6/24/26 Panel

Good morning. Welcome to the roundtable and to our panel discussion for this Wednesday, the 24th of June. Very nice to you have you with us. It's been 22 hours since we last spoke. We've missed you. So we're very happy that you're back. And thank you very much for being with us this morning. If you'd like to be a part of the program, as you're always welcome to be. All you have to do is write to us panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We've got a lot to talk about. Have a great group this morning and excited to get to the discussion. So let's go right there this morning. We check in with Jackie Bari Weiss, lecture of cognitive sciences at Rensler Polytechnic Institute, former Fulbright U.S. scholar to Egypt. Good morning. Jackie Barry, how are you? I'm good. Good morning, Joe. How are you? I'm well. It's really good to see you, and thank you so much for being with us. It's a delight as always. I'm glad to be here, and it's shaping up to be a really nice summer day. Yes, it is. And it looks like the rest of the week. We have a nice stretch of weather coming up. Hopefully we all enjoy that. Don't jinx it. No, I know. I know. That's a good point. We have a half and a half today. I'm very excited by this. The half is Stephen Half, educator who teaches drama and humanities of Poughkeepsie Day School in Poughkeepsie, founded in Rand Stillwater's in a storm, a free one-room school for immigrant children in Bushwick, Brooklyn, now with a Poughkeepsie program as well, has done just amazing work, and his second time back and we're thrilled to have him. Thank you very much for being with us. Oh, you're welcome. Thank you. I love being here. Half to a Hoff. Ambassador Fred Hoff is with us, a former U.S. Army officer and State Department diplomat who taught at Bard College for six years. Now a senior fellow at Bard's Center for Civic Engagement. Good morning, sir. How are you? Joe, I'm delighted to be here. Good to see you. Great to be with such interesting and distinguished colleagues. Absolutely. Also with us, Pushy Brassad is the Arthur Zankal Chair in Management for Liberal Arts at Skidmore College, where she teaches international affairs and b- business management. And we should take care of both those subjects at some point today, I believe. Certainly the international affairs for sure, and I'm excited to be here. There's a lot of stuff happening. Almost worth getting up early, which is not something I'm used to. Which my cat is objecting to. He's like, why are we up so early? Well, I apologize to you and the cat. Tolstoy. His name is Tolstoy. Tolstoy, as it should be. And I thank you very much for being with us. It's very nice to have you here and I appreciate it. All right. So let's go to what's happening and...

I'm going to wait on the primary for just a little bit and focus more on Iran and war powers and the like, and then we'll get to the primary probably on our 10 o'clock hour this morning. The Senate votes to block Trump from resuming the Iran war. The Senate passed the first war powers resolution since the start of the conflict, but Republicans argue it does not have... The force of law. The Senate voted Tuesday to block President Trump from resuming the war with Iran, setting up a potentially contentious fight with the White House. The Senate passed the resolution 50 to 48 with four Republicans joining Democrats to support the measure. Two Republican senators, Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick, missed the vote, allowing the measure to pass. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted for the resolution, as did one Democrat Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Trump lashed out of those who supported the measure in a post on truth social late last night. Quote, these senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done one way or the other because I always get it done. Exclamation point, shouty caps. The vote marks one of the biggest fissures between Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate during his second term. It comes days after the Trump administration reached an agreement with the Iranian government to end the war, which several Republican senators strongly criticized him for. So let's begin with this. Pushy, let me start with you. It does seem that this is something that should be somewhat monumental, and yet the administration has given signals, let's say, that they may not really recognize this vote as it was passed. And I must say it is confusing even to the average, somewhat educated listener, viewer, whatever. Because on the one hand, it has been hailed even in the media as a stinging rebuke to Trump's war on Iran. But the White House, of course, as you point out, has brushed it off as something without any kind of teeth, really. And so the real question is, is that the case? And it appears that there was a Supreme Court case in 1983. INS versus Chadda, which has kind of struck down the whole idea of the resolution not being quite the same as a law that has been enacted. So it is rather confusing. So we don't know whether it has. So what does it really do? I also feel it's only fair to point out that presidents in the U.S. have systematically waged wars without the express consent of Congress. I mean, it is not something that only Trump has done. would include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, Iraq War, et cetera, et cetera. So I guess the real question again is, so what now? And at a lot of times, I've heard the word symbolic associated with this whole resolution. And I'm just going to point out that while it is symbolic, symbolic.

symbols and symbolic activities often still have material consequences. So the real question is, what would that possibly be? And what I'm also seeing is that how does this place the Congress members who did vote for the resolution when the time comes to support tangibly in terms of money, budget? Because I think we're being told that 80 million is going to be, 80 billion is going to be requested to further. the war. So sure, it's symbolic at some level in the sense that it can't perhaps stop the president, but can it do other things is kind of what I would think we should think about. Fred. Yeah, well, Joe, I think it's, first of all, I agree with virtually everything that was just said. There was, there were forms in the past of congressional approval of some of these conflicts that you refer to. There was a vote in the Senate, as I recall, approving the invasion of Iraq. in 2003. Look, I think it's good that Congress has finally asserted itself on this issue, but it may be a classic case of too little too late. You know, at this point, most Americans, including I think a sizable minority of Republicans now understand that the war should not have been fought in the first place. Back in February, negotiations were ongoing. The Strait of Hore moves was wide open. Gasoline prices were below $3 a gallon. So now, all of a sudden, there's a sufficient number of Republican senators and House members. willing to join Democrats, the pass a resolution purporting to say that the president must have the permission of Congress to wage war. And that's fine. It does no harm. I think, though, it's also largely meaningless. If President Trump, for some reason... Wakes up at 28 minutes to 4 tomorrow morning and decides to resume the bombing of Iran, he will do so on his own and with no reference at all to the United States Congress. He can do this because nearly all Republicans in both houses of Congress have refused consistently to assert. their war-making rights and their responsibilities as specified by Article 1 of the Constitution. And I suspect this would have continued yesterday if two absent Republican senators had been able to show up and vote. Jackie. Yeah, symbolic but still worthwhile. I definitely agree with everything that you guys have said.

And I also wonder, you know, had those two senators been there, how that vote would have turned out. You know, but look, of course the administration is trying to delegitimize it, right? Of course, you know, they're lashing out. You know, Trump doesn't want any checks on his power. And so the idea that they would dare do it even if, so if it is symbolic, then why are you, you know, lashing against it, basically? And then also, you know, there's an argument there that is being made by the administration that this is unconstitutional. What I'd like to know is what legal scholars, what constitutional scholars in the administration are actually making that argument. That part's not clear to me, to my knowledge. I think only JD Vance has said that. So I'd like to know where that's coming from. I also don't necessarily agree with, there was an assessment in something I read that this could be undermining the negotiations that are currently taking place, you know, with JD Vance and Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. And I don't necessarily agree with that. I mean, for one thing, no one is undermining. the negotiations more than the two people who started the war, right? That would be Benjamin Netanyahu as he continues to bomb in Lebanon. And that would be Trump who is trying to do so with basically social media. You know, so that's the first thing. You know, the second thing is, you know, I think they know that Trump is a wild card and I think they know that the United States is somewhat unpredictable. You know, so I don't think it's necessarily going to discourage them. I also think that they probably are not that unhappy with the deal as it stands, to my knowledge, on the table, right? So, you know, the idea that they would get, you know, $300 billion and, you know, and a lot of things that they have wanted maybe even getting to charge fees or tolls on the street. You know, and also I think that, you know, they don't want the war to continue forever. So, you know, yes, they have demonstrated that they have the upper hand in this. They have shown that they can outlast us. Proof of concept. You know, we have shown that we're not willing to put troops on the ground to kind of finish off what we said we were going to do. And that being said, they can withstand it. That's not the same thing as preferring it. So I don't think that this is undermining the negotiations because I think that they will ultimately still want to remain at the table. Stephen? I have two brief thoughts. One is... Is it possible that the Republican senators are voting not totally, they're not voting totally along the lines of their conscience, but because they want their voting record to look better for the midterms, like they're sensing that things are shifting and they want to say, I oppose this, right? They'd be able to claim wherever they go that they voted against it.

Right. So I just, I don't know, maybe that's naive, but it seems like... No, I think that's exactly right. And I think in particular, Susan Collins up in Maine, who has a very, very, very tough race and who really needs to demonstrate her independence to get the requisite number of Democratic and independent votes to win. Just like John Fetterman. Yes. And she is infamous for... being concerned about very important issues. And that seems to be the extent of her action. The other thing I want, my brother is a retired Air Force helicopter pilot, rescue pilot. And he said that not only do soldiers... have the right to refuse an illegal order, but an obligation to do it. He said, when you sign up, you agree that if something is illegal, immoral, you will not do it. So I wonder if this is a case of something illegal that the people in the Pentagon, the military who are involved could refuse. Who makes the calls here in the sense of what we see on the voting yesterday of that this had been, I mean, how many votes had they taken and passed and finally we come to this? So. There's a mixed bag there, and so you do wonder what people will take from it. And also, exactly who is within the House and Senate, who's setting the agenda as to what is right and what should be done? Yeah, I mean, the... It's very clear that leadership in the House is absolutely lacking in terms of the person serving as a speaker. Right. And in the Senate, the majority leader. By all accounts, a very competent, even tempered guy, somebody who tries to work things out professionally, is having an increasingly difficult relationship with the President of the United States. And I believe there's a meeting, a lunch perhaps at the Senate today, where... President Trump is going to have an opportunity to unload on Senate Republicans, you know, concerning his concerns about... Sign me up. His concerns about, you know, these, you know, random, randomly occurring signs of quasi-independence.

If I could just ask a question, actually, because I genuinely don't know how this would work. Following up with your point about disobeying an illegal order, how are they supposed to know that it is illegal, right? These are not trained, right? They're not legal aficionado. So how are they supposed to ascertain? do a quick search. Like, you know what I mean? Is this illegal? Like, how are they supposed to know, you know, that it is illegal so that they can refuse? That's something I'd have to ask my brother. I'll see if I can get him on the line. I serve for 20 years as an Army officer. And... And I must say the subject never arose. When I entered the military, this particular issue during the Vietnam War, this particular issue wasn't, I can recall, I cannot recall it ever being raised in my officer training. The possibility of disobeying. The possibility of illegal orders. I mean, obviously, when you're commissioned as an officer, you take an oath to preserve, protect, defend the Constitution, etc., etc. So it's certainly implied that... that you are only required to execute those orders that are that are proper, that are coming down through the chain of command and seem proper. Beyond that, beyond that, beyond that, Jackie, I don't, you know, I think it, I think it would be, I think it would be very difficult. I think, People who are really on the spot now in terms of serving officers are naval officers who are involved in these bombings of boats in the I guess in the Caribbean or in the in the in the Atlantic I think I think there are real questions there And I have definite opinions, but I'll just say there are real questions about the legality of that entire operation. I want to, we just have about a minute before we have to go to a break. And when we come back, we'll talk about the actions themselves of what is going on within. the war and the negotiations, and I want to get into that, and God knows if Fred has opinions, I want to hear them. But also, before we get to that real quick, is that you said something earlier, Fred, about too little too late. Well, we're doing this at a time that if we take the administration at face value here that they are winding this up.

Well, then this whole vote becomes like, okay, well, you know, where were you? TikTok? Yeah, I mean, that's, you know, that's my basic point. Too little, too late. And I think, you know, just like a broken clock. Twice a day being correct. I think the president is correct in saying, wait a minute, I've got a sign memorandum of understanding with the Iranians now. We're conducting negotiations. And all of a sudden, you guys pop up out of nowhere with this resolution. What's going on here? We'll take a break. When we come back, we will continue. We welcome you, panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org. And we will continue our conversation after this break and news from the BBC.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning. We invite you to be a part of it panel at wamc.org. Have a great discussion underway and we'll continue it. We would love for you to be involved as well. So we talked about war powers and how the vote went down yesterday. I would like to talk about the negotiations that are taking place. as far as trying to wrap the war up as the president says. So looking at an article in the New York Times as a jumping off point. President Trump was eager Tuesday morning to announce the latest concession that he says his negotiators extracted from Iran writing on social media that the country had agreed to allow the highest level nuclear inspections long into the future. Infinity! Exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point. parentheses. But he omitted the fact that as a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, Iran is required to allow in international inspectors, and his statement came after the Iranians had insisted that there were no plans to allow inspectors into the three major nuclear sites the United States bombed a year ago, and where just about all the nations enriched uranium is stored. The previous day, Vice President JD Vance, leaving the negotiating site at a Swiss resort, so that Iran had agreed that if Iranian assets were unfrozen, the United States and Qatari officials would oversee the process and the money would be used to buy American farm products. The Iranians denied that too, saying that the 14-point memorandum of understanding they had signed with the Americans did not require them to do so. No negotiating with Iran has become an extraordinary challenge, but until recently one rule of diplomatic bargaining has usually held. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is how the United States and Iran traditionally have left themselves some trading space and fine-tuned wording to satisfy the many critics at home who will have to be sold on any agreement. In 2015, when details of the intersangent negotiations leaked, American officials complained bitterly saying that the news reports were making it harder to get a final deal. But in this negotiation, the leaks are replaced by official... if fragmentary announcements, usually from the American side, usually from the president. Mr. Trump's style is often to describe his preferred outcomes as fully negotiated side deals in hopes of locking the Iranians into each element at any eventual agreement. I read that line, Fred, like four times last night. Yeah. And thinking to myself,

Okay, but at what point do you realize it's not working? Yeah. Well, you know, Joe, I think the challenge we're dealing with here is that Iranian and American leaders really have one thing in common. They're dealing with domestic constituencies that are deeply, deeply skeptical. about the terms of the 14-point memorandum of understanding that was signed on the 17th. Therefore, you know, President Trump and his Iranian counterparts are engaging in, I guess, what you could call a public spinning contest. Each is claiming that the other is making concessions perfectly consistent with the other side having lost the war. Now, as Tom Friedman points out in the New York Times, words that may be exchanged in a closed room between negotiators, having a conversation, don't necessarily reflect formal agreements. An Iranian negotiator, for example, might say something like, sure. Sure, we'll consider buying American crops. We'll consider buying American agricultural equipment just as soon as we get our hands on our unfrozen funds. Let me say that. Or they could say, sure, we understand the importance of UN nuclear inspections. It doesn't mean. that agreement has been reached. There are details, hundreds of details that need to be hammered out, put on paper, and formally agreed. That is the nature of this business. It's not, you know, it's not a, you know, it's not a tweet that comes at 422 in the morning. You know, if you read the 14 points in the memorandum of understanding, I think it's pretty clear. If this process can remain on track, if it doesn't get derailed by something in Lebanon or something else, you're going to see a fairly near-term trade-off. Inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. will begin as Iranian frozen funds are released. That seems to be the almost inevitable timing and sequencing, assuming things stay on track. But I think essentially it's not worth paying any attention to these public statements. Yeah, of course, I completely agree with what Fred is saying. And it almost looks like at times that the president and some of the administration is following the fake it till you make it kind of philosophy. Because, you know, it's not just what is desired. It's almost like if I pretend it's happening, it's happening and everything is. But the real thing that seems to be missing is any kind of training in statecraft.

And so there are times where I feel completely at a loss, to be quite honest, that there are times when the president says things that make you wonder, is he trying to sabotage his own deal? And of course, can that possibly be true? Most probably not. But maybe he doesn't know how to do these things. I'm really not sure. I often really do feel at a complete loss here. I do. think that also, I'm kind of jumping off a little bit, but think about the two absent parties in this whole negotiation are Israel and Hezbollah, and even the Lebanese government, for instance. And what is that kind of? mean for the actual negotiation. They're not even there. I mean, we do hear periodically from Israel that they're completely disapproving and that they don't intend to follow suit. But the fact that they're not there and still a lot hinges on Israel being willing to kind of... move away or just stop bombarding southern Lebanon. So I would really appreciate hearing from someone with much more experience in this. Like, what does that mean? Israel's not there. Lebanon's not there, as well as not there. And so how does anybody, in fact, speak to controlling their actions when they're not even there? In a weird way, it actually reminds me of the very, very 1990s Palestinian issue where for the longest time, the PLO was not part of many agreements. Yeah, it's interesting because according to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, Iran has carved out a position for itself of essentially negotiating. for Lebanon, all right? The Lebanese or the Lebanese government is extremely nervous about the implications for this. They're committed to over time. disarming Hezbollah, rendering Hezbollah more or less irrelevant politically, if at all possible. And here comes the United States signing a memorandum of understanding that puts the bad guys right back in the middle of the game. There are... direct talks taking place this week. As we speak, they're taking place in the State Department and I think in the Pentagon as well between Israeli and Lebanese negotiators with the United States mediating. But the weakest actor in this whole drama, namely the government of Lebanon, is struggling as best it can.

to make itself relevant. It is, after all, the elected government of the country. I think you hit the nail on the head, fishy. I mean, statecraft. Where is the statecraft, right? I mean, and as Fred said, like, you can't just announce things. Like, you know, I think JD Vance and Trump are just so desperate to report any good news that they're either jumping the gun. You know, or straight up lying. And I don't know which it is. And I also don't know why he still believes that he can somehow control the Iranians and or the narrative with these, you know, blasts on social media. They have not yet. back down, right? So as to your point, Joe, when do you realize it's not working? Right. I mean, we've been through this for a long, for several, ever since this started, this conflict started, and there are many other examples prior to that. But. Yeah, we just don't, we think, okay, this is going to happen? Oh, it's not going to happen. Oh, you haven't agreed? Oh, you don't have an agreement. Okay. Yeah, and hasn't changed anything. What do we believe? Right, exactly. You know, and they've never backed down. It's never had an effect. Isn't that the definition of madness to continue doing the same thing over and over again, even though it's not actually working? You know, we're going to bomb you back to the Stone Ages, all of that stuff. It just hasn't been working. Right in the head. We're going to smack you right in the head. Well, imagine being Vice President JD Vance. I mean, you're responsible for negotiating with these guys and you're sitting there across the table in a room and all of a sudden this comes in. Right. Yeah, the President of the United States threatening to drop bombs. I mean, what kind of professionalism is this? As a diplomat, I mean, who do you complain to? Who do you complain to? Who? What office do you go to to say? Look. Dude, we're going to stop this. Yeah, well, I think it's not exactly accidental or coincidental that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is keeping himself as far distanced from this melodrama as he can. He is now in the region visiting various Gulf states, partners of the United States, partners that were not consulted. when the United States and Israel launched these surprise attacks on the 28th of February. And now Marco Rubio is saying, well, I'm here. I'm on a listening tour. I'm not delivering any sermons. I'm not making any statements. I am here to listen because the views of our partners in the region.

are of tremendous importance to the way we calculate foreign policy in the United States. Well, it's, you know, if he's sincere about that, if he's come to that realization, that's that's. great. But we consulted none of our partners when we got into this in the first place, not Arab partners, not even NATO partners. We're late for a break. I want to get to Stephen when we come back and continue the conversation. We'll bring your letters in as well. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We'll be back right after this. June 27th is right around the corner. Are you excited? So excited, but why are we so excited? You know. But they don't. Oh, right. WAMC on the road is going to be at the Troy Waterfront Farmer's Market on June 27th. We'll be broadcasting live, talking about the First Amendment, and the market community. We'll have cool gifts and fun, and so many WMCers to meet. That's why we're so excited. More info at wamc.org slash on the road. Supported by Unity House Troy and Fort Fat Fowl, Jesus, Steventown.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning. Very nice to have you with us. And again, we welcome you panel at wamc.org. Before we check in with letters, we'll check in with Stephen. So it seems to me, based on what I've been reading about the war and the memorandum of understanding, that while the U.S. administration keeps jumping the gun, as Jackie was saying, Because they want a headline, they want bold action, they want a complete solution. But what's really needed are a collection of mini deals that tackle issues problem by problem instead of one big dramatic finish. And it made me think of like any, say, two-person relationship, a friendship, a marriage. In order for it to work, you need humility. You need the courage to share responsibility for something. And most of all patience, a kind of radical patience. And we're getting the exact opposite of that now, something impatient and even desperate.

When we talk about the desperation, and we seem to be feeling that all the way around, right? I mean, that maybe not within the White House itself, but the world at large sort of watching and saying, okay, so what's up? And we even saw that coming out of the G7. There was a, okay, we're going to do what we have to do. We'll be nice. We'll give gifts. We'll do all the things we have to do. We'll smile. And hopefully this will work out. And it worked up until about three hours before they left. And then everything went, boom. Yeah. Well, you know, I think it's pretty clear that what President Trump wants. More than anything else, maybe you could even say he wants this exclusively. He wants the Stradahor moves open. He wants traffic through that waterway, petroleum traffic to be restored to its pre-war levels. He wants gasoline prices in the United States coming down as rapidly as possible in advance of the mid-term elections. It strikes me that this is the key to what he wants. And it's interesting. I read an analysis the other day. I can't remember where it was from. But the person writing who had been very much opposed to the war and its consequences said, you've really got to give Donald Trump credit for one thing. When he discovers that something isn't working. He drops it like a bad habit. He drops it, regardless of the consequences. He gets rid of it. He's not going to maintain something that looks like a forever war as a matter of principle. It's, I mean, the best example of that I think is, or a more recent example is Greenland. I mean, you go and you talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and then suddenly, oh, all right, never mind. Yeah, apparently he raised it a couple of times quietly during the G7. Didn't go well. Did not go over well. Yeah. But this is all explained if you think of it all as real estate deals. You know, you try any kind of real estate deal. You want to kind of, you know, develop a particular, you try it. You go into maybe Brooklyn or wherever and you do something. And when it fails, you just drop it. That's how I'm a business professor. I do know that's how you do business in the real estate, the giant real estate sector. Especially in Brooklyn. Maybe.

Maybe. But the interesting thing is that no matter what, a grave miscalculation was made. in starting the war. Yes. And one of the miscalculations, and again, I read this, and I think I heard Trita Parsy, who's one of the leading commentators on Iran, he was pointing out that part of it is this whole depiction or imagination. It's a failure of imagination, too, the idea that Iran is one of all these three things, and that is irrational, ideological, and suicidal. And that becomes kind of, that forms the kind of foundation of assumptions on which certain activities and decisions are made. Well, they've actually shown that they're not. And anybody with a basic understanding of political science could have said that. I mean, you know this. So it's the miscalculation. that is not going to go away, I imagine, in even segments of the public citizen race. And to your point, Stephen, about, you know, a series of mini-deals as opposed to one big splash, one big bold headline, one big, you know, denouement that he's looking for. This is reflective of how... everything in this administration is handled, right? Like, you know, everything's a quick fix. Everything is you just go in and you do it. That's why the reflecting pool looks the way it does. That's why, you know, you just go in and it's supposed to be an immediate solution that doesn't take more than a few weeks. And, you know, then it's supposed to be done. And that's not how diplomacy works. You know, that's not how war works. That's not how negotiations to get out of war work. We have a couple of letters I'd like to get to before we take a break at the top of the hour. This one from Roger, what does the ambassador and the panel think our general posture should be? The other day, the other... Yeah, the other day I asked this, what if we backed the heck off? I don't deny that in this connected world, peoples have interests in other parts of the world and the outcomes of where militaries and economies go. But does this require our intervention at all? Might we get something better for our self-interest, including the prospect of peace, if we meddled less? Well, I think there are certainly lessons learned from this war, the way it was conceived in the first place, the way it was waged, that will have a major impact on the way the question Roger asks is determined.

I think, I think certainly, you know, President Trump. for the balance of his term, even though at the end of the day he will inevitably rely on his own instincts, I think he realizes that in this case he was burned, and he was burned very, very, very badly because of his own reliance on the assertion by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the head of Mossad. in Israel, that this Iranian regime would collapse almost instantaneously after, you know, very, very concentrated and short U.S.-Israel air campaign. Had the president relied on his own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had he relied on our own intelligence community, he might have been a bit more... hesitant. So, yeah, I think Roger poses a very, very good question that I think is worth a lot of study. But you're also assuming that there is a steep learning curve. And I'm not sure about that. I mean, there is also a capacity to... systematically underestimate adversaries, whether they're domestic or, you know, you think about Minnesota, even, and Minneapolis. And so I'm just not sure that learning is something that takes place automatically in this kind of political circumstances. And, you know, as someone who's actually studied organizations, even smarter people, been making rational decisions. Very hard to kind of, A, admit you're wrong and actually learn from the mistake itself. So, I mean, it's an open question. It's an empirical question. Yeah, I think they're clearly showing their hand as amateurs at this. Right? So maybe one option is to pick up the phone and call people who have done this before, people who have the expertise. in situations like this, even if you're, you know, you don't want to do it publicly, you need to save face, you know, get some expertise, get some advice. Because clearly everyone can tell that they're in over their head. So on that, we get a letter from Ken who writes, nothing, nothing, shoddy caps. He says, can be believed. How is it? No one gets that yet. Well, I think everyone gets that, right? I mean, I don't, I'm not being combative, Ken, with you. I just think that, I think that message is driven home. It's what you do about it, right? I mean, of the fact of, okay, so he can't be believed, and there are wise. Now.

How do you figure out what is actually happening on the ground? Yeah, I hope I'm not playing the diplomat, you know, when I say that certainly nothing in these circumstances can be taken at face value. You have to go way beyond the public statements. One thing that's useful, and it's no more than a five-minute investment for people who are interested in this issue is read the 14-point memorandum of understanding that was signed earlier this month. I think if you read the terms, then you're in a better position to place in perspective. some of these off-the-wall statements, whether they're coming out of the Oval Office or coming out of Tehran. Well, go ahead. Oh, I was just going to say that I completely agree with Joe, but I was talking to a colleague the other day who said, you know, we do live in some kind of a bubble. And he said the place to go to to find out how people are thinking about this and believing or non-believing the children's baseball games and soccer games where you start talking to parents. And he says it's very hard for him to not actually pick a fight with them. And not just over the game. I'm not over the game. Yeah, that's right. Well, let's take a break. We'll come back. We'll do some more investigating and talk to each other about other important issues. We welcome you to be a part of that pursuit. Panel at wamc.org will return right after this.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion, seven minutes past the hour of 10 o'clock. Jackie Bari Weiss is with us, Stephen Haff, Ambassador Fred Hoff, and Pushy Besad. We welcome you panel at wamc.org. We... Spent our first hour talking about Iran and talking about the votes taking place on war powers. We move now to take a look a bit about the primaries that happened yesterday. In several states, however, we will focus initially on the state of New York. And the New York Times does this after primary day where they'll say, here are the takeaways from yesterday after the dust has settled for six or seven hours or so. And so here are some of the takeaways that the New York Times has come up with as a result of the primaries in New York State yesterday. Azurran Zohran Mamdani, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, is in his strongest position yet as his three endorsed congressional candidates took out two incumbents and the preferred successor of a retiring member of Congress. The results underscored the reach of his support beyond neighborhoods that represent the heart of the base. Then we also look at the bleak night for Camelot as the grandson of former President John F. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jack Schlossberg, finished a distant third in the Democratic primary in the 12th Congressional District. This was the campaign to succeed Representative Gerald Nadler in a crowded primary race for that seat. Also, pro-Israel candidates are increasingly vulnerable. Another takeaway, says the New York Times, with Democratic support for Israel cratering, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee laid low in a spate of congressional primaries in New York this cycle. Also, another takeaway, the primary results showed Mr. Zohran Mamdani's comfort with risk and foreshadowed a possible showdown with the top Democrat in Congress. In endorsing challengers to longtime incumbents, the mayor directly took on Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn native, who hopes to become the next Speaker of the House and represents the Democratic establishment. Neither Ms. Valdez or Ms. Avila. Chevalier has committed to backing the congressman in his bid for speakers, should Democrats win back the majority in November. Another takeaway, outside groups shelled out millions of dollars. This marked perhaps the most expensive congressional cycle in New York history with more than $50 million being poured into Super PACs, boosting candidates, and attacking their rivals.

Meanwhile, in the Hudson Valley, National Democrats see flipping a seat in New York's northern suburbs as a key to winning back the majority in the House of Representatives. To do so, they'll have to unseat Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican from the 17th District, one of the country's last true swing territories, the district, which includes Rockland, Duchess, and parts of Westchester County, swung toward former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential. election, even as it re-elected Mr. Christopher Waller. But Democrats are hoping that President Trump's low approval ratings will help put one of their own back in the seat. Kate Conley, a U.S. Army veteran and national security expert, will face Christopher Waller in November in a race that will almost certainly bring outsized national attention and an influx of campaign cash. And to prove that, Christopher Waller was on. Morning Edition this morning for a lengthy segment. Meanwhile, we go to one other seat, and that is, that I wanted to mention, is the 21st congressional race. This is Elise Stefanik seat. And this, I believe it was Politico. that we read an article from yesterday that said that this is a bonkers race. And it turned out to be kind of bonkers. But the Trump back sticker magnate won the House primary. Yes, one one back. And He is Anthony Constantino. He defeated Assemblyman Robert Smullen, the state Republican Party's chosen candidate in a right-leaning upstate district. And so now this brings up a question of where we go here because... There is, Mr. Smullen is also endorsed by the Conservative Party. So is he going to run as a conservative candidate, thereby in political... pundits will wonder if that then will divide the vote between Constantino and Smullen and allow, I believe, Jen Debian, who is the Democratic candidate, who won the Democratic primary yesterday, to win that race in November. The Victory by Constantino by Constantino is a major blow to the state's Republican Party, which has taken the unusual step of endorsing his opponent, Robert Smohen, a state assemblyman and former Marine, with 78% of the vote counted Mr. Constantine, was 18 percentage points ahead of Mr. Smohen.

Constantino certainly has his resume, an amateur rapper, a one-time boxer, and he developed his company's sticker mule into a multi-million dollar operation. Mr. Constantino, 43 years old, is not the average upstate Republican. He also self-funded his campaign. He's emphasized his similarities and fealty to President Trump, who endorsed him. In an interview after his victory speech, Mr. Constantino indicated he would not. soften his stances and said he would take on the general election like a boxing match. All right. Who would like to begin with all that stuff? Well, I would like to ask, what do we believe? As we were talking about earlier, that we couldn't believe anything that was coming out of negotiations in the Middle East. We don't trust what's being said to us. For me, my mistrust or my wariness extends even into these local races. To what extent are people saying what they think will get elected and what do they actually think? What do they really deeply care about? I don't know if there's a way to know. I don't know. And is there a way to know? Fred. Well, I... I found a couple of these races to be interesting. My dwindling faith in the wisdom of the American voter was somewhat restored when I noticed that Mr. Jack Schlossberg wound up getting 11% of the vote. How we got that much? I don't know. But certainly voters... Voters in that primary race were able to exhibit a degree of sophistication and discrimination in rejecting a candidacy that can charitably, charitably be described as a joke. On the races, the races concerning Zohran Mamdani, I think there are two. winners aside from the three candidates themselves. First, you know, the mayor, the mayor has clearly, clearly established himself as a political kingmaker in the city or at least within certain parts of the city. And I think that's probably to his great advantage. But the other potential winner here from those three races in the city, the other potential winner, I think, is the National Republican Party. You can bet that Republicans in tight races across this country, whether it's in Texas or wherever, in tight races across the country, Republican candidates backed by huge... PAC donations will be painting their Democratic Party opponents as being linked to New York City Democratic Socialists. I mean, I'm sure the Republican Party is already at work on this theme as we speak. It kind of writes itself, doesn't it? Yeah. Yeah.

Jackie. Yeah, so Zohran Mamdani's on a wave. No doubt about that. I think it's kind of amazing that a doctoral student. can win against a community stall warrant, right? So this is someone who started out as an undocumented immigrant and Rose, I'm talking about SBAT, and Rose to be in Congress. You know, on the Schlossberg, it's interesting how you put that. I'm not against Mr. Schlossberg. I just think maybe he should start off a bit smaller if he does have political aspirations. But I am disappointed by the Smullen Constantino race and how that played out. And I hope Smullen ends up staying on the ballot. So. You know, Stephen, I think you hit the nail on the head as far as, you know, what do we believe about our candidates? What's true? What's not true? Constantine just seems like he's all over the place, right? He just seems like someone who's all over the place with no real ideology. And given that he seems to have branded himself as Donald Trump Jr., that's somewhat apropos. And that it works. So, I mean, look, this is the least of Hanuk's district. So there's an appetite for that within the district. But when you are, when you are against a Republican who is, I don't even know what the proper word is. Normal. I mean, more traditional. Traditional. We'll go with that. Yes, traditional. Traditional and has a strong military background and someone who has a great record and is being endorsed by the party, is being endorsed by the party itself to be the frontrunner for the Republican Party gets taken out by someone who is. very brash and has had a lot of controversy already, and we can only assume, as he said, in his remarks that he's going to take this race on like a fighter, and we'll continue to see exactly that. And, you know, it seems like it wasn't so long ago that a candidate with a strong U.S. Marine Corps background would do very, very, very, very well in Republican primaries and as a Republican candidate. I can remember the first time, the first time I thought Donald Trump was writing his own political obituary was when he attacked Senator John McCain, someone who I got to know pretty well.

McCain epitomized heroism in his conduct while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, refusing to come home as part of a deal, refusing to abandon his fellow cellmates over there, a true American hero. And Donald Trump said something to the effect of, well, you know, I don't consider him a hero. I don't particularly like people who get captured. I thought, you cannot, you cannot say something like this as a Republican. This is instant political death. How wrong I was. But this latest, this latest Constantino Smullen. contests may be further proof that the Republican Party has moved on from Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan. Well, it was certainly, I think, also, Zohran Mamdani's knight, and the media had sort of played this. You know, it's going to be either a generational contest as well as a Hakeem Jeffries versus Zohran Mamdani contest. And, you know, Fred is right and pointing out that it was his nights and that might have ramifications that are not necessarily positive for the Democratic Party outside of cities like New York or Boston. I was kind of interested when I looked at the actual candidate. It's who Mamdanese supported. They're very different from each other. On the one hand, you have Brad Lander, who is, again, a very respectable candidate, has done his work in public service, and clearly a person of integrity or at least comes across that way. It appears to me from what I read, and I do, I must admit, I have a number of alarms, my student alums who live in the area, and they keep me very, very well informed about New York City politics, actually. But the thing that seemed to have been broken Dan Goldman was really his ardent support of Israel. So you're really seeing how Israel is kind of playing a role certainly in big city internal politics. But Brad Lander, again, very respectable. You know, I can easily see why you want. Same is largely true of Claire Valdez, the other candidate who is supported more of a kind of more traditional labor background. She also, you know, she sees herself as an indigenous person. She's a member of the Salta del Surpablo nation as well. And so, you know, again, quite respectable within a left-leaning respectability, shall we say.

The person that kind of really did surprise me was Chevalier, I have to say. I mean, I was not expecting her. And you mentioned Adriano Espela. If I'm saying that correctly, he is an undocumented person who again seemed, that one did surprise me. I was not expecting it, though, again, my alarm's former students had predicted it. And not only. Was she dealing with, I think, a very respectable candidate? She has had a somewhat checkered career in terms of the statements she has made and, you know, her positions held. could be characterized as a bit of a hot head in some ways. So that was interesting. I will say the one I followed very closely, partly because of my interest in it, and I was kind of disappointed to see Alex Boris Luce. He is the one who lost to Joe, can you remind me? Oh, look at them. Oh, yeah, Congressman Nadler's former... Yeah, yeah, right, right. Yeah, I'll find it. But if you look carefully, the amount of money spent on that particular race, particularly against Alex Boris, is fascinating. And it has all come from the AI lobby. So Alex Boris is a champion of regulating artificial intelligence, and he really drew a lot of adversarial funding, shall we say. On the other hand, Anthropic, which is also one of the AI companies, did support him. But Anthropic is seen as somewhat a respectable company and is more willing to kind of enter into the world of... regulating, not self-regulating, but actual regulation. So I just thought that was kind of interesting to see so much money spent against Alex Boris than actually anybody else. Can I just step in briefly? Yes. So the issue of cash that is spent on campaigns, of course, that's crucial. Where does the money come from? You know, follow the money and you get the story of this person and what they're after. Earlier we talked about a candidate who had funded his own campaign. He's saying, look, I'm not beholden to anyone. But I would say he's actually beholden to privilege still. If he's a person of such wealth and privilege, just because he paid for it doesn't mean he's not influenced by the values and the perspective of people with a lot of money. Michael Lasher. That's it. Yes, it was the canon. Yes. All right. There are other primaries. I don't know if I can bring up this information in the time. We have about four minutes before we go over to.

We go over to the news at the bottom of the hour. There were other races throughout the United States yesterday, not just in New York State. But obviously that is big. Let's see. In Maryland, that was a big race. And in South Carolina, a big race, where Trump's initial pick for the governor. ship lost. Lieutenant Governor Pamela Avett lost to Attorney General Alan Wilson in the primary runoff for a governor. That happened. Also, in Maryland, two expensive house races were decided, and Governor Wes Moore will face a rematch against the MAGA-aligned Dan Cox, and that is obviously a big deal as well. And also races flooded by special interest money, a lot of money coming into those races as we move forward. And the other Steny Hoyer's retirement in January touched off a six-month campaign sprint that drew 24 Democrats to the race, including some former federal workers, multiple current and former local officials, some state lawmakers and business makers. Adrian Bofo from Prince George's County, a former Hoyer campaign manager, was the incumbent's preferred successor and decisively won the primary shortly after polls closed, according to the Associated Press. So, some of the other races that were happening in the U.S. As far as, does anyone get a sense of trends? I mean, we were... I mean, I think it's been talked about as almost a foregone conclusion for a long time that Democrats could take over the House and perhaps the Senate. And, I mean, that talk has slowed, I think. But just because, I think, for two reasons. One, obviously, is some of the Republican candidates that President Trump has endorsed have been doing quite well. But also. because of what's happening within voting rights and election reforms as to what kind of election we're actually going to have in November. Stephen? Yeah, I mean, the foundation is cracked and wobbling for people's faith in the process. The basic legality or fairness and potential for... tampering, which didn't it didn't Elon Musk say, no, no, it wasn't Elon Musk. Trump say something after he won this time about that Elon Musk really helped us out in Pennsylvania. Didn't he say, wasn't there some public statement? Because he knows those machines really well. So I was surprised that wasn't really pursued, but it makes me nervous. It makes me think what if it is a case of some sort of hack that undoes democracy?

He urged Pennsylvania voters in an apocalyptic terms to head of the polls, telling them in late October that the election would determine the race. And Trump said Elon Musk knows those vote-counting computers better than anybody. But I thought he was against voter fraud. I'm just a little confused. So what was this with his double endorsement in South Carolina where he endorsed both the candidates? I think the person he initially endorsed was falling farther and father and farther behind in the polls. And the president calculated, you know, it may not do me much good to endorse a loser. So I think what I'll do is a double endorsement here. You know, the people of South Carolina cannot lose no matter who they choose between these two fine individuals. You know, if you've been on every horse in the race, you're going to cash in that ticket. Saratoga's coming up next weekend. I mean, there's a wheel everything, and you'll get a ticket. We'll take a break. We'll be back and continue our conversation as we roll through our last half hour. We'll be back right after this update from the BBC.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion for this Wednesday morning. It's the 24th of June, 35 minutes past the hour of 10 o'clock. We've got about 20, 25 minutes with our group this morning and a couple more topics I'd like to address in that time period. As I was working on the stories last night, there was a breaking news alert from the Washington Post, and I went down that rabbit hole reading about the L.A. school system, and there... decision, the second largest school district in the country that has now passed strict new screen time rules for students. We have a lot of professors in this room, and I'm interested of what they're going to make of this, even though this is in a elementary school. But still, Los Angeles Public Schools will ban screens for its youngest learners and limit device usage for other students, marking one of the most aggressive attempts to restrict the amount of time children spend on devices at school. The new rules approved yesterday will be phased in starting in August, following backlash to the devices districts nationwide have spent billions on since the coronavirus pandemic. The Los Angeles School Board had passed a resolution in April that required the district to limit student screen time. No screen time will be permitted for children until they're in second grade. From then until fifth grade, the cap allowed per day will be set at 60 minutes. Middle schoolers will be limited to six hours of screen time each week, and high schoolers will not be allowed to spend more than 10 hours weekly on screens. The limits include time spent on homework. Students will also be told to leave devices at school unless their parents object. Other school systems have also sought to limit the time students spend using electronic devices. Iowa will place hour-long screen time caps on elementary schoolers starting in the 27-28 school year. San Diego Unified School District also passed new screen time rules on Tuesday, including a policy barring students from using YouTube. But the efforts in... How are you going to make coleslaw? But the efforts in Los Angeles, which has the country's second largest public school district, are some of the most prescriptive and will take effect sooner than most other policies. The thing that just keeps going through my brain is I read this, and there is information in the article about it.

of how you keep track of this, of how you enforce it. Yeah, how you enforce it. Seems to be a difficult... There was one example I read was that, you know, with bands, age limit bands, like 16 and younger can't use certain platforms. They were saying that kids are finding ingenious ways around the age limit by, you know... You know how it would take a photo of your face and determine how old you are from that? They scrunch up their faces to make them look wrinkled and older than they are. And it actually works. They get around the block. Hey, Mom, can we have a sharp pay? I'm dealing with this in two situations right now. One is where I teach at Poughkeepsie Day School from pre-K to eighth grade. We have banned the use of phones. This year we did it after several years of really contentious debate among adults, parents, teachers, and kids. And reactions like kids, I'm not exaggerating, screaming. and crying when they're separated from their device. In school, It can be likened to an addiction of when there is separation that it causes an outbreak. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, you know, that's troubling. But then also I teach adult students, ESL. I teach immigrants, refugees, English. They have their phones in class, but they use them in really interesting ways that have made looking things up in a dictionary obsolete. So they can point their phone and take a picture of a page of text and instantly translate it to their original language, which is helpful for them to get a sense of what we're reading, what we're studying, and then they can go back and learn the English. So there's two situations, one where the phone is a grave... distraction and really emotionally dangerous. And the other, where it's a practical tool that is highly useful and appropriate for study. I know one of the most common concerns among parents. was that if there was an emergency at school, that the students wouldn't have access to their devices to contact their parents. Well, what we said to that is the school still has a landline. And just like when we were students, if you needed to reach your parents, you use the school phone.

So, but I know we've very rapidly evolved away from that. Right. So I'm not sure what the fix is because that made students panic, at least initially. But what if, what if, you know, what if my parents are trying to reach me and nobody picks up the phone? Wow. Technology in the classroom is a double-edged sword. You know, on the one hand, you've got to be digitally literate in order to be competitive in this day and age at my institution at RPI. Laptops have been a required part of the general curriculum for years. And, you know, you can purchase one and finance it if you do not come to the university having one. Too much is done with applications. for example, that you need for engineering like computer animated design, and so that if they don't have that experience, they're going to be behind when they graduate. So it's a huge advantage in terms of what we use it for as far as learning. You know, on the other hand, you know, when everything can be learned electronically, those analog skills... You know, how do people learn them, right? So the joke is that people of this generation, and actually, I don't know what generation that would be. I think the millennials are a little too old, but, you know, slightly younger than that, are doing basic math on their calculators. For example, you know, 11 minus 8 equals 3, actually doing that on a calculator because they never actually learned to count with their fingers, which is what I would, you know, call analog. You know, which is just shocking. In fact, I was actually in a conversation with a woman who had recently graduated with her. I want to say she was 23, 24 years old, master's degree in social work. And we were both looking at a clock on the wall, an analog clock. And she's looking at it. And she's like, does that say 815? Because she couldn't tell the time because they grew up with digital clocks. Yeah, that says 815. And this is someone with a master's degree. So, you know, something about learning to do things, IRL, as they would put it, in real life, or analog as I put it, which means in the real world, like, you know, driving. You know, and I don't understand all of their neurology behind it, but it basically helps us encode it better, right? We have a better understanding of it. And now the temptation to cheat with AI. makes it even more of a problem in the classrooms because students can just use it and they're starting to lose their critical thinking skills as well, right? So maybe they don't need to know advanced math, but they at least need to be able to synthesize the information that they're learning. So it's such a double-edged sword. I'm curious to see how this plays out. On the one hand, they have to have it. Otherwise, they won't be competitive. On the other hand, it's a distraction. It's all I can do to get my students' attention. I feel like I should be on a pogo stick. Hey, I'm up here, right? So that they're not looking at the devices, but they have to have them because that's where the tools are. Also, and not to pick on your institution specifically, but so many of your students are the ones who are.

actually engaged in the future technologies that will be employed. Yes, that's exactly right. And, you know, I'm impressed that they got ahead of it by requiring laptops because they saw that this is something, and even my parents, because they weren't required when I went there, but they were like, we need to get you a laptop. So they, of all people, need to be, you know, educated on what this means in terms of, you know, mathematics and spatial relationships and understanding how that all applies in the real world. Appreciate. Yeah, I mean, you know, I'm entirely with you, Jackie, and... I like the term analog skills. It really captures a lot of what you're saying. And you're talking about more the cognitive side, but the social side, let me illustrate, I've been teaching for hundreds of years. And before the phone became a part of, you know, almost your body, it seemed like when I walked into the classroom at Skidmore College, there was always this buzz, this kind of energetic buzz. Kids were talking to each other. And, you know, I would have to tell them. to quiet and down. Over the last, I want to say, 8 to 10 years, ever since the phone has become, as I said, you know, part of our lives and bodies, you walk into a class and it's actually completely silent. Because every student sitting there is actually checking their phone. In some cases, they're even texting each other in the same class. So that's something that I, and the students are actually aware of that. They kind of miss, they often talk of older siblings who seem to have a different kind of social world. Most of my students who think through these things, they are constantly saying that, you know, they feel this has taken something away from them. While obviously, I mean, all technologies do something for you, but... Just wanted to share that experience. Well, yeah, it's very hard. I've been an adjunct for years and obviously have just seen it grow and grow and grow and it's nobody seems to know what to do. And in my experience, the students obviously pick up on that in an instant. And it's hard to, it's like the professor comes in with the basket and says, okay, everything in the basket, you know, you're done. And then it's just two hours of whining. Right. I mean, you know, it's just, oh, I have any, I need this.

Do you have these problems for you? Yeah, well, I don't know. My only connection to this issue was during the six years I taught at Bard. I enforced a total electronic ban. in the classroom during lecture times. My fellow panelists and I had an informal discussion of this issue right at the outset when we came in. And Jackie, you made a very interesting point, I think, about the existence. I think the term you used was Wi-Fi Deserts. Yep. that some students go home to. And, you know, if you wouldn't mind expanding on that a bit, I just found it very, very interesting. Right. So in the case of this particular school district, not all of the students have access to the infrastructure that gives them, you know, the internet and gives them Wi-Fi when they go home. So this is their opportunity to do some of the things that they would do to become digitally literate when they're in the school. So when that time is being limited and they don't have the opportunity to pursue. at home, then they're basically missing out, widening the gap. So it should be making everything accessible to everyone. But instead, this could have the potential to make things worse. The other thing is... Unintended consequence. Right, right. I was just going to say, I also worry about the disabled students, right? Like I had a girl in my class who was, she was blind. And she had this great application on her laptop that allowed her to have the slides just read off to her. And she wouldn't have been able to pass... my class or graduated without it. So what are we doing for dyslexia, for example? They have applications and tools and fonts that they can give for dyslexics. And for, you know, any number of disabilities that has gotten really, really good applications to help and support the students. So I really worry about what's going to happen with those who are disabilities. Can I? Of course. So I have two quick thoughts. One is that in the articles I read about this last night, it said that studies are showing that grades have not improved. because of the cell phone bans in schools. Now, there may be too little information yet to assess that, but they do say that there's evidence of an increase in well-being, which made me wonder, what does that mean, well-being? The kids are generally happier, healthier, their mood has shifted or lightened, possibly. And then the other thing I wanted to put out for... Contemplation is the role of adults in this as models, as examples, because I can tell my children that I want them to put down their phone, but if I keep pulling it out of my pocket, that's the lesson they're learning.

No matter what I say, if I say, come on, let's talk, let's have an in-person conversation. Yeah, but you keep touching your phone the whole time. Right. So, you know, reaching into my pocket and it's this reflex thing that I just keep doing it. So I'm worried about students, but I'm worried about us trying to lead the way for them if we're not doing it ourselves. It's a great point. I mean, I want to do it when I'm out to dinner, but... If the Phillies game is on and the score is coming in. And I can see the little stick people telling me whether it's a ball or a strike. I'm toast, man. It's hard. Let's take a break. We'll finish up on the other side of this minute or so. We'll return right after this.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion, having a great show today with this wonderful panel, and I thank them so much for their time and, well, great intelligence and insights to what we are talking about, the various issues that we're talking about. The last one I want to mention is a lopsided House vote yesterday, clearing the... housing bill measure for president trump's signature after a lengthy back and forth in several nearly fatal blows to the legislation The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a landmark housing bill, notching a rare bipartisan accomplishment ahead of the midterm elections and clearing the way for President Trump to sign the most significant piece of housing legislation in 36 years. The bill's passage by a lopsided 358 to 32 vote ended months of sparring between the House and the Senate over a sprawling measure that aims to tackle the housing crisis by... boosting supply and a country facing an acute shortage of new homes. The Senate passed its version on the same bill Monday by a vote of 85 to 5. A White House official said Mr. Trump was expected to sign the bill into law today. Passage of the legislation secured a much-needed achievement for his party months before the midterm elections in which their congressional majorities are at stake. Voters have been particularly critical. of the president's handling of this issue. According to, and the handling of the economy, with only 33% approving of it, that according to a New York Times-Siena poll last month, the success of the bill, which also collapsed several times in mid-Republican and infighting over the past few months, reflected an appetite among lawmakers in both parties to address a... Crucial affordability issue months before they face voters. Who would like to start us off? Well, I... Oh, sorry. Do you want to? Okay. I would just like to ask a question I don't have an answer for. I wonder what the history is of when people started having to pay for shelter. I think of traditional societies where the idea of paying to have a place to sleep just seems like it doesn't exist. That's not part of how they live. But now this crisis, I mean, there's a woman who lives in her car. She's parked in the church parking lot where I teach ESL. And she has to beg to use the bathroom. So how do we get to that point where you have to earn your right to shelter? I mean, health care is a whole other issue also. But when did that happen historically? And this idea of saying there's going to be more supply, again, how do you make that happen? And indeed.

With that supply, make sure that it is affordable. One of the key things I think is there's no new money. There's no appropriation attached to this legislation. So it's not as if the federal government is getting into the business of subsidizing the building of new housing stock. It appears, I mean, I think on balance, the bill is a good thing. It seems to streamline a lot of federal regulation. But the key thing, I think, is that the most important regulations governing what can be built, where and when are local in nature. And this is not touched by the bill, and it shouldn't be touched because, you know, the federal government has, you know, no business telling counties and townships and so forth how to do this. But the key regulations are local in nature. So to the extent that this new legislation, you know, produces some good results. They're well into the future, well beyond the midterm elections. So, yeah, so this is clearly an attempt to address the affordability issue in a sort of a concrete way, whether it is actually concrete. I mean, here again, we have this symbolic kind of thing. And I do think that Elizabeth Warren was very much behind at least one clause in this bill. The bill is going to restrict the amount of private equities acquisitions of homes. I think they cannot go beyond a certain number. I haven't had 350, I think that's right. And that would help to some extent. I'm not sure how the Airbnb thing has been tackled because a large amount of the housing capacity has been kind of swallowed up in certain parts of the country, including my hometown Saratoga Springs. by Airbnb and contributed to the unaffordability. The other interesting thing that I don't think they're really able to address. And one of the issues or two of the issues that are made housing very unaffordable is a gigantic unprecedented spike in the price of raw materials. And that is not something this bill can actually do. The second spike, which is also equally high, is home insurance. And that is not only in Florida. I mean, we all keep talking about Florida. I'm shocked at the way my own home insurance and I don't live in a floodplain or anything of that kind. And I found a very interesting statistic than one that is apparently debtoring young couples from buying homes and that home repairs, normal home repairs in the last 10 years have shot up by 178%. And so there's much more to this story, I think, than what this bill can even manage to do. We are at a time, but I want to thank all of our wonderful panelists for participating this morning. I thank you so much for being here, for being with us. And it's always great to have you. Fred, Jackie, Stephen, and Phushi, thank you very much for being here. We will continue with another hour of the roundtable after these messages.