, IT WAS A DANGEROUS DAY NOT JUST FOR THIS DANGEROUS DAY NOT JUST FOR THIS COUNTRY BUT FOR THE WORLD. COUNTRY BUT FOR THE WORLD. HR McMASTER AND DINA POWELL USED HR McMASTER AND DINA POWELL USED TO BE IN THE SIT ROOM EVERY DAY. TO BE IN THE SIT ROOM EVERY DAY. WHO IS EVEN THERE? WHO IS EVEN THERE?>>THE LEARNING CURVE FOR HIM IS>>THE LEARNING CURVE FOR HIM IS JUST THE LEARNING CURVE ABOUT JUST THE LEARNING CURVE ABOUT AMERICAN VALUES. AMERICAN VALUES. HE DOESN’T KNOW WHO WOODROW HE DOESN’T KNOW WHO WOODROW WILSON IS. WILSON IS. HE DOESN’T KNOW WE HAVE HE DOESN’T KNOW WE HAVE HISTORICALLY STOOD UP FOR HUMAN HISTORICALLY STOOD UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. RIGHTS. I REMEMBER ONCE HAVING A MEETING I REMEMBER ONCE HAVING A MEETING WITH AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN FOREIGN WITH AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN FOREIGN MINISTER — MINISTER –>>DO YOU THINK HE KNOWS HOW>>DO YOU THINK HE KNOWS HOW MANY DEMOCRACIES THERE ARE IN MANY DEMOCRACIES THERE ARE IN THE WORLD? THE WORLD?>>NO, I DON’T THINK HE EVEN>>NO, I DON’T THINK HE EVEN KNOWS DEMOCRACIES ARE IN KNOWS DEMOCRACIES ARE IN RETREAT. RETREAT. YOU LOOK AT THE LAST TEN YEARS, YOU LOOK AT THE LAST TEN YEARS, FEWER COUNTRIES QUALIFY AS A FEWER COUNTRIES QUALIFY AS A DEMOCRACY. DEMOCRACY. AND THERE’S THIS RISE OF AND THERE’S THIS RISE OF AUTOCRACY, WHICH HE IS AIDING AUTOCRACY, WHICH HE IS AIDING AND ABETTING. AND ABETTING. THAT TO ME IS THE WORST GLOBAL THAT TO ME IS THE WORST GLOBAL AFFAIR AT ALL. AFFAIR AT ALL. I HAD AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRIME I HAD AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRIME MINISTER S TO ME, YOU COME AND MINISTER S TO ME, YOU COME AND TALK TO ME ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS TALK TO ME ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE CHINESE COME AND SAY I AND THE CHINESE COME AND SAY I WILL BUILD YOU A SUPER HIGHWAY. WILL BUILD YOU A SUPER HIGHWAY. WHO AM I GOING TO LISTEN TO? WHO AM I GOING TO LISTEN TO? OF COURSE YOU’RE GOING TO LISTEN OF COURSE YOU’RE GOING TO LISTEN TO THE CHINESE. TO THE CHINESE. BUT THOSE PEOPLE IN HONG KONG, BUT THOSE PEOPLE IN HONG KONG, THEY NEED TO LISTEN TO AN THEY NEED TO LISTEN TO AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT SAYING WE AMERICAN PRESIDENT SAYING WE SUPPORT YOUR ASPIRATIONS FOR SUPPORT YOUR ASPIRATIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH. PRESS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THAT IS THE THING THAT AMERICAN THAT IS THE THING THAT AMERICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE ALWAYS STOOD FOR PRESIDENTS HAVE ALWAYS STOOD FOR AND DONALD TRUMP DOES NOT GET AND DONALD TRUMP DOES NOT GET THAT AND HAS NEVER LEARNED IT. THAT AND HAS NEVER LEARNED IT.>>LISTEN, THAT’S THE OTHER>>LISTEN, THAT’S THE OTHER THING TOO, YOU ASKED WHERE IS THING TOO, YOU ASKED WHERE IS THE STAFF? THE STAFF? WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE IF WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE IF THEY WERE THERE? THEY WERE THERE? I HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THIS I HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THIS ADMINISTRATION FOR IS ADMINISTRATION FOR IS HOLLOWNESS, THE FACT THEY’RE NOT HOLLOWNESS, THE FACT THEY’RE NOT CAPABLE, EXPERIENCED PEOPLE AT CAPABLE, EXPERIENCED PEOPLE AT ALL LEVELS GOING DOWN AND CAN ALL LEVELS GOING DOWN AND CAN GET STUFF DONE. GET STUFF DONE. BUT THE FACT IS THE PRESIDENT — BUT THE FACT IS THE PRESIDENT — MIKE POMPEO IS NOT A STUPID MIKE POMPEO IS NOT A STUPID PERFECT. PERFECT. I KNOW MIKE POMPEO. I KNOW MIKE POMPEO. HE’S NOT A STUPID PERSON AT ALL. HE’S NOT A STUPID PERSON AT ALL. HE UNDERSTANDS THE HISTORY. HE UNDERSTANDS THE HISTORY. AND SO — AS YOU SAID, HE WON’T AND SO — AS YOU SAID, HE WON’T GET OUT IN FRONT OF THE GET OUT IN FRONT OF THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. BECAUSE IF HE SAYS SOMETHING, IT BECAUSE IF HE SAYS SOMETHING, IT COULD BE COUNTERED BY TWEET FIVE COULD BE COUNTERED BY TWEET FIVE MINUTES LATER. MINUTES LATER. IT IS THIS DYSTOPIAN AND OTHER IT IS THIS DYSTOPIAN AND OTHER UNIVERSE WE’VE FALLEN INTO. UNIVERSE WE’VE FALLEN INTO. ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION, ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WOULD BE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WOULD BE WAITING TO HEAR WHAT’S THE WAITING TO HEAR WHAT’S THE UNITED STATES IS SAYING ABOUT UNITED STATES IS SAYING ABOUT HONG KONG. HONG KONG. NOT NOW. NOT NOW. THERE I DON’T LIKE TO GIVE THERE I DON’T LIKE TO GIVE CREDIT TO REPUBLICANS WHO HELPED CREDIT TO REPUBLICANS WHO HELPED BUILD FRANK INSTEIN, UH-OH, BUILD FRANK INSTEIN, UH-OH, FRANK INSTEIN DOESN’T LISTEN TO FRANK INSTEIN DOESN’T LISTEN TO ME OF THE BUT IN THAT VAIN, LET ME OF THE BUT IN THAT VAIN, LET ME SAY ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI SAYING ME SAY ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI SAYING TRUMP MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED TRUMP MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED FOR 2020. FOR 2020. JOE WALSH, ANOTHER TEA PARTY JOE WALSH, ANOTHER TEA PARTY MEMBER, CALLING FOR A PRIMARY MEMBER, CALLING FOR A PRIMARY CHALLENGE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. CHALLENGE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. IT’S A LONELY JOURNEY THOUGH, IT’S A LONELY JOURNEY THOUGH, THE PEOPLE THAT KNEW HIM FROM THE PEOPLE THAT KNEW HIM FROM BIRTHERISM AND PEOPLE THAT SAW BIRTHERISM AND PEOPLE THAT SAW HIM ATTACK NURSES AND DOCTORS IN HIM ATTACK NURSES AND DOCTORS IN AFRICA IN 2015 TO FIGHT EBOLA. AFRICA IN 2015 TO FIGHT EBOLA. I GUESS I WILL TAKE A LAKE GUESS I GUESS I WILL TAKE A LAKE GUESS AT THE PARTY — LATE GUESS AT AT THE PARTY — LATE GUESS AT THE PARTY OVER NONE. THE PARTY OVER NONE. BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK OF — BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK OF — THERE NEVER WAS A FOUL-MOUTHED THERE NEVER WAS A FOUL-MOUTHED ENTHUSIAST THAN ANTHONY ENTHUSIAST THAN ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI. SCARAMUCCI.>>I DON’T WANT TO SPEND TOO>>I DON’T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME WORRYING ABOUT ANTHONY MUCH TIME WORRYING ABOUT ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI BUT THE POINT ABOUT SCARAMUCCI BUT THE POINT ABOUT MIKE POMPEO AND POLITICS OF THE MIKE POMPEO AND POLITICS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, IF MIKE POMPEO REPUBLICAN PARTY, IF MIKE POMPEO IS THE SEBLTS,Z, SECRETARY OF ST IS THE SEBLTS,Z, SECRETARY OF ST OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO HAS A OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO HAS A LITTLE TO SAY AND NOT SERVING IN LITTLE TO SAY AND NOT SERVING IN AN ACTING CAPACITY AND YOU’RE AN ACTING CAPACITY AND YOU’RE HERE AND I CAN’T GET RID OF YOU HERE AND I CAN’T GET RID OF YOU AND DON’T DO ANYTHING I DON’T AND DON’T DO ANYTHING I DON’T WANT YOU TO DO OR DON’T LIKE, WANT YOU TO DO OR DON’T LIKE, MIKE POMPEO MAY HAVE AMBITIONS MIKE POMPEO MAY HAVE AMBITIONS TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE THIS JOB TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE THIS JOB IN THE POLITICAL SPACE. IN THE POLITICAL SPACE. AND IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN AND IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN BEING A POLITICIAN, THE BEING A POLITICIAN, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AT THIS MOMENT, REPUBLICAN PARTY AT THIS MOMENT, YOU RECOGNIZE THIS IS DONALD YOU RECOGNIZE THIS IS DONALD TRUMP’S PARTY. TRUMP’S PARTY. AND YOU TALK ALL THE TIME ABOUT AND YOU TALK ALL THE TIME ABOUT WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO PUT SERVICE ABOVE AM IGSBITIO TO PUT SERVICE ABOVE AM IGSBITIO NATIONAL SECURITY ABOVE NATIONAL SECURITY ABOVE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. I DON’T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. I DON’T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN TOO MANY BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THOSE IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THOSE IMPORTANT POSITIONS ACTUALLY STEP UP AND POSITIONS ACTUALLY STEP UP AND SAY THE THINGS THAT ARE SAY THE THINGS THAT ARE BASICALLY SELF-EVIDENT AT THIS BASICALLY SELF-EVIDENT AT THIS POINT. POINT. YOU SEE PEOPLE LIKE ANTHONY YOU SEE PEOPLE LIKE ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI ON THE SIDELINES WHO SCARAMUCCI ON THE SIDELINES WHO MAY BE ABLE TO GET AN OP ED IN MAY BE ABLE TO GET AN OP ED IN THE PAPER, GET AN INTERVIEW ON THE PAPER, GET AN INTERVIEW ON TV AND COME FORWARD AFTER THE TV AND COME FORWARD AFTER THE FACT AND RECOGNIZE WHAT’S BEEN FACT AND RECOGNIZE WHAT’S BEEN RECOGNIZABLE FOR A LONG, LONG RECOGNIZABLE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. TIME. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING IN THIS PARTY WHO WANT TO STAY IN THIS PARTY WHO WANT TO STAY IN THIS PARTY, THEY ARE FALLING IN THIS PARTY, THEY ARE FALLING IN LINE BEHIND THIS PRESIDENT IN LINE BEHIND THIS PRESIDENT BECAUSE THAT’S THE POLITICAL BECAUSE THAT’S THE POLITICAL REALITY IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A REALITY IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A PLACE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PLACE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF 2019. 2019.>>ELISE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE>>ELISE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD ON THIS. LAST WORD ON THIS. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO UNDERSCORE AND ASK YOUR UNDERSCORE AND ASK YOUR THOUGHTS, JOHN McCAIN USED TO BE THOUGHTS, JOHN McCAIN USED TO BE ANOTHER NUMBER THAT WORLD ANOTHER NUMBER THAT WORLD LEADERS COULD CALL, ESPECIALLY LEADERS COULD CALL, ESPECIALLY RUSSIA’S NEIGHBORS WHO FELT RUSSIA’S NEIGHBORS WHO FELT THREATENED. THREATENED. WHEN I WORKED ON HIS CAMPAIGN, WHEN I WORKED ON HIS CAMPAIGN, HE WAS OFTEN ON THE PHONE WITH HE WAS OFTEN ON THE PHONE WITH FOREIGN LEADERS ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN LEADERS ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. FOREIGN POLICY. FRANKLY, HILLARY CLINTON AS FRANKLY, HILLARY CLINTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE AND U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE AND U.S. SENATOR WAS THE SAME KIND OF SENATOR WAS THE SAME KIND OF AMERICAN LEADER. AMERICAN LEADER. JOHN KERRY IN THE SENATE. JOHN KERRY IN THE SENATE. OBVIOUSLY LATER AS SECRETARY OF OBVIOUSLY LATER AS SECRETARY OF STATE. STATE. WHO WOULD THAT EVEN BE? WHO WOULD THAT EVEN BE? LIKE IF YOU HAVE A CELL PHONE LIKE IF YOU HAVE A CELL PHONE AND YOU WANT TO CALL SOMEBODY IN AND YOU WANT TO CALL SOMEBODY IN AMERICA AND SAY, KIDS ARE ABOUT AMERICA AND SAY, KIDS ARE ABOUT TO DIE HERE IN HONG KONG AT THE TO DIE HERE IN HONG KONG AT THE AIRPORT. AIRPORT. IT’S GETTING UGLY. IT’S GETTING UGLY. WHO DO YOU CALL? WHO DO YOU CALL? WHO DO YOU EVEN DIAL? WHO DO YOU EVEN DIAL?>>I THINK AND HOPED IT WOULD BE>>I THINK AND HOPED IT WOULD BE LINDSEY GRAHAM. LINDSEY GRAHAM. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE ISSUES OF NATIONAL SECURITY, ISSUES OF NATIONAL SECURITY, LINDSEY GRAHAM IS SPEAKING OUT. LINDSEY GRAHAM IS SPEAKING OUT.>>BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND –>>BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND — I WOULDN’T CALL LINDSEY GRAHAM. I WOULDN’T CALL LINDSEY GRAHAM.>>I WOULDN’T CALL LINDSEY>>I WOULDN’T CALL LINDSEY GRAHAM EITHER. GRAHAM EITHER. EVEN THOUGH HIS RHETORIC TALKS EVEN THOUGH HIS RHETORIC TALKS IN FAVOR OF THE DEMONSTRATORS, IN FAVOR OF THE DEMONSTRATORS, IT’S FALLING ON NANCY PELOSI. IT’S FALLING ON NANCY PELOSI. SHE SAID SHE’S WILLING TO PUT SHE SAID SHE’S WILLING TO PUT FORWARD LEGISLATION THAT WOULD FORWARD LEGISLATION THAT WOULD SANCTION CHINESE OFFICIALS SANCTION CHINESE OFFICIALS CRACKING DOWN ON HONG KONG. CRACKING DOWN ON HONG KONG. THE QUESTION IS WHAT IMPACT IS THE QUESTION IS WHAT IMPACT IS THAT GOING TO BE? THAT GOING TO BE? I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT A CASE I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT A CASE SUCH AS RUSSIA, THERE WERE SUCH AS RUSSIA, THERE WERE OFFICIALS AROUND PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFICIALS AROUND PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT GAVE HIM SOME SANCTIONS ON THAT GAVE HIM SOME SANCTIONS ON UKRAINE, OTHER ISSUES. UKRAINE, OTHER ISSUES. PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN’T DISPUTE PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN’T DISPUTE IT. IT. HE LET IT GO AHEAD. HE LET IT GO AHEAD. I THINK IF OFFICIALS WERE BRAVE I THINK IF OFFICIALS WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO BRING SOMETHING TO ENOUGH TO BRING SOMETHING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE WOULDN’T SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE WOULDN’T SAY NO. NO. BUT AGAIN WITH THE ABSENCE OF BUT AGAIN WITH THE ABSENCE OF SOME KIND OF PRESIDENTIAL SOME KIND OF PRESIDENTIAL DECLARATION, WARNING AGAINST DECLARATION, WARNING AGAINST CHINA IN SUPPORT OF HONG KONG, I CHINA IN SUPPORT OF HONG KONG, I THINK IT’S GOING TO FALL ON THINK IT’S GOING TO FALL ON CONGRESS AND THE QUESTION IS CONGRESS AND THE QUESTION IS WHAT IMPACT IS IT GOING HAVE? WHAT IMPACT IS IT GOING HAVE?>>YOU WANT TO TRY TO ANSWER>>YOU WANT TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT, WHAT IMPACT, SFLIK. THAT, WHAT IMPACT, SFLIK.>>IT’S GOING TO HAVE A NEGATIVE

DiEM25 will contest the European Parliament elections in Italy – Yanis Varoufakis | DiEM25


Hi everyone, we will do this conference
in English. that’s the first information to let you
know. But there will be the possibility to ask
questions in Italian. They will be translated, Alessio is the one
who’s going to do it. Of course replies will be translated. I would like to thank Yanis Varoufakis,
for accepting our invitation to come here and tell us the latest news
about his movement, and of course his opinion on what is going on in Italy. I’m going to ask actually a question, exactly on this, it’s going to be my first
question : If you can give us some insight on your
agenda and your new alliances in Europe. I’m thinking of course about the European
elections of next year. There were some talking about five
movement stars (5 Star movement)
and also Mélenchon so we would like to understand, if you can
tell us something about your plans for the next weeks and months? Tank you! Well tank you so much, tanks to all of you.
for being here. Tank you for your hospitality. Thank you for your question. The main reason why we’re here is because
Italy today is being torn apart by two destructive forces. One is Brussels, and
the other is Salvini. By the failed establishment of Renzi,
Merkel, Junker, Moscovici on the one hand and by the reckless, racist, xenophobic,
anti-European Salvini project. What we are doing as Diem25 in Italy,
France, Germany, Greece has to be seen in this context. Today Italy is ground
zero of the European crisis. Italy should be in the focus of
progressives around the World. Brussels and Salvini, this is a statement
that may surprise some of you, Brussels and Salvini are working very well
together, as we speak, against the interests of Italians, in particular, and
of Europeans in general. Salvini is Brussels’ greatest supporter.
Junker, Merkel, Macron et al. are hanging on to power with the argument:
“whatever mistakes we have made in Brussels in Berlin, in Rome (talking about Renzi),
after us comes Salvini. So you’d better support us. And Brussels is
is also Salvini’s greatest supporter. By imposing on Italy rules that guarantee
Italy’s stagnation, and falling income for the average Italians, they enable Salvini’s
sortie into xenophobic populism. Allow me to turn directly to the issue
that concern most of you here in Italy today. The clash on the Italian budget
with Brussels. Our position as Diem25 is that both
Brussels and the Lega-5 Stelle government are profoundly and intentionally wrong.
Brussels is wrong to impose on Italy fiscal and banking rules that guarantee
Italy’s stagnation. Rules that were agreed too, by the now
collapsing Italian establishment. The EU’s revamped fiscal rules are
analytically baseless. There is no such things as a structural
deficit. It can not be measured and it should not be measured. It based on faulty
economics. They are forcing Rome to introduce
austerity at a time when Italy’s growth has collapsed to almost 0%. If the Italian
government, any Italian government, were to follow the fiscal compact, you would have an increase in
the debt to GDP ratio. Not a fall, because the denominator, your GDP, would
go into reversal. You would have an other recession. The Lega-5Stelle government is wrong also.
This budget will not boost growth sufficiently to make a difference to most
people, the result would be a deficit overshoot without much benefit. Cutting for instance
the top tax rate will not boost growth. When the rich receive a hand-out, they
take it to Switzerland or to Luxembourg, or save it. Even worse, it is our view that
both Brussels and this government know that they are wrong. Brussels is
choosing to be wrong, because Brussels, the bureaucracy, is more interested in
maintaining control over our countries than they are in shared prosperity across
Europe. And the Lega-5 Stelle government is
choosing to be wrong, because Salvini and Di Maio are more interested in
maintaining this precarious alliance than in the prosperity of the Italian
people. So, here we are as Diem25 facing this
situation : Italy stagnates because its centrist establishment agreed to EU rules
that choked Italy, causing its own political demise, the political demise
of the establishment that approved these rules, and paving the ground for Salvini.
The ancient regime of Renzi et al. and his patrons in Brussels and the Lega-
5 Stelle government are two faces of the same problem. And they will continue to
reinforce each other while Italy sinks, while Europe fragments. One of the side
effects, the collateral damage of this clash between Salvini and Brussels is that we
have stopped talking about the Eurozone reforms, that are absolutely necessary
to keep Italy in the Eurozone. To keep Greece in the Eurozone, to keep
the Eurozone sustainable. Reforms that even Macron discussed are
now dead in the water. The oligarchic establishment the PD, Forza
Italia…, caused the problem and today they cannot pretend to be part of the
solution. Salvini is exploiting this to bring through his rabid xenophobia a new
fascist moment in Italy. While 5stelle is increasingly discredited
as a crutch on which Salvini is leaning to take over government completely
next year. We must act now, Italy has an urgent need
for a new progressive alternative to the implicit but destructive alliance
between the establishment and Salvini’s nationalism. But what Italy does
not need from us progressives is yet another sad leftist alliance of
the usual left wings suspects. Italy does not need another Frankenstein
left wing list that stitches together the dead parts of what used to be Italy’s
glorious left. The last thing Italians needs is another
list of leftist candidates lacking a coherent program of change. A Europeanist
program of change that answers the question what do you do with the banks,
what do you do with public debt What do you do with poverty, not only in
Italy but also in France, in Germany, in Greece. This is why we are here today, to
announce that we are going to put together such a list, with a single, coherent,
credible program. You may very well ask : and who are you?
Who are we, who are going to do this? Last march, in Napoli, Diem25, I was there,
colleagues, political movements from Poland, Denmark, Portugal, my friend B.
Hamon from France together with Luigi De Magistris, the mayor of Napoli we
embarked upon this project of putting together a transnational list with a
coherent program across Europe. This program is now complete, after many
months of very hard work It is the progressive, ecological, feminist
humanist, rational program of the pan-European coalition that we now call :
“Primavera europea”, “European spring”. What we propose, because this is Italy and
we have a major crisis, allow me to start with Italy. Let me give you an
example of the kind of proposal we are bringing to the table, that address the
local, the national and the European at the same time. The first thing we propose, regarding the
Italian budget, is that the component of it which concerns minimum guaranteed income
is introduced and indeed expanded. Simultaneously, number 2, scrap Salvini’s
top tax cuts – when you give hand-outs to the rich, as I said before, you are not
boosting growth, we have known this forever Why have we forgotten it now? Replace those
tax-cuts with a growth enhancing green investment plan, that pushes the deficit,
not to 2.4% of GDP, but to 3% of GDP, but most of it is made up of public
investment, we are talking about something like 20 billion, for 3 purposes: first, the
industrial and ecological transition necessary in this country, to solve
for instance problems like ILVA in Taranto and off-shoring of low-added-value
manufacturing; secondly, environmental safety, beginning
with a plan for seismic prevention, that we have included in our program,
and thirdly, investment in infrastructure to avoid repetition of the Genoa disaster
and invest in sustainable transport. And what about the fiscal rules of the EU?
Our proposal is that we go from 2.4 to 3 but in a growth enhancing manner. Well,
if the EU wants Italy to adhere to the fiscal compact, it can be done. Our proposal
is that the government of Italy calls for an EU council summit, to propose
the following: in order to reduce the fiscal deficit of
Italy from 3% to 0,8%, even to 0%, if Europe cares for this so badly, that we
adopt, as the EU, the EU council can give this green light, as a result of one simple
decision, no need for any treaty changes whatsoever, to give the
green light to the European Investment bank that belongs to all EU member states, for
issuing EIB bonds up to 5% of Eurozone GDP per year, for 5 years, this is about 500
billion Euros, with the European Central Bank standing by
in the secondary bond market to purchase those bonds, in the same way that it has
been doing for the last few years. This way you boost investment, public
investment, through the EIB in Italy in Germany, in Greece, by 5% of GDP, and
that way you can ameliorate, then you could have an Italian government, which is
reducing Italian deficit down to the levels prescribed by the European Council and
the fiscal pact. This is part of our New Deal for Europe,
you can see that we are combining a solution for Italy with a solution for
Europe. Europe desperately needs a large scale green investment program
to create the good quality jobs that we are lacking across Europe, which are
causing our young into precarious jobs in Germany as much as in Italy, which feeds
the nationalist internationalism across Europe, racism, xenophobia,
we need to make this investment in the green energy union that we do not have,
for many reasons, for the planet’s sake, but also for the sake of becoming decoupled
from Putin’s Gazprom. Diem25, in every country, we just gave you
an example here in Italy, combine solutions at the pan-European level, with solutions
at the national level, indeed, the regional level. Ladies
and Gentlemen, austerity for the many and socialism for the bankers, has given
rise to the present fascist moment in Italy to the collapse of the political centre
everywhere, to the reactionary, divided Europe that Mr. Trump dreams of.
Today here in Rome we are saying: Enough! We are saying another Italy,
another Europe, is not only possible but it is here, in the form of our
transnational movement, with a single coherent program that people
can believe in in Italy, in Germany, in France, everywhere. Talking about our next steps: we are here
as part of the process that we began in Napoli, in March of this year, with Luigi
De Magistris, with Benoît Hamon of Génération, with the Alternativet party
in Denmark, with Razem in Poland, with Livre in Portugal, with Mera25, our
new party in Greece, with green parties that we are in discussions with, with
leftist parties, but what matters to us is that we do not simply present to you
a list of people who want to be elected, that our list should have one common
radical europeanist program, Whoever wants to discuss this program with
us. Which is at a very advanced stage you can go into europeanspring.net, and
read our program for Europe as a whole, anyone who wants to discuss this, you can
come along. The discussion ‘are you with Melenchon’,
are you with… whoever, is not the kind of discussion that people out there care for.
This is old style politics, we are not interested in it, we are interested in
solutions. Anyone who wants to join us on the basis of one program for the whole
of Europe that works for Italy, that works for Germany, can come with us and will be
part of this list. The European Parliament elections of May
2019, they are only a start, they give us an opportunity to have this debate.
We will use the May elections to transcend the fake conflict between Salvini and
Brussels, between the authoritarian incompetent establishment and the
misanthropic nationalist international. Diem Italia is here, we are moving up and
down the country, we are scheduling 3 major events in November, there is going to be
one, the final one in Milano, there is going to be one in Taranto, there are going to be
3 major events, we are beginning to collect the signatures that are necessary for Diem
Italia to run in Italy, we invite all the various partners that we embarked upon this
journey last March in Napoli, to join us but there is no more time to waste.
We are moving, we are declaring our presence in Italy and elsewhere, because we are
going to be doing the same thing, there will be a similar announcement of a
political party belonging to Diem25 in Germany on the 24th and 25th of November
in Greece we have already started, in France… we are here not only to contest
an election, but we are here to bring to the people of Italy a scent of next May’s
European Spring, with a message: Italian progressives are no longer alone!
Thank you. Than you Yanis,
We open the questions, so, if there are any? Do you need a translation, anything in
particular? OK, yes, so… Hello, Angela Maoro, Huffington Post Italy:
You didn’t talk about the immigration, which is a topic on which Salvini gains votes.
So what do you have to say about that? I think it’s a topical point in the next
European electoral campaign for everybody.
Thanks. Europe does not have a migration crisis.
Italy and Greece, we have a migration problem. Why? Because there is no such
things as a EU. Europe as a whole is large enough and rich
enough to deal with this problem in a humane way. We must bind together in order
to change the position of the EU regarding migration. But we are not going to do it
through using migrants as scape goats We are not going to succeed either saving
our countries or our Europe, by turning xenophobia, or turbo-charging, I should say
xenophobia, like Salvini is doing. The fact that Salvini is gaining votes
in Italy by becoming increasingly racist is simply a
symptom of inability of progressives to bind together to combine a rational
approach to the problem with a humanism which is in the heart and in the minds of
Italians and Europeans. Our position is very simple. The migrants that are coming
to our shores are an essential ressource for the future. Europe needs migration. We
are an ageing society at the European level, but you can not pile up migrants
and in Greece on the basis of xenophobia in Austria, in Germany, in France, which
then gives a xenophobe like Mr Salvini the opportunity to gather power in Italy,
through turning humans against humans. [Italian translation of the answer] Q: Hi I’m Simon ?? from the Norwegian weekly
paper Morgenbladet, I wanted to ask you: you became yourself famous for opposing
the EU commission and its economic politics I was wondering if you could be a bit
more specific on what exactly is the difference in the way, back in your days,
you criticised the EU commission and the way the Italian government is doing it now
when it comes to the ‘manovra’, the budget? Obviously there is lots of differences when it
comes to immigration for example but exactly the way there are claiming their right to
have their own economic policy. And then, a second question : On 5 Stelle
have you completely giving up hope on seeing the 5 Star movement as a progressive
force in Europe, you now count them as equal to Lega or do you see possibility
in the future of changing that situation? Regarding the difference, between our
opposition to the Brussels establishment and that of the Lega, we are radical Euro-
peanists, we want to bring Europe together. We want… ehm… if you want, a federal Europe, that works
democratically whereas Mr Salvini and his Lega would like to see the dismemberment
of the EU and maybe then its retention as nothing more than a trade zone, that is a
profound difference. We are opposing Brussels, because we are Europeanists and
as Europeanists we are against the policies of Brussels that are destroying Europe and
giving Mr Salvini the opportunity to finish it off On the second question, we never give
up hope on anyone. Some of us are atheists within Diem25m but
we are all believers in humanity. 5 Stelle have to decide for themselves
whether they want to continue this path of being the crutch of a racist,
xenophobic Lega and to be working for them, before Mr Salvini chews them up,
and spits them out, after the European parliament election, or whether they want
to return to a humanist block. If they do we will welcome them. Do you need a translation? So we can save
time and go to the next question, ok? Yes? OK. Can you give us a small summary,
thanks. [Interpreter’s translation] Giovanna Ferrara, “Il Manifesto”, I wanted
to ask this question: from the point of view of new architecture
of Europe, what do you think about the unique situation that has crystallised
in Italy, regarding conflicts within the institutions: I’m talking about the
case of Mimmo Lucano, and of those municipalities that declare “open ports”,
against the directives of the government, and I’m thinking about the “Mediterranea”
organisation, which was born precisely to become the anvil between… inside this
conflict within the institutions. [Interpreter’s translation for Yanis] Diem25 is a municipalist movement, not just
a Europeanist movement. We believe that, within a united Europe, a
democratic Europe, regions and municipalities should have a lot more
autonomy. Indeed the Eurozone crisis has reduced the autonomy of mayors, of
regional authorities by pushing authority down to level of the local. The result is
a greater crisis, both the of local economies and of democracy. In the case of Riace,
you will allow me to simply add to that which you all know, that I find personally
quite interesting and worrying that in an area where you have a particular mayor,
effectively damaging the interests of the mafia, by taking away contracts from them,
that this government, that at least part of it was suppose to be absolutely
determined to make a difference in this fight, is targeting this particular mayor
in the way that they are doing it. This is why, Diem believes very strongly
that this fake contradiction, this fake conflict between the establishment
and the anti-establishment government, is fake. Even down to the level of
Riace. You see how fake it is. Do you need the translation? Yes? [Interpreter’s translation] I have a question also for you Y. : It’s a curiosity, actually, because we hear
a lot talking about communication strategies, to also attract the sceptical citizens, the
euro-sceptical citizens that are apparently growing and I would like you to say some
words on it, I mean do you have a specific communication specific communication strategy? Spin doctors and these new tools,
are you planning to use new tools to… I mean to spread your ideas? We have no spin doctors, we do not have
image makers. Not because we can’t afford them, no I don’t think we can afford them,
but we don’t want them, and we don’t want them because I think that people out there
have had enough of spin. They have had enough of fudges, they have had enough of
politicians. We are not politicians, we are engaging in politics, not because we
want to become ministers or members of parliament but because we feel a historic
duty to intervene in this fake conflict between the establishment and the so
called anti-establishment. The way we are approaching, those who are
sceptical, not just about Europe but about politics, about the future, about the
capacity of democracy to change anything. Those who agreed in the end with W.
Schäuble, when he said that the democracy can not be allowed to change anything.
We are determined to address particular issues, with very specific proposals. Not
wishful thinking, not ‘we want another Europe, another world’, No, you heard
before the specific proposal about the Italian budget. We argued that, yes to the minimum
guaranteed income, and no to the tax cuts, use this money for public investment. We
explained where we think the money should go. Maybe boost the deficit of three percent,
but at the same time go to the EU with a proposal, which is completely legal and,
and within the treaties on how to shrink that deficit down, while boosting
investment within a pan-European. So, speaking to people, to people’s worries
answering their number one question, which is : why should I be optimistic about
the future of my children? The answer is, because we have a capacity
as Europeans, as Italians, to invest in good quality green jobs for your children. And
this is how we could do it. That is us spin doctoring. It isn’t an utopia, what you are saying? What is a utopia, is to think that we can
continue the way we are continuing! What is utopic, is to think for Brussels
that if only Mr Renzi where to return to power in Italy, to impose the rules of
Brussels, everything would be fine. That is utopia. What is utopia, is to think
that Mr Salvini beats up even more hatred for the foreigners and clashes with Europe
without a plan for green investment, that things are going to be better. What we are
proposing is the only realistic plan. Is it utopia to think that realism can
succeed? Well maybe, but it’s a realistic utopia, and that is the only thing that can
stop an awful dystopia from setting in! You need a translation ? No? Ok, here. Good Morning, I am Luca Mariani,
Agenzia Italia, if it’s possible I would like to speak in Italian. Yes of course, you can. Three questions. The first: will you be
the frontrunner for the EU commission? Let’s ask 2… Oh no, very short ones. Will the frontrunner
for the EU commission be Mr. Varoufakis? Second: who will be the frontrunner of your
movement in Italy? De Magistris, the mayor of Naples?
Third: I see Salvini declaring that he is safer in Moscow than in the European capitals,
I see Trump having a privileged relationship with Conte and Farage, maybe this is not
an opposition between Bruxelles and Salvini maybe there is a slightly larger game at
play here? What do you think? Of course, it is a much bigger game. But
Mr Salvini is a major player. S. Bannon will concur. There are other
players, Mr Seehofer in Munich, Those who will probably replace Mrs. Merkel.
Mr. Orban, Mr. Kurz, and so on and so forth… but let me answer your question about
the Spitzenkandidat (frontrunner) : This process has already died according to
the Christian-democrats, they don’t believe in it. The Social-democrats have ceased to
exist. It seems to me that this process has been shown up for what it was, a fake
democratic process. Now Diem25, European Spring, our alliance, are going
to have an open primary before May to decide who is going to represent us in
Brussels. So you can think of this as the Spitzenkandidat of the movement. If You
are asking me personally, I’m going to make myself available to the movement.
But let me also say, that we are absolutely determined to break free of national
divisions in the European parliament elections our movement is going to have
a German leading the ticket in Greece, there will be Greeks contesting European
parliament seats in Germany, there will be Italians in France, and so on. This is our
symbolic way of doing away with this fake division between North and South. There is
no division, between North and South No clash between Italy and Germany, or
Greece and Germany. There is only one clash between progressives and those who
are undoing our societies everywhere. And that clash happens in Greece, in Italy
everywhere. I think that is more or less what I want
to say on this issue. You need translation?
No? A question here… I can speak in English but it’s better
maybe in Italian I just wanted to ask: last week there were
elections in Bavaria, regional elections, with the victory of the green party, led
by a 34-year-old, I wanted to know if these elections, in which, for the first
time the green party, such a young woman, in Bavaria, the land of the German
automobile industry, a green party that is not scared to talk about a numerus
clausus regarding migration policies, I’d like to know if there is a possibility
of an alliance, within Germany, of the German DiEM, and, considering that
we were talking earlier about humanism as the answer to the migration problem, what
does DiEM stand for, can one talk unabashedly about limiting migrant numbers, obviously
considering the available resources for education, for offering work and a
dignified reception to the migrants arriving in all of Europe. [translation for Yanis] We welcome the fact that the green party
did well, in Munich. They did not win Bavaria. They simply took the votes of the
collapsing social democrats. The winners in Bavaria, remain the forces
of the right. The CSU together with the AFD. A crushing victory by them. Let us not
forget that. Would we want to align ourselves with the green parties of Europe?
Absolutely! We are in discussions with them, but I
will answer the question in the same way that I would answer it if you were to
ask me about the Linke, about liberals, anti-systemic liberals, by saying
We are not interested in labels. We are interested in getting things done.
So, we put out a program, which we call a new green deal for Europe. Where we make
proposals about this investment program of 500 billions in green transition, a year,
every year for 5 years. We have a program for what to do with public debt, with the
non-performing loans of the banks, with poverty, with democratisation and so
on. It’s a very comprehensive program. And we are inviting everyone to discuss it
with us, not to accept it. To tell us where we are wrong, and we should do differently.
And we wish that the green, the left, the liberals, progressive-conservatives even
come to us and we can have this discussions in order to start tabula rasa
a new progressive movement in Europe. This is our position, and we are going to
stick to it. On the question of humanism, humanism is
inconsistent with electrified border fences! Full stop. So we have a question here. And we have
some more, so plz keep your answers short. Sorry, you answer too, but the
questions short. Hi, it’s Eric Reg??? of the Globe and Mail,
of Canada. The Italian government insists it doesn’t
want to leave the Euro. But my question do you believe them, do they secretly or
not so secretly want to leave the Euro? And, if they do, is it not a bad idea
to do so in the sense that, for 20 years, since the introduction of the Euro in
Italy, this country has been a corpse it’s just hasn’t worked for this country.
Thank you! No, I don’t believe them. What I do believe
is that Mr. Salvini has chosen a two phase strategy. First beat up anti-migration
rage, xenophobia before the European parliament elections in order to garner
votes but keep the Euro question under wraps for now. So that after the
European parliament elections, he can became prime minister and then
go into phase 2, which will be… not necessarily… there will be no
referendum about the Euro, or anything like that. But he will cause a crisis, that will make
it a natural progression for Italy to forge a parallel currency, that then is the
precursor of something very much like Italexit. This is my personal view. But it
is neither here nor there. The second question, would it be a good
idea to get out of the Euro. I have been very steadfast in my view on
this, regarding Greece, regarding Italy regarding all Euro-Zone member states.
It is this : some people think there is a contradiction in what I am going to say.
There is no contradiction. First we should not have entered the Euro-
Zone. Italy should not have entered it. Greece should not have entered it. We
should not have created the Eurozone Not that the common currency would be a
bad idea, but THIS common currency with THESE rules. Think about it . We created a
central bank without a treasury, to have its back and we have 19 treasuries without
a central bank to look after national banking systems, that they cannot ever save
during a crisis. It is as if we had created a monetary union designed to cause problems
for our citizens. That’s point number one.
Point number two : We should not have a policy of exiting
that terrible monetary union. Some people say, hang on a second, you
just said that we should not have entered it but now you say we should not exit it.
Yes! Because it’s one thing to say, We should not have come in, it’s quite
another to say we should get out. It’s not the same thing. Because, once we
get in, things change. And getting out has a major cost for Europe as a whole,
for Italy. It does not mean that we should not prepare a parallel currency, I prepared
one, when I was a minister. It does not mean that we should stay in the
Euro, even if our countries collapse. No! it means that should be prepared, on
the one hand to go to Brussels, to go to Berlin and put forward proposals for
making changes to the Euro-Zone, that will allow Italy to breathe within it and at the
same time, prepare for exiting for the very simple reason, that even the Bundes-
bank is preparing for an exit of Germany. Because this is a very unstable currency. Tank you Y. There is a question over there. Sorry to bring you back to the Italian
politics… Don’t be sorry, this is why I’m here. OK, thank you. Francesca ??? from Agorà.
I want to ask you, in case of a crisis of the Italian government, what are the
chances of Mr. Di Maio to be your partner? And then: do you see a default of Italy
as a possibility? I’ll start from the second part. I think a
default will be unlikely. But there are ways of hair-cutting debt,
that do not count as default, so for instance, one of the things that is
not unlikely, is that there will be, in the case of Italy and Italian public debt,
financial incentives for Italian savers to buy more bonds, with tax-breaks that
clash with Brussels’ rules. For instance, a parallel currency would, if there was
re-denomination of part of the debt, would also be an effective haircut, that would
not count necessarily as a default. But this is a theoretical discussion. What
really matters, is that we avoid this clash between this government and Brussels, a
clash that is not leading to any improvement in the lives of Italians or the rest
of Europe. On the first question that you asked, I
think I’ve already answered it. As I said, we are atheists who happen to be faithful
in human nature, if Mr. Di Maio drops out of this government and stops being the
crutch of Mr. Salvini, and 5Stelle join again the ranks of humanist rational political
forces, we would be welcoming them as well But I do not see this happening. Every day
they stay within this coalition, I believe 5Stelle is losing its soul. But have you been in conversation,
for example, with Fico? The one who is considered on the left of the… We’ve been in conversations with many
people, not with the particular person that you mention, at least not me, maybe
somebody from our movement has,
maybe I can ask one of our DiEM25 representatives here, to answer
the question. But this is not the issue. The issue is: is 5Stelle interested in
reclaiming its position on the humanist side of politics? Thank you. There is another question over
there and then here… I’m Italian, and Deutsch-Italian from Berlin.
We know that you are going to meet, as soon as possible, Bernie Sanders, so we would
like to know something about the “Internazionale progressista” as we call it.
Thanks. Well thank you for the question, because
this is something quite exciting. DiEM25 is not only europeanist, or actually
we are europeanist because we are internationalist. Europe is a source of
great instability for the rest of the world We are causing serious problems for the
rest of the world, through our inability to solve our crisis. At the same time we
have an American president who is determined to destabilise what is left of
the stability of the world, and we have the complete failure of the West, of the EU and
the US, to get their act together, to deal with the global crisis which began in 2008
and which has not finished. Anyone who thinks it has finished, should reconsider
their views. This is why we need to go beyond the limits
of Europe. You see, the financiers are internationalists, they know how to bind
together to make sure that the majority of people in every country bails them out after
they’ve made their huge errors, the fascists, the nationalists, the racists,
like Trump, Bannon, Seehofer, Salvini, are internationalists, they bind together
magnificently, the only people who are failing, are the progressives. So on the
30th of November, Bernie Sanders and I are going to be launching the progressive
international in Vermont, and we’re going to issue an open call to political forces
from across Europe, from Africa, from Asia from Latin America, from Central America,
to join us. It is going to be a very difficult process, but at least there is going to be
a start. Thank you. Ehm, Paddy? Paddy A??, Sunday Independent,
Professor, to change theme slightly, Brexit. Eh… Is… you say Salvini is
working toward the disintegration of the EU that’s his aim, but have Mr. Farage and
Boris Johnson started the job already? And do you feel that we’re in a Brexit
situation where the 27 countries say ‘unless we get an Irish border resolution,
there’ll be no deal’. Do you think the 27 countries will hold together on that? Yes. But then the question is, will London
prefer a no-deal to a united Ireland? ‘Cause that is the issue, really. I do
believe that, remember that DiEM25 is a movement with a presence in Ireland, both
the Republic and Northern Ireland, and we’re very proud of that, and we’ve brought people
together that would not have been in the same movement if DiEM was not in Ireland.
We think that this is a magnificent opportunity to bring back the concept, in a
non-sectarian way, of a united Ireland. The border must never return. The Good
Friday Agreement must be maintained and supported, and Europe has a role to play
in this. But let me say something about Brexit: you mentioned Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Farage, they would never have succeded to win the Brexit referendum if it was not
for the incompetence of Brussels and Frankfurt in handling the inevitable crisis
of the Eurozone, between 2010 and 2016, and let me explain this: at a time when the
financial world was collapsing, between 2008 and 2010, the ECB, completely hostage
of its charter, that was written by the Bundesbank, was shrinking the money supply
while the Bank of England was boosting the money supply as if there was no tomorrow,
the Bank of Japan, the Fed in the US, the result was hundreds of thousands of
Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese, moving to England, at a time where Mr. Osbourne
the Tory party treasurer, was imposing austerity on the majority of the English people. So
you have the refloating of the financial markets in England, drawing people from
the continent, while British workers were being treated with austerity. That was the
recipe for creating the Brexit movement. It was Brussels and Frankfurt’s policies
that gave rise to the disintegration of the EU with Brexit. This is why DiEM25 is
determined to clash with the Brussels establishment in order to save the EU, in
order to make sure that borders, like the one between the Republic and Northern
Ireland never come back. There is a question there. May I? Eva Giovannini, “Mezz’ora in più”,
Rai3. I wanted to come back to what my colleague
asked about earlier concerning Russia, there are explicit encouragements both from
Washington as from Moscow to the government to keep going with this “manovra” (budget proposal)
and there is even talk of potential economic support from the Kremlin, to buy
Italian public debt, they talk about 6 billion I’d like to know from you, politically
speaking, what would it mean for us, for Italians, to be Moscow’s debtors, and so
for Moscow to be Italy’s creditors? Thanks. It is a very bad Idea, very bad idea. For
two reasons. Firstly : Russia is bankrupt and the most they can do, is buy 4% of
your debt issuance for the next year. In the next year your debt issuance is 250
billion €. If they choose to, they would buy 4%, it’s irrelevant. So they can’t
help Italy. That’s one reason. Secondly : you should
not want to be helped by Mr.Putin. The last thing we need in Europe, in Italy
is more dependence on Mr. Putin. Or indeed Mr Trump for that matter.
Remember Mr Trump and Mr Putin are united by a wish to see a Europe that is
disintegrating and becoming more reactionary and more right wing and more
fascistic. This is why we are here. We are here because we need to fight
against Mr Putin, against Mr Trump, against the Brussels establishment that is
making Mr Salvini powerful enough to be playing these games with Mr Trump
and Mr Putin. Plus, if I don’t… I remember something
similar promised to Greece, right? I mean, Russia also promised to buy Greek
bonds some years ago? I’ve written about this in my last book,
which is exists in Italian : “Adults in the room.” and I explained why I was the
one member of the Greek cabinet under Mr Tsipras who effectively vetoed any
discussion with Putin on us being helped by Russia against our struggle with the
troika. For the same reason that I outlined here, I refused even to go
to Moscow along with Mr Tsipras. In the end, of course, Mr Putin did
exactly as I predicted, and said to Mr Tsipras : ” We are not going
to help you!” OK, do you need a final translation? It’s
OK ? OK? So Yanis Varoufakis, tank you again very
much for being here. Tank you to you all. Tank you.

Workers FORCED To Attend Trump Rally


>>Oftentimes, when Republicans make crazy
accusations about Democrats, you can look to what they’re up to and you realize that
it’s projection. They’re accusing Democrats of doing what they’re
doing. And recently, there was a story involving
union workers that demonstrated just that. Now Trump had a giant crowd of union workers
at a speech that he gave at a Shell petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania. This took place last week, and it turns out
that the individuals who were there were paid. There was a monetary incentive there. In fact, let me go ahead and read what these
union workers were told. Your attendance is not mandatory, said the
rules that one contractor relayed to employees, summarizing points from a memo that Shell
sent to union leaders a day ahead of the visit to the $6 billion construction site. But only those who showed up at 7am scanned
their ID cards and prepared to stand for hours through lunch, but without lunch, would be
paid. Those who decided not to come to the site
for the event would have an excused but non-paid absence, the company said, and would not qualify
for overtime pay on Friday. So, Donald Trump on various occasions has
accused Democrats of paying people to show up to their events. Or he’s accused people of paying individuals
to show up to protests. Really, in the mean time, Donald Trump is
playing these games and paying individuals to show up to his speeches. Now this has been pitched as an official presidential
event, not a campaign event. But it was a campaign event and I’m going
to give you evidence to prove it. But Cenk, do you want to jump in before I
do that?>>Trump often talks about these liberal protesters
are funded by Soros. And does he have any evidence of that? No, reporters have looked into it. No, it turns out, liberals are actually really
pissed at Donald Trump. And they don’t need Soros to tell him that. So why did they do that? I’ve told you this historically, the right
wing always does this. The Tea Party was mad about the bank bailouts. Did they ever protest the banks? Nope, because the Koch brothers pulled up
with giant buses that already had anti-Obamacare slogans painted on the buses. They took the Tea Party guys and drove them
to protest against Obamacare rather than the bank bailouts. Because the Koch brothers also benefited from
the bank bailouts. So this is what the Republicans always do,
because they don’t have any grassroots support. It’s not like they don’t have any voters,
they do. But during Obama, they hated him so much mainly
based on his race that they’re like, what is he proposing, to give us health care? God damn it, I don’t want healthcare!>>So there are those guys, but are there
guys going, I need a capital gains tax cut for the rich? I’m gonna go protest to make sure the rich
get tax cuts. No, there’s no grassroots support for that
at all. So they have to pay people off and famously,
Trump paid off the people at his first rally when he announced for president. He paid actors 50 bucks to show up.>>Sad.>>So sad, but he’s such a crook and he’s
such an idiot, that by his nature he never pays anyone because he’s a scam artist. Anyway, so the company that he paid or was
supposed to pay to pay off the actors to show up, it turns out he didn’t pay them. So they filed a complaint with the FEC saying
this guy owes us $12,000 for the actors we brought to his stupid escalator rally and
he won’t pay the $12,000 bill. And then finally, Trump had to pay it four
months later.>>It’s amazing.>>It’s a fact, you can go look it up, Washington
Post, anywhere you want. He was-
>>Fake news.>>By the way, you know who suggested to him
to hire actors? Roger Ailes, because Roger Ailes knows this
guy’s pathetic, he doesn’t have any real followers. Buy actors, we fake everything on the right
wing anyway. So then now he makes you poor union guys. Hey if you wanna get paid for the day, then
you better show up and applaud. And they even had instructions to not boo
him.>>I wanna get to that, because that is important. Because not only are they forced to show up
to this thing if they wanna get paid. But they have some pretty strict guidelines
and rules. Now, there was one union leader who was willing
to talk to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette about the pay involved. This union leader wished not to be named because
he did not want to make trouble for his workers. He said one day of work might amount to about
$700 in pay, benefits, and a per diem payment that out-of-town workers receive. So if you’re gonna miss out on that much pay,
you’re going to show up to this thing. And it’s going to be spun as part of, they’re
not officially saying that it’s part of Trump’s campaign. They’re saying this is not a campaign event,
but it was a campaign event. We have evidence to prove it, including the
videos he put out. By the way, the guidelines and the rules for
anyone who did attend. No yelling, shouting, protesting or anything
viewed as resistance will be tolerated at the event. An underlying theme of the event is to promote
goodwill from the unions. Your building trade leaders and job stewards
have agreed to this. So those were the rules. With that said though, I’m going to go to
one of the videos of the event. And you tell me whether or not this looks
like a campaign event.>>I don’t want to do it too early, I did
it very early with Pocahontas, I should have probably waited.>>She’s staging a comeback on Sleepy Joe.>>I don’t know who’s going to win. But we’ll have to hit Pocahontas very hard
again if she does win. But she’s staging a little bit of a comeback. What a group, Pocahontas and Sleepy Joe.>>I don’t think they give a damn about Western
Pennsylvania, do you?>>No.>>I don’t think so.>>Do you care about Western Pennsylvania? Do you care about Pennsylvania?>>He cares about it, of course, because of
the campaign. I’m sure that it was just an accident or a
coincidence, but he happened to be holding this non campaign event in one of those states
that he won to beat Hillary Clinton in an upset, Pennsylvania. Why does it matter if it’s a campaign event
or not? If it’s a campaign event, he has to pay. If it’s not a campaign event, we have to pay,
so he made the taxpayers pay for that.>>Mm-hm.>>By the way, when he does do campaign events
like the one he did in El Paso, he doesn’t pay anything, because he’s a criminal. He never pays his bills, and he thinks, he
says, when I go bankrupt, that’s me not paying my bills. That’s smart business. No, that’s being a crook. And so, he does it over and over again. So sad, now he went from $50 paying out of
his pocket, to $700 but having Shell pay it for him. So the oil companies pay the union guys to
show up there. And say hey, if you protest against him, remember
you’re gonna lose that money, and we’re gonna crush you. This is what fascism looks like.>>What I thought was interesting about that
video, I didn’t look at his face while he was talking. I was actually paying close attention to the
expressions on the union workers’ faces, it was something I enjoy doing. So just a quick tip in case you want to rewind
the video and watch again. And then finally, one other thing that he
did which further reinforces the point that we’re making about this being a campaign event. He turned that entire speech into like a movie
trailer. And it’s too long, I don’t wanna show it because
it’s just too lengthy but with music and everything, making him look heroic.>>Everything’s a campaign ad for him.>>Exactly.>>Why are taxpayers paying for that? It’s outrageous. And I was looking at the same thing, Ana. There was a couple of guys who liked it and
you could tell like Trump and everybody else is like. Normally, at a campaign rally, when he does
racial stuff like Pocahontas, they love it. With the guys who voluntary show up, you see
here though, it’s a muted crowd. Polite applause, they’re not going crazy when
he says Pocahontas. A couple of people like it and the rest are
like I don’t know, man, they made us come here.>>It’s so sad.

The Art of Diplomacy


We tend to associate diplomacy with embassies, international relations and high politcs. But it really refers to a set of skills that matter in many
areas of daily life, especially at the office and on the landing, outside the slammed doors
of loved ones’ bedrooms. Diplomacy is the art of advancing an idea or cause without
unnecessarily inflaming passions or unleashing a catastrophe. It involves an understanding
of the many facets of human nature that can undermine agreement and stoke conflict, and
a commitment to unpicking these with foresight and grace. The diplomat remembers, first and
foremost, that some of the vehemence with which we can insist on having our way draws
energy from an overall sense of not being respected or heard within a relationship.
We will fight with particular tenacity and apparent meanness over a so-called small point
when we have a sense that the other person has failed to honour our wider need for appreciation
and esteem. Behind our fierce way of arguing may lie a frustrated plea for affection. Diplomats
know the intensity with which humans crave respect and so though they may not always
be able to agree with us, they take the trouble to show that they have bothered to see how
things look through our eyes. They recognise that it is almost as important to people to
feel heard, as to win their case. We’ll put up with a lot once someone has demonstrated
that they at least know how we feel. Diplomats therefore put extraordinary effort into securing
the health of the overall relationship so that smaller points can be conceded along
the way without attracting feelings of untenable humiliation. They know how much beneath pitched
fights over money or entitlements, schedules or procedures, a demand for esteem can stir.
They are careful to trade generously in emotional currency, so as not always to have to pay
excessively in other, more practical denominations. Frequently, what is at stake within a negotiation
with someone is a request that they change in some way: that they learn to be more punctual,
or take more trouble on a task, that they be less defensive or more open-minded. The
diplomat knows how futile it is to state these wishes too directly. They know the vast difference
between having a correct diagnosis of how someone needs to grow and a relevant way to
help them do so. They know too that what holds people back from evolution is fear – and
therefore grasp that what we may most need to offer those whom we want to acknowledge
difficult things is, above anything else, love and reassurance. It helps greatly to
know that those recommending change are not speaking from a position of impregnable perfection
but are themselves wrestling with comparable demons in other areas. For a diagnosis not
to sound like mere criticism, it helps for it to be delivered by someone with no compunctions
to owning up to their own shortcomings. There can be few more successful pedagogic moves
than to confess genially from the outset, ‘And I am, of course, entirely mad as well…’’
In negotiations, the diplomat is not addicted to indiscriminate or heroic truth telling.
They appreciate the legitimate place that minor lies can occupy in the service of greater
truths. They know that if certain local facts are emphasised, then the most important principles
in a relationship may be forever undermined. So they will enthusiastically say that the
financial report or the homemade cake were really very pleasing and will do so not to
deceive but to affirm the truth of their overall attachment, which might be be lost were a
completely accurate account of their feelings to be laid out. Diplomats know that a small
lie may have to be the guardian of a big truth. They appreciate their own resistance to the
unvarnished facts – and privately hope that others may on occasion, over certain matters,
also take the trouble to lie to them, and that they will never know. Another trait of
the diplomat is to be serene in the face of obviously bad behaviour: a sudden loss of
temper, a wild accusation, a very mean remark. They don’t take it personally – even when
they may be the target of rage. They reach instinctively for reasonable explanations
and have clearly in their minds the better moments of a currently frantic but essentially
loveable person. They know themselves well enough to understand that abandonments of
perspective are both hugely normal and usually indicative of nothing much beyond exhaustion
or passing despair. They do not aggravate a febrile situation through self-righteousness,
which is a symptom of not knowing oneself too well – and of having a very selective
memory. The person who bangs a fist on the table or announces extravagant opinions may
simply be rather worried, frightened or just very enthusiastic: conditions that should
rightly invite sympathy rather than disgust. At the same time, the diplomat understands
that there are moments to sidestep direct engagement. They do not try to teach a lesson
whenever it might first or most apply: they wait till it has the best chance of being
heard. At points, they disarm difficult people by reacting in unexpected ways. In the face
of a tirade, instead of going on the defensive, the diplomatic person might suggest some lunch.
When a harshly unfair criticism is launched at them, they might nod in partial agreement
and declare that they’ve often said such things to themselves. They give a lot of ground
away and avoid getting cornered in arguments that distract from the deeper issues. They
remember the presence of a better version of what might be a somewhat unfortunate individual
currently on display. The diplomat’s tone of reasonableness is built, fundamentally,
on a base of deep pessimism. They know what the human animal is, they understand how many
problems are going to beset even a very good marriage, business, friendship or society.
Their good humoured way of greeting problems is a symptom of having swallowed a healthy
measure of sadness from the outset. They have given up on the ideal, not out of weakness
but out of a mature readiness to see compromise as a necessary requirement for getting by
in a radically imperfect world. The diplomat may be polite, but they are not for that matter
averse to delivering bits of bad news with uncommon frankness. Too often, we seek to
preserve our image in the eyes of others by tiptoeing around the harsh decisions – and
thereby make things far worse than they need to be. We should say that we’re leaving
them, that they’re fired, that their pet project isn’t going ahead, but we mutter
instead that we’re a little preoccupied at the moment, that we’re delighted by their
performance and that the project is being actively discussed by the senior team. We
mistake leaving some room for hope with kindness. But true niceness does not mean seeming nice,
it means helping the people we are going to disappoint to adjust as best they can to reality.
By administering a sharp, clean blow, the diplomatic person kills off the torture of
hope, accepting the frustration that’s likely to come their way: the diplomat is kind enough
to let themselves be the target of hate. The diplomat succeeds because they are a realist;
they know we are inherently flawed, unreasonable, anxious, comedically absurd creatures who
scatter blame unfairly, misdiagnose their pains and react appallingly to criticism – especially
when it is accurate – and yet they are hopeful too of the possibilities of progress when
our disturbances have been properly factored in and cushioned with adequate reassurance,
accurate interpretation and respect. Diplomacy seeks to teach us how many good things can
still be accomplished when we make some necessary accommodations with the crooked, sometimes
touching and hugely unreliable material of human nature. If you’re interested in coming to San Francisco to meet us at the end of March please click on the link on your screen now to find out more. We hope to see you there.

Inside Texas Politics: What does Rep. Burrows’ resignation mean for Speaker Bonnen?


STATE STATE RATING. STATE RATING.
>>>STATE RATING.
>>>A STATE RATING.
>>>A SIGNIFICANT STATE RATING.
>>>A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT>>>A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT>>>A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
IN>>>A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
IN THE>>>A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
IN THE SCANDAL>>>A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
IN THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING IN THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING IN THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING
TEXAS IN THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING
TEXAS HOUSE IN THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING
TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER IN THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING
TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER HE IN THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING
TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER HE IS TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER HE IS TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER HE IS
STEPPING TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER HE IS
STEPPING DOWN TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER HE IS
STEPPING DOWN FROM TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER HE IS
STEPPING DOWN FROM THE STEPPING DOWN FROM THE STEPPING DOWN FROM THE
POSITION. POSITION. POSITION.
BURROUGHS POSITION.
BURROUGHS WAS POSITION.
BURROUGHS WAS WITH POSITION.
BURROUGHS WAS WITH DENNIS BURROUGHS WAS WITH DENNIS BURROUGHS WAS WITH DENNIS
BONNEN. BONNEN. BONNEN.
THE BONNEN.
THE TEXAS BONNEN.
THE TEXAS RANGERS BONNEN.
THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE BONNEN.
THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING
IN THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING
IN A THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING
IN A MOVE THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING
IN A MOVE SET THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING
IN A MOVE SET ON THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING
IN A MOVE SET ON THE THE TEXAS RANGERS ARE INVESTING
IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET
RECORDING IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET
RECORDING THAT IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET
RECORDING THAT HE IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET
RECORDING THAT HE MADE IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET
RECORDING THAT HE MADE OF IN A MOVE SET ON THE SECRET
RECORDING THAT HE MADE OF THE RECORDING THAT HE MADE OF THE RECORDING THAT HE MADE OF THE
ENTIRE RECORDING THAT HE MADE OF THE
ENTIRE READING. ENTIRE READING. ENTIRE READING.
IN ENTIRE READING.
IN AUSTIN, ENTIRE READING.
IN AUSTIN, WE ENTIRE READING.
IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ENTIRE READING.
IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS ENTIRE READING.
IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY. IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY. IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY.
HE IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY.
HE IS IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY.
HE IS THERE IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY.
HE IS THERE WITH IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY.
HE IS THERE WITH THE IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY.
HE IS THERE WITH THE TEXAS IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE ROSS RAMSEY.
HE IS THERE WITH THE TEXAS BE HE IS THERE WITH THE TEXAS BE HE IS THERE WITH THE TEXAS BE
IN. IN. IN.
>>>IN.
>>>BURROUGHS IN.
>>>BURROUGHS IS IN.
>>>BURROUGHS IS STEPPING IN.
>>>BURROUGHS IS STEPPING DOWN>>>BURROUGHS IS STEPPING DOWN>>>BURROUGHS IS STEPPING DOWN
AS>>>BURROUGHS IS STEPPING DOWN
AS CAUCUS>>>BURROUGHS IS STEPPING DOWN
AS CAUCUS CHAIR. AS CAUCUS CHAIR. AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW BIG AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW BIG OF AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW BIG OF A AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW BIG OF A DEAL AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS ALL AS CAUCUS CHAIR.
HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS ALL OF HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS ALL OF HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS ALL OF
THIS? THIS? THIS?
IS THIS?
IS HE THIS?
IS HE GOING THIS?
IS HE GOING TO THIS?
IS HE GOING TO GET THIS?
IS HE GOING TO GET CLOSE THIS?
IS HE GOING TO GET CLOSE TO IS HE GOING TO GET CLOSE TO IS HE GOING TO GET CLOSE TO
BEING IS HE GOING TO GET CLOSE TO
BEING SPEAKER? BEING SPEAKER? BEING SPEAKER?
>>BEING SPEAKER?
>>IT BEING SPEAKER?
>>IT IS BEING SPEAKER?
>>IT IS A BEING SPEAKER?
>>IT IS A BIG BEING SPEAKER?
>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.
GETS>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.
GETS CLOSE>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.
GETS CLOSE TO>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.
GETS CLOSE TO THE>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.
GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER>>IT IS A BIG DEAL.
GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR
NOT, GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR
NOT, IT GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR
NOT, IT DEPENDS GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR
NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR
NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT COMES GETS CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER OR
NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT COMES BACK NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT COMES BACK NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT COMES BACK
FROM NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT COMES BACK
FROM THE NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT COMES BACK
FROM THE TEXAS NOT, IT DEPENDS WHAT COMES BACK
FROM THE TEXAS RANGERS. FROM THE TEXAS RANGERS. FROM THE TEXAS RANGERS.
THE FROM THE TEXAS RANGERS.
THE COMMITTEE FROM THE TEXAS RANGERS.
THE COMMITTEE THAT FROM THE TEXAS RANGERS.
THE COMMITTEE THAT IS FROM THE TEXAS RANGERS.
THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO LOOK THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO LOOK AT THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO LOOK AT THIS THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT THE COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE
WOULD TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE
WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE
WOULD LIKE FOR TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE
WOULD LIKE FOR THE TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE
WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO LOOK AT THIS SAYS THAT WE
WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO
DO WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO
DO AN WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO
DO AN INVESTIGATION WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO
DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE WOULD LIKE FOR THE RANGERS TO
DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF ANY DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF ANY OF DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF ANY OF THIS DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF ANY OF THIS OFF DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF ANY OF THIS OFF TO DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF ANY OF THIS OFF TO GO DO AN INVESTIGATION FIGURE OUT
IF ANY OF THIS OFF TO GO TO IF ANY OF THIS OFF TO GO TO IF ANY OF THIS OFF TO GO TO
LEGAL IF ANY OF THIS OFF TO GO TO
LEGAL OR IF ANY OF THIS OFF TO GO TO
LEGAL OR POLITICAL. LEGAL OR POLITICAL. LEGAL OR POLITICAL.
SEE LEGAL OR POLITICAL.
SEE WHAT LEGAL OR POLITICAL.
SEE WHAT WE LEGAL OR POLITICAL.
SEE WHAT WE HAVE. SEE WHAT WE HAVE. SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
AS SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
AS SOON SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
AS SOON AS SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
AS SOON AS WE SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
AS SOON AS WE HAVE SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS
BACK, AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS
BACK, WE AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS
BACK, WE WILL AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS
BACK, WE WILL KNOW AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS
BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE REPORTS
BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE BIT BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE BIT BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE BIT
MORE BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT WHAT BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT WHAT THE BACK, WE WILL KNOW LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE
LOOKS MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE
LOOKS LIKE MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE
LOOKS LIKE FOR MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE
LOOKS LIKE FOR DENNIS MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE
LOOKS LIKE FOR DENNIS BOWMAN LOOKS LIKE FOR DENNIS BOWMAN LOOKS LIKE FOR DENNIS BOWMAN
AND LOOKS LIKE FOR DENNIS BOWMAN
AND FOR LOOKS LIKE FOR DENNIS BOWMAN
AND FOR DUSTIN LOOKS LIKE FOR DENNIS BOWMAN
AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS. AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS. AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS.
>>AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS.
>>THE AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS.
>>THE CHAIR AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS.
>>THE CHAIR OF AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS.
>>THE CHAIR OF THE AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS.
>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS AND FOR DUSTIN BURROWS.
>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS
SUPPOSED>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS
SUPPOSED TO>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE BACKS>>THE CHAIR OF THE CAUCUS IS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE BACKS OF SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE BACKS OF SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE BACKS OF
THE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE BACKS OF
THE CAUCUS. THE CAUCUS. THE CAUCUS.
IT THE CAUCUS.
IT IS THE CAUCUS.
IT IS WHETHER THE CAUCUS.
IT IS WHETHER THEY THE CAUCUS.
IT IS WHETHER THEY WERE IT IS WHETHER THEY WERE IT IS WHETHER THEY WERE
TREATING IT IS WHETHER THEY WERE
TREATING THE IT IS WHETHER THEY WERE
TREATING THE FUTURE IT IS WHETHER THEY WERE
TREATING THE FUTURE FOR IT IS WHETHER THEY WERE
TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES. TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES. TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES.
>>TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES.
>>WITH TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES.
>>WITH TALK TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES.
>>WITH TALK ABOUT TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES.
>>WITH TALK ABOUT HOOLEY TREATING THE FUTURE FOR PASSES.
>>WITH TALK ABOUT HOOLEY IN>>WITH TALK ABOUT HOOLEY IN>>WITH TALK ABOUT HOOLEY IN
CASTRO. CASTRO. CASTRO.
HE CASTRO.
HE IS CASTRO.
HE IS STRUGGLING CASTRO.
HE IS STRUGGLING TO CASTRO.
HE IS STRUGGLING TO GET CASTRO.
HE IS STRUGGLING TO GET ON HE IS STRUGGLING TO GET ON HE IS STRUGGLING TO GET ON
STAGE HE IS STRUGGLING TO GET ON
STAGE FOR HE IS STRUGGLING TO GET ON
STAGE FOR HOUSTON. STAGE FOR HOUSTON. STAGE FOR HOUSTON.
CAN STAGE FOR HOUSTON.
CAN HE STAGE FOR HOUSTON.
CAN HE REMAIN STAGE FOR HOUSTON.
CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE STAGE FOR HOUSTON.
CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE IF STAGE FOR HOUSTON.
CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE IF HE STAGE FOR HOUSTON.
CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE IF HE IS CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE IF HE IS CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE IF HE IS
NOT CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE IF HE IS
NOT ON CAN HE REMAIN VIABLE IF HE IS
NOT ON STAGE? NOT ON STAGE? NOT ON STAGE?
>>NOT ON STAGE?
>>I NOT ON STAGE?
>>I THINK NOT ON STAGE?
>>I THINK IT NOT ON STAGE?
>>I THINK IT IS NOT ON STAGE?
>>I THINK IT IS HARD NOT ON STAGE?
>>I THINK IT IS HARD IF NOT ON STAGE?
>>I THINK IT IS HARD IF HE NOT ON STAGE?
>>I THINK IT IS HARD IF HE IS>>I THINK IT IS HARD IF HE IS>>I THINK IT IS HARD IF HE IS
NOT>>I THINK IT IS HARD IF HE IS
NOT ON>>I THINK IT IS HARD IF HE IS
NOT ON STAGE. NOT ON STAGE. NOT ON STAGE.
YOU NOT ON STAGE.
YOU ARE NOT ON STAGE.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED NOT ON STAGE.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO NOT ON STAGE.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE NOT ON STAGE.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE
MONEY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE
MONEY TO YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE
MONEY TO GET YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE
MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE
MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE
MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND ON MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND ON MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND ON
AND MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND ON
AND ON, MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND ON
AND ON, HOPEFULLY MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND ON
AND ON, HOPEFULLY THAT MONEY TO GET ATTENTION, AND ON
AND ON, HOPEFULLY THAT MAKE AND ON, HOPEFULLY THAT MAKE AND ON, HOPEFULLY THAT MAKE
SURE AND ON, HOPEFULLY THAT MAKE
SURE THE AND ON, HOPEFULLY THAT MAKE
SURE THE NOMINEE. SURE THE NOMINEE. SURE THE NOMINEE.
HE SURE THE NOMINEE.
HE IS SURE THE NOMINEE.
HE IS LIKE SURE THE NOMINEE.
HE IS LIKE A SURE THE NOMINEE.
HE IS LIKE A MAN SURE THE NOMINEE.
HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING SURE THE NOMINEE.
HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING TRAPPED HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING TRAPPED HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING TRAPPED
ON HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING TRAPPED
ON THE HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING TRAPPED
ON THE ICE, HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING TRAPPED
ON THE ICE, TRYING HE IS LIKE A MAN BEING TRAPPED
ON THE ICE, TRYING TO

Christopher Hitchens — Speaking Honestly About Hillary Clinton


HITCHENS: As for Mrs. Clinton… Look! After all she’s done for us, and all she’s
suffered on our behalf she feels she’s owed the Presidency and
you know Who could possibly disagree? Her life is meaningless if she doesn’t get
a least a shot! And — one can only sympathize. Unless you think, as I do, that people should be distrusted who are running
for therapeutic reasons. Because the Presidency doesn’t calm those
demons as her husband has already proved. But look — the reason we have to think about it, and the reason why your question is a good one is this: What else can the democrats do? And if thats the case, what the hell shape
are we in? It still divides us as between those of us
who think that a job must be found for Hillary Clinton, That the country would be somehow disgraced if she wasn’t in an important position, and those of us who could do without her. And neither answer to that question is gonna make any difference at all to the way the market performs. If there were some foreign policy
experience or brilliance Hillary Clinton had ever shown maybe we overlook the fact that she and her husband have never met a foreign political donor they don’t like and haven’t taken from. Look, this is the woman who played the race
card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who if you for “Change that you can believe in” whatever change it was you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience
consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a
story about Bosnia. This is the woman who, with her husband, have
so many connections fundraising connections overseas: Indonesia,
China. Just look at today’s and yesterday’s New
York Times at the list of people with whom the former President Clinton has
acquired a tremendous burden of debt. These are people who pay him all
the time. From odd parts of the Middle East to strange
donors all over the place. My colleague at Vanity Fair Todd Purdum, anyone can google this, just put in “Purdum
Clinton.” See if you can bear to read the sort of friendships
that a former President is having. Its undignified to think about it! From the Riady Family in Indonesia to numerous
Chinese donors who left this country rather than show up
for the hearings on it. But I don’t know of any such expertise on
her part except her pretense to have been under fire
in Bosnia when she had not. Actually when there was pressure on the Clinton
Administration Lez Aspen was Secretary of Defense, you remember? To do something about Sarajevo, to stop the
killing, to prevent the ethnic cleansing Hillary Clinton moved in — hard on her husband
and said “Don’t you do a thing about Bosnia, It’ll
spoil my wonderful healthcare plan.” At least on Healthcare, she knows enough about
the subject to have really… changed American Healthcare for the worse
in her time but foreign policy about foreign policy, she doesn’t even know
that much! MATTHEWS: But I am very suspicious when John
Kyle, a major supporter of the war in Iraq and complete
hawk and neocon in many ways, complete hawk supports her for this. Henry Kissinger has come out of the woodwork, he supports her for this! (HITCHENS: Yes!) Why do these establishmentist conservatives
want her? What are they up to? Why do they want her? I don’t know what they want. HITCHENS: Kissinger… Don’t compare Kissinger
to Kyle I mean, Kissinger is a critic of the war and
a so called realist and someone who likes MATTHEWS: But why do they want her? They’re
both Republicans. Why do they want her? HITCHENS: Because, she’s a status quo type
and They know they can, so to speak, trust her She’s a member of their club. To remind people at this point of the lowest
stage of the Clinton Administration when… Eric Holder signed off at the Justice Department
on the pardon of this fugitive… shall we call him financier? Who’d also given, rather a large loan that
didn’t seem to have been repaid to one of Hillary Clinton’s brothers, who in turn with the other brother
had gone for a Walnut monopoly or was it a hazelnut monopoly
in the Republic of Georgia? Odd bits of the Caucasus involved in American
foreign policy here. Plus donations to the Clinton library. It builds up and it goes on. Is this how the
President elect really wants to start? The amazing brothers of her’s who nearly
got the — was it the — nut monopoly in Kazakstan or something farcical
like that? Just look it up! It’s a ludicrous embarrassment for the President
and for the country. JOURNALIST: You were asked and talked about
the qualifications of now your nominee for Secretary of State. And you belittled her travels around the world equating it to having teas with foreign leaders. And your new White House Council said that her resume was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy. OBAMA: Look, I mean, I think this is fun for
the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during
the course of the campaign. No, I understand! And, you’re having fun. If you look at the the statements that Hillary
Clinton and I have made outside of the heat of the campaign… W We share a view. HITCHENS: Can I just add though that I thought
Obama’s answer there was incredibly cheap and evasive? I mean he was right the first time to say:
This woman doesn’t in fact have any foreign policy experience and he could have added, which also came up in the campaign that the
experience she has claimed such as in Bosnia was fake, was fabricated and he could also have added that she, like
his other nominee (for the Attorney Generalship) main qualification
in politics is being a friend of Marc Rich, which I don’t think is “change.” As I say, if it hadn’t involved her too,
the campaign finance scandals. We’re not talking about the ongoing stuff,
Mr. Clinton’s huge speaking fees in the Gulf and elsewhere. We’re talking about previous convictions:
In the Clinton fundraising scandal If it wasn’t for the fact that she couldn’t
refuse her brothers everything or sorry anything. Couldn’t refuse them anything. Anything they wanted they seemed to have got,
including some kind of deal for Marc Rich. All of this might be forgivable, or it might
assume a different proportion David if it wasn’t for the fact that This woman doesn’t really have any foreign
policy experience worth mentioning. And what is memorable about it, is pretty
bad! Remember Kissinger had to decline the honor that Bush wanted to give him of being Chair of the 9/11 Commission because
it would have involved mentioning the names of all the people who he had business
dealings around the world. And he wasn’t willing to do that with Kissinger
Associates. He didn’t want to expose his clientele. The same thing, believe you me The same thing, believe you me, is gonna come up with the She’s been very very very uncritically pro-Israel
though. At all times. It’s true that she’s got a major name
on the World stage, that’s true by definition It’s only true that she’s respected in
the Pentagon if people go around saying so, I’ve never heard that before I must say. On some things she’s more hawkish than the
President elect, yes. But, she tends to have a quietless reputation
in what I’d call an opportunist matter I mean, who really thinks she felt that strongly
about Iraq? She just didn’t want to cast her vote the
other way. WALSH: He’s not worried about that! I genuinely think that if he’s got an eye toward politics it’s global politics and he wants the strength
of the Clinton name the Clinton brand. HITCHENS: Well thats what thats what the Secretary
of State is for and what you want as President is to know Your secretary of state spends all her working
to make sure your policies stick. With this woman that can’t be said she’s
always thinking first about herself, second about her husband. And third about ?, that’s never changed
and it’s never going to WALSH: That’s your opinion, Christopher. HITCHENS: … Nor will anyone. Guess what, guess who’s saying it? That’s a very clever thing to say. Shall I ask? Would you prefer I uttered your opinion? what a fatuous remark! MATTHEWS: Christopher!