BPR Full Show 8/13/26: Data Centers in Lowell

Support for Boston Public Radio comes from Harvard Business School Baker Library, featuring an exhibit on Muriel Sebert, the first woman to buy a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, open to the public. Details at library.hbs.edu. And bonsai Bar, learning something new can be as fun as a night out with friends. Come hang out, dig in, and discover the joy of tiny trees. More at bonsai Bar.com. I'm Jim Browdy, head on BPR and GVH and NEPM. We'll start the show with you, getting your thoughts on a viral New York Times article that asks, should letting kids play outside alone be a crime. Call or text, plus a handful of Lowell residents or suing the state to stop the expansion of a massive data center there. They just had a court victory this week. We'll speak with two local advocates. Then it's for a mass public safety secretary, Andrew Cabal, on the latest from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. I'm Marjorie. Jake Ockcloss on his re-election campaign in the 4th District, and Natick resident and blogger David Steiner discusses his legal fight for accountability against the eBay executives who terrorized him and his wife and stomp them for months. We'll end the show with our Thursday mainstay and my the A-Holl, where you get to decide who's the bigger jerk, the perpetually late person or the person who gets mad and just leaves without them. Way in next on BPR.

He is Jim Browdy. I am Marjorie Egan. You are listening to BPR and GBH and NEPM. We are streaming at YouTube.com slash Gbh News. We're going to be the Boston Public Library tomorrow with some great hip-hop music from hip-hop violinist, Rhett Price, plus PPS Travel Guru Rick Steves zooms in. And Sue O'Connell is going to give us the latest update on the Lindsay Clancy Triple Murder Trial, that tragic situation. Hello, Jim. Hey there. You know, before we get started, continuing our... our effort to keep a spotlight on the crisis of the BSO, Boston Symphony Orchestra, after the firing of Andrus Nelson. The other day we had Thomas Thinsmore on who's got a substack who writes about this a lot. He on our show refuted a lot of the claims about deficits and depletion of the endowment and that sort of thing. Well, he is, after having going through all the tax forms and the BSO crying poor and one of the reasons why I guess, Andres Nelson's how to go. We really don't know why. Here's what he wrote on his substack yesterday. Here's a challenge, writes Thomas Dinsmore. BSO, show us the line item for, quote, operating deficit in the audited financial statements of your Form 990 for fiscal year 2025. Do it, Chad, Chad Smith, who we've invited on the show repeatedly. Go to Boston Public Radio with Jim and Marjorie and show them where it says operating deficit. If they agree, that's what the public document says. I will publish a comprehensive correction on my substack. And that's not all. I will stand on the steps of Symphony Hall with a sign that says, quote, I was wrong about deficits. Good. For him. You should read his substack, Thomas W. Dinsmore.substack.com, and Chad Smith, or the chair of the board, Barbara Hostetter, once again, you're welcome here to talk about anything you want, including, if you choose, to try to refute what Mr. Dinsmore had to. In any case, in recent years, parents in cities across the country have been investigated, sometimes even arrested, for letting their children walk to the store, play in the park, or ride their bicycles around town, unsupervised. This is according to a recent New York Times story that profiled some of the, quote, offending parents. These are all activities that would have been praised in the great Japanese Netflix show, old enough. This is the one where little kids, some as young as three, toddle their way to the store. for milk or vegetables to bring home to their proud parents alone. Culturally, the first solo outing for a kid is seen as something to be celebrated and honored, not here in the USA, apparently. Here, there's a debate between proponents of childhood independence who say, autonomy, obviously in certain circumstances, beneficial for kids that helicoptering produces anxiety and depression, and others who see all the dangerous what-ifs of independence, fear-mongering around kidnapping. It's called worst-first thinking.

So are you one of the free-range parents letting your kids play and explore outside? Or more of the helicopter types. You won't even let your kid go to another grocery aisle by themselves. You remember actually, it wasn't a, well, it was long ago. Those summer days you ride your bike by yourself. Those are the days, Jim. Did you ride a bike? I didn't know you rode a bike. I was actually fairly good when I remember a bike. In those days. In any case, which side do you on in this debate? And by the way, again, this is not an exaggeration. There's a wonderful story about a mother of an eight-year-old in Georgia who literally is charged with a crime. Six-year-old. Six-year-old. Oh, six-year-old. Charged with a crime for allowing your kid to go out by... themselves and subsequently. kept the kid in the house rather than risk another charge. Give us a call or text, 877-301-89-70. I'm sorry. In that first case, the little six-year-old boy rode his bicycle to a playground, about a quarter mile from the house, and they were reported to social services, and they came to their house, and they substantiated the claim, and the social worker said he was a little baby too young to do this. I don't know. This is a tough one for me. Because I know myself if I see a six-year-old kid alone walking down the street or a little kid like that. You report them to the authorities? No, I don't report them to the authorities. But I always want to make sure that there's some grown up. Well, you say something to the kid in a sweet way, which is what I do too. Six is, I think six is a little bit young. But. Nine? Well, I think the, don't you think most parents know how old when it's appropriate in their own kids' growth to let them to be outside by themselves? By the way, there's a Harris poll that's quite a in this New York Times story. Listen to this. 62% of eight to 12-year-olds, not six-year-olds, Marjorie, have never walked or biked alone. Up to 12 years old, 62%. Let me tell you, I don't know much about much. One thing I do know about is overprotective parents do cause anxiety and kids when they finally are let loose a little bit. So, you know, don't, we're not talking about, even though it's beautiful and fun, about old enough. Send your three-year-old to go get you a pack of cigarettes at the corner. How about a six-pack? We're not. See, a little little kid couldn't quite pick it up and carry it back. By the way, if you haven't seen the show, we say it all the time, these kids are about a foot tall. They have a little flag so they can be seen. And they go to the store with a list. They present the list of the person working there and they bring the groceries home in these little bags. In defense of some of these parents. Which ones? The ones that are overprotective of their kids and worried about kidnapping. You get the sense that there's, you know, a child abduction every day. You have all these milk cartons with all these kids on it. That's on their defense. They should do some research. It's not true. Well, that's right. It isn't true, but I don't think people do do that research. I think of missing and abducted children.

I think a vast majority of these kids are in custody fights with parents, where a mom takes a kid away from dad or dad takes a kid away from mom. They're not, because there's only annually, and this is too many. You don't want this ever to happen. But nationwide, 100 kids are actually kidnapped by strangers to year. Remember that woman? Small number in a country of, what do we now, 360 million or something. Remember that woman? I'm going to pronounce her name, Lenor Scanasi or whatever. She was a free-range parent person. Free-range parent person. And she ultimately wrote some stuff with Jonathan. Jonathan Haidt, who's obviously famous for The Anxious Generation, his book kind of thing. And again, no one is suggesting in all circumstances at any age. She allowed her nine-year-old on the subway by itself. Exactly. And that's what caused, yeah, causes this huge uproar. And a lot of support, I should say, for her. But the point is, when a 12-year-old tells a pollster, that they have never been allowed to walk or bike alone without their parent watching over them. You know this kid is going to grow up to be a basket case. I mean, it's so obvious. We've talked about this, how this leads to, you know, mom and dad doing the kid's homework, mom and dad answering the interview questions at the kid's first job. We read a story the other day, which we didn't get to, which, by the way, is one of a million like this, were a grown... young adult does not get a job. And the parent, this is a 20 or 25 year old, the parent calls the employer to ask why their kid wasn't, their kid who's now an adult wasn't hired. I mean, that obviously is an extension of the problem we're trying. And by the way, I was not aware of this. They're in the same New York Times story. We'll get to your calls in a second. Let me read from the story. 13 states have either created new, less restrictive child neglect laws or amended existing ones, meaning there's a move. They think we get carried away. We got carried away. Yeah, we get carried away. And now there's a reaction, maybe an overreaction, depends on your point of view, in the other direction. 877301.8970. Let us begin with Richard in Weymouth. Thank you for calling. Hi, Richard. Hello, how are you? I think we're good. Good. So I'm 60, but when I was 10 or 11 years old, I grew up in Cohasset, Mass, and I was allowed to row out under the Atlantic Ocean in a small 10-foot rowboat with no life jacket, no water, no radio. And I survived. Well, you're 60 years old. It was 50 years ago, right? It was a very different time. These attitudes were very, very different then. And I think that's because we went through, before we went through the milk carton thing where everybody was hysterical about that, then we went through the daycare thing where everybody was a pedophile, the daycare centers, and many of those people were wrongly charged. I mean, we've had this paranoia. I don't know when it started. My theory is it started with birth control. When everybody had 10 kids, you could afford to lose one or two. Don't say that. Okay. Richard, before you go, do you have kids of your own? Yes. I do. I have one daughter who's in her mid-20s. Okay. And when she was the same age you were, when you were rowing out or whatever the hell you were doing into the ocean, did you give her the same freedom your parents gave you?

I personally did, but her mother and I were not together, so her mother was much more restrictive, but I tried to give her as much freedom as I could. Richard, thanks for his great call to start us off. Anonymous texter is reflecting on what I said a couple of minutes ago about that six-year-old walking down the street by themselves. Jim talking to a little kid must be more terrifying for them than actually walking alone. That's probably a... Valid point. But I do do that. If the kids are by themselves, you want to say hi, sweetie, or you need help with anything or where are you going or whatever. You know, I'm embarrassed to say I forgot in this little girl's name, but I think Massachusetts was traumatized. Maybe our staff can look it up by the nine-year-old girl who's abducted and murdered on her bicycle. Remember that? Of course. Yeah, that was a huge, huge, tragic story here in Massachusetts. If you guys could check the name of that little girl, I think she was a nice town, too. That's not to minimize the horror of that. But that's why everybody's worse. First thinking. That's going to happen to your kid. Well, exactly. And that's the question. Do you want to err on the side of caution and nervousness? Or do you want to err on the side of hoping for the best? Well, then never leave your house based on that criteria. And then you'll probably, well, you're not guaranteed to be safe, but you have a pretty good shot. Rodrigo, you're in D.C. Welcome to the show. Hi, Rodrigo. Hi, thanks for taking my call once again. Sure. No, I'm calling to say how this issue, I think, is reflective of our society rather than of kids themselves. Because, like, for example, I've heard of the Japanese TV show called Old Enough. We mentioned that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, that records kids between two and five doing errands. And so you were talking about how someone just called, I forgot if they were 50 or 60. I am 30. And when I was... 10 years old, I was already taking, like, D.C. public transit on my own. And most of the kids at my school, I think, would never have done that. And I think that benefited me later in life. Like, when I was 18, I would take the bus to Manhattan and then to Cornell to visit Frontrell on my own without my parents, which, again, I think most kids, like, wouldn't have felt comfortable doing that. When I was in Boston, I would, like, bike to Dorchester, bike to Matapan. from Cambridge. And again, most of my college friends would never have really left Cambridge to begin with. And so I think just letting kids roam on their own then, like, gives them a greater sense of confidence when they're older. I think that is a perfect call. And I share every... word of advice you're giving people. Rodrigo, thanks for the call. Our staff double-checked. Sarah Pryor was her name. It was 1985. It was a long time ago. But it was, I think, it's so traumatized people. She was riding her bike. It was in Wayland, and she was abducted and never found again. And I think if you have kids, you know, 40 years old or younger, 30-year-old, 20-year-old, whatever, you raise them. Thinking of that case all the time around. Well, there's always a case. You don't have to go back to 1985 or whatever year it was. There's always a case somewhere in America. And is that how you, I mean, obviously, hopefully you are careful. And you make wise judgments about where and when with your kid. Okay. I somehow don't believe that you let your six-year-old when your daughters were little. Your six-year-olds go off to the park a half a mile away by themselves. I don't believe it. They had tags and cameras on. So that's...

By the way, in all fairs, it depends where you live too. I live in a neighborhood where there are people who are incredibly caring for neighbors and neighbors' kids. There's a playground, a half a block away. from where I live. So it's not like a mile walk to get to the playground. The playground always has parents and bunch of kids kind of thing. Well, that's not the problem is not at the playground. Usually the problem is walking. It's a half block. I just said. It's a half block. It's a half block from my house to a playground. And your kids couldn't go until they were 13, I understand. Well, I, in personal, I'm only saying this because you asked me these questions. For a short period of time, we did hire a private detective to track them. But by the way, I couldn't afford it after a period of time. So eventually we let them out by themselves. Take a chance. But how are the people that track all their kids on the phone, even when they're much older. We know a lot of people that do that, right? Listen to this one. This is so great. Pamela's text. I showed my five-year-old how to use the toaster so I could sleep a little longer. This is great. My friend totally freaked out. Seriously, I told them not to put anything in the toaster. except his waffles. How hard is that, Pamela, writes. Her kids still need help zipping his jacket. That is a fabulous text, Pamela. That's a good one. Mary and Worcester, thank you for calling. Hi, Mary. Thank you, following. I'm here. Hi. Hi. I just wanted to say quickly that we are, according to Jonathan Haidt and the anxious generation, if you give a child a cell phone or an iPad, pornography will find them within three months. I think we're afraid of the wrong thing. We keep them inside. We don't let them go outside and play. We don't give them in the independence and we give them an iPad. And that's more danger. That's a great point, Mary. That is a fine point. Thank you very much, Mary, for your call. 877301-8970. By the way, Edmond Watertown texts. When we do away with daylight saving time, he's doing that to bait me. Kids will no longer ask to go out after dinner because it will be dark out, problem solved. You know, and the other thing is, not just to mention the cell phones and the iPads, but just the news in general, the Internet. I mean, how many times do you have something coming? coming in on your phone about some horrible thing that happened to a kid in Idaho or something or Wisconsin far away. That's what Rama was saying too. You look at parents watch the news and a lot of the news is just terrifying and creating fear. Yeah, I understand that. But most people have grown up enough to know what to be able to assess risk for their kid and themselves, you know. And by the way, this is not just, you know, feeling bad about it. There are parents in the story in the near times. not in times going by, who were arrested, charged with crimes for allowing their kid to walk down. What did the kid in this case do? Walk down the street. Where's the kid going? Riding his scooter to a playground, a quarter of a mile from their home in Atlanta, Georgia. Well, this is Georgia, of course. There's another Georgia case where Britney Patterson and mother of four was charged with misdemeanor, reckless conduct for allowing her 10-year-old to walk alone to a nearby dollar store. What do you think about that? You know, I feel now that you're...

asking all these questions, I have to be a little transparent. When I went to college in my hometown, Philadelphia, I know you're going to bring this up, so I'm going to pre-empt what you're saying. Only in my freshman year, did my mother sleep in my dorm room? It was... I laid down the law come sophomore year. I said, I'm on my own, and she returned to her party. And listen to this one. What do you think of this? Yeah. There was this case in Kansas where a mother and father were charged with an involuntary manslaughter after their seven-year-old was hit by a car and killed while crossing a busy road with his 10-year-old. I'm sorry, it wasn't Kansas, a 10-year-old brother in North Carolina. So he's with his 10-year-old brother. He crosses the street. The 7-year-old is killed. Involuntary manslaughter. What do you think of that, Jim? Yeah. What do you think of that? I think that's terrible. Yeah. And by the way, some cases, parents are being irresponsible. I'm not sure they need to be criminally charged in most cases. But I mean, was that irresponsible? The 10-year-old walking with a 7-year-old? No, it's not. I think that's not. But I think that's how things got kind of went too far in the other direction. By the way, we have a couple of texts. We should read. Anonymous texts that are referencing Marjorie's constant refrain. I'm more concerned with kids in New Hampshire walking with no sidewalks with adults driving and texting. Well, that last part is. Yeah, I guess there have been a few sidewalks installed in New Hampshire. Not many, but a few. Do you know Debbie Barker? I do. I do. Well, there's a text. I grew up in Full River, and Lizzie Egan, who's Lizzie Egan? My sister. Was my best friend. We used to walk to each other's houses, which weren't that close. All the time. We also walk to the library. And by the way, Marjorie's sister is one of the biggest readers who ever lived. And to the drug story, into the five and dime, probably usually in a pack of three or four. My grandkids were just visiting us in Westport. They do ride to the beach, ride to the boathouse, or walk by themselves, have been since they were fairly little. But we know or are related to many of the people down here in the harbor. So there you go. That's Debbie from Fall River. That's Debbie from Fall River. Do you remember her? I certainly do. I know the whole Barker family. Yeah, they grew up. They grew up right near me in Florida. I think they moved away, but they grew up in Fall River. By the way, this anonymous text here says, remember the 10 o'clock news? I think that was Chris Lydens. Here, do you know, that did say, do you know? What was the point of that, by the way, to say, be careful or to scare you? What was the, I can't remember the spot, but I can't remember what the. point was. I don't know. It's been blaming parents again. Blaming the mothers. I usually blame the mothers. Okay, Jane, you're in your car. You're on Boston Public Radio. Hi. Welcome. Hello. Hello. I'm big, huge fans. Thank you. Thank you. I went to, presented a conference, and I'm embarrassed to say, I can't remember the keynote speaker, but he wrote the book Screen Kids. And his theory about when it changed for a parental paranoia, you might say, was the...

birth of 24-hour news. So he said he noticed a huge change in the clients he was working with when we went to cable news because it exemplified any bad story and it was over and over and over raising the anxiety of parents. And when I've talked to parents groups about letting kids, you know, learn to navigate some of their own decisions, I refer to the movie Sandlot. which exemplifies a group of kids who are able to sort of figure out how to resolve conflicts without engaging a parent. And we have so many parents that I, you know, raise three children. I think it's really important for parental involvement, but it's equally important to let kids... navigate and figure out conflict resolution. Otherwise, you're still looking to you when you're, they're 40, and it's not always healthy. And I think, you know, I was one of the, I also think there was so many more larger families. So there was always a slew of kids out and about, and that may also contribute. So that's what I wanted to say. Love your show. You said great. You know. Jane, thank you. And we should mention this story about this little town in Great Britain, where the parents asked the town if they could shut down a section of the street so that... The street was no cars. And she talked about how all these kids just kind of showed up and started playing. And they were worried about where they have to arrange the games. And, of course, the kids figured out their own games. And she said how useful it was, not just for the kids, but for the parents to get to know each other. And it became a regular thing. That's kind of cool, isn't it? Can I tell you a sad story, which is, it does have some concern. This is for the other side. An Amazon drone mistook my kid for the package I was returning. Never seen. saw them again. Well, obviously, there are situations in which you have to be very, whatever. Let's squeeze in one more call. Let's go to Sandy and Plum Island. Hi, Sandy. Welcome, Sandy. Hi, it's Andy. I've been with all the stations that you've been on. Thanks. Many years. Thank you. I grew up. My parents. You're welcome. Thank you. My parents were from the Bronx and they raised me in New Jersey. And they thought in a little town, they thought it was the safest place in the world. They had a lot of freedom as kids because their parents, you know, worked or were home cleaning. They gave me so much freedom that I thought they were neglectful. But I am such a confident person. I'm not afraid of very much. And my girlfriends have always said, how did you get that way? I wish I was that way.

But I wonder if, I've always wondered if it was because of the freedom I had. And I wonder if some of the people that are helicopter parents in the baby boom generation, either they had parents that weren't like mine, or they had bad experiences. And they decided that they weren't going to give their kids so much freedom. I think that's a... Andy, thanks for a call. I think that's a very astute observation. We're going to read this. Ash from Quincy text. She's 16. So I've got an insider perspective in this sort of thing. My parents aren't horribly strict, but they love to tell me stories about mischief and fun and trouble that got into his kids without their screens and tell me not to do those kinds of things. And if I go out, keep in touch constantly via phone, what's the deal? As Ash. Listen to this. I live and need them. There are more parents than kids at the bus stop on any given day. That's pretty good. That's a good one. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, there were great calls and texts. Thank you very much. By the way, the New York Times story, if you want to read it, is should let me. Letting children play alone outside be a crime by Ian Frisch. I mean, it certainly shouldn't be a crime. Anyway, coming up after this quick break, some Maloal residents are suing the state to stop the expansion of a massive data center. They're one that's practically on top of the houses in the neighborhood. They just had a court victory this week. We'll speak with two local advocates. I am Marjoriegan. He's doing broadie listening to BPR, GBIH, and NEPM, streaming at YouTube.com slash GBH News.

Welcome back to BPR on GBH and NEPM streaming at YouTube.com slash GVH News. We're back at the library tomorrow. We'll hear live music from hip-hop violinist Brett Bryce. PBS travel guru Rick Steves will zoom in and Sue O'Connell will reach out to us from the Lindsay Clancy trial where she has been in attendance, I think, virtually every day. In one neighborhood in Lull, residents refer to a looming structure as the dungeon. The Markley Data Center has been in operation since 2015, built inside a former Prince Pasta factory, by the way, seeking expansion. But a grassroots group of residents is organized to stop it, citing real quality of life issues with a data center as it is, a constant hum they can't escape, air pollution via diesel generators. and the use of hundreds of gallons of water to cool down the facility servers. This week, Lull residents were handed a victory in court, holding the expansion at least for now, joined now by two Lull residents organizing against the markedly expansion. Mary Wamboui and Jake Forts. Wembuy serves on the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council on the board of the Coalition for Better Acre and Lull. Forts is the founder of the grassroots group, Honest Future for Lull. They're both named plaintiffs in the lawsuit seeking to stop the expansion on environmental grounds, as much of Lull is considered an environmental justice community by the Commonwealth. Mary and Jake, thanks so much for your time. Really good to see you. Thank you. Thank you very much for speaking with. So, Mary, let's start with you. Tell us about this huge structure that you call the dungeon. What does it look like? How close is it to houses, et cetera? I think I will let Jake actually answer that question because his house is right next to it. Okay, then go ahead, Jake. What is that behind you, by the way, in the picture? So this is my backyard. This is the Markley Group Data Center. Behind you. This is how close it is to me. And basically what it is like... You know, it came. Originally, the black building that is called the dungeon is the one that you see off on the side. That is the bigger building. But actually in 2015, when they came, and in 2016, what you see directly behind my residence is what was constructed first, which is why I've been at the battle for so long, because when they originally came, all of the diesel engines and everything that was mechanical was supposed to be on the other side. So that's why, you know, this has been going on for so long with this particular data center. So tell us what it's like living as near as you do to this center. So up until recently, and I mean very recently, and it's only been within the last month, and I think it's because of the actions and the way that the court is seeing this company's behavior in Lowell. And if you just follow the headlines with this company, it's kind of like been a pattern where for years, they've just run around unchecked in Lowell, doing whatever they wanted. And it was always rubber stamped. Well, now that it's in court...

This company has taken some changes, but behind me, as you can see up on the roof, there are small, like, mechanical structures. Those are AC condensers. Behind on this side of me, down over and there's an equipment well over here, where there's even more of what's on the roof on, like... kind of like pylons. And then behind these actual diesel engines that are behind me, there's more AC units. Two of them that are like a big box-sized looking ones that sit on the ground and two that stick out of the wall. The two that stick out of the wall have been the ones that have sounded like a jet engine, which is mentioned in the litigation, that have been unmitigated for years. Four years. And it's only changed within the last, I would say, maybe week to a month, that they have tried to construct some sort of primitive sound wall around it to get the sound to come down. What is the sound like? Forget the sound, check, forget the last two weeks. What has the sound been like? For like that those two pieces of equipment is like a jet engine. It sounded like a jet engine. It was unmitigated. And, you know, it's just constant. And when they turn around. It is constant. It is constant. It doesn't it's not just for a few minutes every few days. It's constant. It's constant. It's constant. So the higher it goes, the hotter it goes. The hotter the temperature is and that more intensity that comes out of. all of these AC units. So the harder it is, the harder they have to work to cool the facility. And that's been the problem. But those two particular ones, when they ramp up, there's this high-pitched whir to them. And that is just an extra thing because if you're like sleeping in the middle of the night, then all of a sudden you've got this high intensity, high-pitched war. And then it comes on. And then if you're awakened by that, then you're just awake the rest of the time. Mary Wambuie, Jake was critical of officials who arguably bought into this in the city. But for a period of time, correct me if I'm wrong, the city council established a moratorium on this. What happened to the moratorium? So the moratorium is still on, and it was a moratorium for 365 or so days, to allow law to think about zoning, to think about energy, just to seize the expansion of the facility. Because... If you've followed the news, Markley keeps expanding into not just sacred heart, but...

expanding beyond that footprint, which is why as a lower resident, I'm engaged and really concerned that if Markley had its way, our community will be further degraded by having... I mean, who wants to live in a town or a city that has 160,000 gallons of diesel as backup? So the moratorium is on. But, wait, wait, but Mary, if I can interrupt you, my understanding, and maybe I got this wrong, my understanding is after imposing the moratorium, the city council undercut their own moratorium. Am I not right about this? By basically saying that for plans that existed before the moratorium for expansion, those would go ahead. Future plans would be subject to the moratorium. You're both nodding in agreement. So essentially, that's one of the reasons you had to go to the court, right? Is that not so? So. So we went to the court before this. And one of the reasons that made us, so we had an appeal at the Department of Environmental Protection, challenging the fact that it had approved. for Markley to go in the direction that it wanted to go. And I want to say something here about the Department of Environmental Protection. So while we as lower residents go to the City Council to express ourselves and say what you have had Jake say, we have always been told that... the Department of Environmental Protection has already given markedly an okay. So the situation that you have seen in law has continued for years, and its backup has been the Department of Environmental Protection. So this is why we went to court. We went to court, I believe, Jake, before the moratorium. Okay. Yeah, we went to court because we had other... issues. We were concerned that DEP approved Markle's permit and undercut our voices and ignored the Commonwealth's own 2024 cumulative impact law that was supposed to help impacted communities like ourselves by getting into an administrative consent order. Think about that with a company and excluding the people who live in law from having any right to say what they want with, you know, having no right to be part of that continued operation of Mackley.

Well, Jake, it sounds like the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has not been very protective of what's supposed to be an environmental justice community. That's you guys. You're supposed to be a very dense place with a lot of pollution issues already. So now you've got the conservation law people are arguing this for you. Explain that part. Well, it didn't have to come to this. So this, what is being appealed right now, is the third plan approval. If you need to know anything about Markleys is that they have tried to wear down this community through the years, through the decade that they've been here. Everything has done piecemeal. Now, this facility has taken 10 years and is still under construction to this very day. And that's what it is. And so there was three plan approvals. We're on a third plan approval to bring the facility up to 27 diesel engines. Not getting in the weeds, but there was a second plan approval that was done right on top of the third one. And that was the one I appealed individually. I did it on my own as a layperson, no representation. That wasn't a fair fight. That's why Conservation Law Foundation, Yale Environmental Justice Law Clinic and Fitch Law Partners are now helping us because it wasn't fair. And that's what you saw coming out of the court's decision where they're like, look at what you have done. This community has been impacted by this for so long. How can you say these people are not aggrieved? Look at my backyard. And yet they told somebody who lives in my same residence, you are not aggrieved. How much closer do you need to be to its... diesel engine that spews black smoke from it, then 84 feet. Does it need to be right on top of your house? Does it need to be 10 feet away? But, Jake, just to be clear about the court, and please correct me if I'm wrong, what they have granted is a temporary stay on the expansion. This is not a final decision that Markley can expand. It's just while the case proceeds. Is that accurate? Okay. So Governor Healy has said, talked about this issue of these data. centers and says you're not supposed to be able to suck energy off the grid and hurt rape payers, hurt the environment, especially when it comes to water. You're supposed to protect community health. She said it on the show, actually, when you asked about it. Avoiding environmental and social burdens, but it doesn't sound like that's at all what's happening. So what about, where's the governor? Has the governor helped you here? Mary? No, actually quite the opposite. Mary, go ahead. So, yeah, I have been fortunate enough to be engaged in a lot of energy-related issues in the Commonwealth. And I have to say, just like Jake did, that the Commonwealth has not been on our side. Because if the Commonwealth was on our side, the Department of Environmental Protection, would have taken the steps that are already existing in the Commonwealth to protect us. They should have, number one, demanded that there be cumulative impact assessment and not just...

assume that since the facility started operating in 2015, that, you know, because that's what I think, the Commonwealth is behaving as though, oh, it's already there. But if it's already there, This is exactly why environmental justice communities fought for cumulative impact assessment. So if the governor and her administration were on our side, they would have this, anytime Markley would have asked for a permit, especially in the last two years, that cumulative impact assessment would have been, would have been, would have. triggered, I mean, the permit would have triggered the cumulative impact assessment. And then I want to say something about legislation. So if the Commonwealth is really serious about responsible data center, data center development, or even preservation of the current facility, then it should have embraced what environmental justice groups. shared as Amendment 62 in the Energy Affordability Bill. But what did the Commonwealth do? It watered down that amendment into something called Amendment 162. And that's why I do not believe that the Commonwealth is taking this issue as seriously. as it should. You know, Jake, we're almost out of time, but I want you to talk about the impact on your mental health and physical health from living so close to the so-called dungeon. How are you and your neighbors coping? Well, I mean, we do cope. It's a lot of sleepless nights, depending upon what is, you know, what mechanical things are operating at that time. We have to be on guard and constantly listening for when these four engines behind my house fire, because when they do, depending upon the wind direction, I have to run around and close the windows to my house so that the fumes don't come in. Is it smell? Does this smell or is it just? Oh, yes. The diesel fumes smell. The generator that's right here is the dirtiest generator on this site. It spews the blackest of all the fumes out of any engine on the site. And this is the one that's 84 feet from my house. It is the worst one. There's videos on Honest Future for Lowell's Facebook page of this particular engine. And this is the closest one to a residence out of all of them on the property. This is our day to day. And how do we cope with it? You know, we just, we try to move on and try, we show up at every meeting. We speak our bit and hope that eventually somebody will listen. And if they don't, then through the time period, that's what we have done. We've now had to take it to court to get the right people to do their jobs correctly and enforce.

the environmental regulations that are supposed to protect. We only have 30 seconds left, but Jake, speaking about speaking publicly, we don't have time to play the sound, but Lawson required through a public records request, got some body cannon footage from the police showing the time when the police removed, I think, a 16-year-old or a teenager anyway, speaking out against the data center at a public forum. In 30 seconds, what was the rationale for that? So basically, the meeting was over, and this kid had had her hand raised the whole time. But because she was a kid, and it was so packed, this is the most community engagement we had. It was a zoning meeting. And because of that, she stood up and said, you don't have to listen to me, but I want to say my piece. And they considered her speaking out of turn, and they basically wanted to drag her out because they considered her to be disturbing it, even though the meeting was largely over. Jake and Mary, please stay in touch with us and keep a surprise and our listeners surprised of what's going on in your fight there. We really appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming in. We've been speaking with Mary Wambui and Jake Forth. Wambui serves on the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council and the Board of the Coalition for a better acre in Lowell. Forts is founder of the grassroots group Honest Future for Lowell, both named plaintiffs in this lawsuit to stop the Markley Center expansion. Okay, coming up after this quick break, we're on talk with Foreign Massachusetts Public Safety Secretary Andrew Cabral. We're going to get the latest on the triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. That's next. I'm Marjoriegan. He's Tim Brady. Listen to BPR, GBAH, and NAPM streaming at YouTube.com slash GBAH news.

Welcome back to BPR on GVH and NEPM, Marjoriege and Jim Brody, streaming at YouTube.com slash GBAH News. Back at the library tomorrow, Rick Steves, Travel Guru, Rick Steves. Zooms in, hip-hop, violinist, Red Price will play, and Sue O'Connell, live from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, will join us. Join on Zoom by Andrew Cabell, former Public Safety Secretary from Massachusetts, former sheriff of Suffolk County. Hey, Andrea. Hi, how are you? We're good. Hi, Andrea. So Yvonne Abraham, who writes a column for the Globe, has been doing great coverage of this Lindsay Clancy trial. People know she strangled her three little children, five, three, and eight months, I believe, and she's on trial now for first-degree murder. And Yvonne's latest column asked that question, was it necessary? because there's at least some evidence here in testimony about her severe mental health problems. Did Cruz, the DA in Plymouth, have to charge her with first degree murder? No, I mean, I don't think that Cruz had to do it. What? is historically assumed in cases like this is that if a first-degree murder charge is lodged, it is because the prosecutor believes that there is sufficient evidence of the requisite intent, premeditation, whatever the requirements are of the particular charge, it is almost always presumed the prosecutor believes that they have and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that limit of the crime. That said, there's always a level of discretion. vested with prosecutors on what they charge. And I think what Yvonne Abraham is pointing out in her column is that even a psychiatrist hired by the prosecutor, a woman by the name of Stacey Fiore, I'm sorry, I think it's a, oh, I think that was the other case. Yeah. That was Latasha Bernie Sanders, who also murdered her children, two of them. Yes. And Yvonne Abraham makes the point in that that he charged Latasha Bernie Sanders with first-degree murder, even though there was a... psychologist or psychiatrist hired by the prosecution that said not only she diagnosed as schizophrenic with a paranoid sort of twist or kicker, it's likely that she was symptomatic at the time of the crime and he still charged her with first degree murder. It's notable that Saunders case attracted virtually none of the attention.

Why do you think that was, Andrew Cabrell? Why do you think that was? Oh, there are probably a bunch of reasons, but chief among them is that the defendant was poor. She's a black woman. And they basically made the argument, the prosecutor made the argument that she did it because she was evil, even knowing what the mental health has. The extensive mental health history was. Well, you know, just to insert here, the prosecution to me is making a ridiculous argument that Lindsay Clancy didn't like her life and was self-absorbed and trying to get out of it. I mean, really? Right. And I think that's where they're running into trouble. And I think one of the things that's very telling is that the people who are covering this case, and it's a wide variety. I mean, every news outlet is covering it. I'm not counting all of the internet people. I'm just talking about regular media outlets that are covering it. There's the same level of skepticism. However, reporters try to avoid it, you can see it. I don't think people are necessarily buying the prosecution's theory of the case here. And it doesn't help that Cruz's office has a history of making these kinds of claims. Right. Have experienced success, perhaps. Not necessarily because the claim itself was strong, but because the defendant was less sympathetic, possibly due to, you know, immutable characteristics like race and economic status and not having a high-priced lawyer. You know, I want to stay on this. By the way, if we didn't make clear that Ted Cruz, what's Cruz's first name? Timothy, I believe. Timothy Cruz is the prosecutor in both these cases, and we also should make clear we discussed this the other day with Andrea, that DeSandra's case, the conviction was overturned by the SJ's state's highest court, and now there's a question for Cruz as to whether or not he will retry her. I want to get back to the first versus second degree decision. It's a prosecutor made. One of the things I took away from Yvonne Abraham's piece, and I should have known this if it's true. I didn't, but please confirm it, that if you were charged with first degree murder, you can't opt for a trial by the bench, by the judge alone. It's got to be by jury. Is that true? I noticed that also. I wasn't aware of that. Okay. I always thought that a defendant could opt for a trial before a jury under any. It's the defendant's option. I don't know why that would be taken away in the case of...

a first-degree murder in a state that doesn't carry the death penalty. I mean, even if you wanted to make the argument... Here it is. This is General Settled Laws Chapter 263. A defendant cannot waive a jury trial for first-degree murder in Massachusetts must be tried by a jury. I don't understand that at all. I mean, I was news to me. I mean, I'm glad it was in the argument. But it doesn't make sense to me. I don't know why that still wouldn't be a defendant's option. I don't know what the rationale is. Well, it's, it's. I don't know either. We'll try to get to the bottom of that before we talk to you next week. But the point that she's making in furtherance of that, she being a Von Abraham, is in a second degree murder trial where they could choose, we don't know what they would have done. They could have chose judge trial. Her point with which I would assume you would agree is it is far better when you're asserting something like a defense like they're asserting here. It's a lot easier to, not easier is the right word. Well, maybe it is. To make a case before a judge who has some experience in this area, even though this is the same judge who dealt with the Bernie Sanders case, of course, then by a jury. So that's one of the arguments of Bon Abraham makes as to why Cruz may have shown a little better discretion in this case than she argues he did. You know, I... Making the point that he... specifically chose to charge first degree knowing that he could put these horrific facts before a jury would make the decision based on a motion and not necessarily. Exactly right. Well, one of our staff was pointing out that they had the emergency responders describing the detail of these injuries to these children, which was obviously gruesome for the jury and everybody else to see. But one of the things I want to ask a legal question is, will it be explained, I assume it will be explained either by her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, or by the judge, that if the jury were to find her not guilty by reason of insanity, she doesn't go walking out the street, a free woman, that there would be some kind of institution. or is that just is that not even considered? What does it mean to be guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity? Well, it means that it frequently results in, or nearly always results in, the person being committed to a psychiatric facility in a prison setting. It is not just sort of like you can drive up and, you know, come and go as you please. In a psychiatric setting where they are regularly evaluated and psychiatrists on, I believe, a yearly basis unless ordered or it's felt that it should be done.

sooner than that, make an evaluation to see whether or not the conditions, the mental conditions still persists that where the person continues to need treatment. Now, I want to make the point that this is... The allegation or the defense claim is postpartum psychosis. One of the other things, and this may have factored into Cruz's condition, a decision, is that postpartum, by definition, ends a certain time after. the birth of a child. Unlike a persistent, even a bipolar, a severe bipolar diagnosis, but certainly something like Latasha Bernie Sanders had, paranoid schizophrenia, which can last indefinitely. That is also, no one has said this, but I think it's got to be factored in that there's a concern or even that a jury might be concerned that even if she goes to a psychiatric facility, she doesn't, She's alleged to be suffering from a condition that is... historically dissipates within a year or two after the child. And she's already passed that. So wouldn't she then not having the kinds of hormonal? That's a great point. Yeah. I mean, wouldn't she then be eligible to be released very shortly? Well, except the assessments that are made, as you said, on a regular basis are not based upon, I don't think at all, what the defendant. claim that he or she suffered from, but rather what their state is when they're examined, right? I mean, the issue is not, in a textbook, does postpartum psychosis disappear, or at least mitigate? The question is, on this day, I examined... convicted so-and-so killer X, and they are still not capable of being part of the outside world, right? Isn't that what they're judging? They're not comparing it to what the defense was. They're comparing it to the reality of where she is right now, right? But the defense, it's not that they can't on an ongoing basis, and they should, assess the status and mental health of whoever the inmate patient is. That's absolutely true. But their starting point is the mental condition she's adjudicated to have at the time she is committed. Right. And whether or not that persists over time. Now, she could develop something else or be diagnosed with something else. But the only certainty that I'm talking about how a jury perceives.

Punishment. I do think about punishment. That's what I wanted to ask you again, because since I couldn't remember your response when I asked this question a couple of weeks ago, I looked it up. And I am stunned. And let me read you from a law review article I read in part. In most federal and state courts, the jury is not automatically told that a defendant, not guilty by reason of insanity, will be hospitalized or won't go free. That, to me, is a huge problem. Because if I don't know any. thing, except what I watch on television. Not guilty means I'm going to go out, I'm going to go to a bar tonight and celebrate and all that sort of thing. Well, as you just said, almost never, when someone is found guilty, not guilty by reason of insight, almost never are they set free. They're sent to some sort of mental health facility. And usually there for years and years. How is that not relevant for the jury to know before they make a determination? I don't get it. The punishment is not the purview of the jury. And you can't simply make an exception in a murder case where it's not guilty by reason. Why not? Because the jurors. Having jurors consider punishment is so outside their purview. They are there, and it's very clear. The instructions are very clear. You determine guilt or innocent. Punishment, what punishment is meted out. What is recommended by a prosecutor, what is asked for by a defense is the result of them knowing a bunch of information that jurors do not know. Prior criminal history. likelihood of reoffense. All kinds of things. Plus, whatever additional information a judge is given by witness testimony, family members asking for mercy that none of this is the purview of the jury. So telling them what may or may not happen as a result of their verdict is a slippery slope. And I think courts are rightfully loath to... that door. But you know, I could not disagree more. With who? Me or Andrew? With the law? I think in a case, guilty by reason of insanity, I think if I'm sitting in a jury, that's what I want to know. Am I letting a person free to go home to Duxbury? Or am I letting a person free because they were insane and they're going to get treatment? I think you might not be. You could say to the, so you could say to the jury.

Usually what happens is that someone gets committed to a psychiatric facility until such time as they're determined by psychiatrists to no longer suffer from a psychiatric disorder, which makes them a danger to the public. Right. And then again, wouldn't you then have to say, and that's true until it's not. That's true until. But I think if you're in the jury, Andrea, I think you'd feel better to get to that verdict if you knew that a psychiatric facility was going to decide down the line. Excuse me. That's my argument for changing the law, not just how you and I are talking about, but instead of not guilty by reason of insanity, change it to guilty but insane, which is even better. See, but insane, I agree with you makes more sense, but I don't think that there's a single person sitting on a jury anywhere who isn't aware that a psychiatric facility. is where people usually go. I could be wrong. And yes, you could get a juror that just has absolutely no idea and things. But I think it's unlikely in an age of law and order. Most of the order shows. Thank goodness for law and order. What's the show you watch? What's the show you watch? Law and order special victims unit. I don't know why I watch it. It's gruesome. Do you watch, by the way, do you as a former prosecutor, former secretary of public safety, do you watch all these shows that Marjorie watches? I don't watch any. I used to watch Law & Order when it was more of a novel show, all the versions of it. I have it for years. And I used to watch Dateline and those kinds of shows. But I stopped doing that as well because the reality of life just made them sort of a pylon that I didn't have. You know, we're out of time. Can I just say one thing? I'm going to call you after the show. We're trying to raise money. We hope you would join us so we can buy access to Trump's true social posts before the public has them so we can all over some of our investments. We didn't get to that. And while there is a First Amendment challenge until it succeeds, I'll call you later and see if you can chip in a few bucks, okay? Andrew. Thank you, Andrew. See you later. Thank you very much. We've been speaking with Andrew Cabral, former Public Safety Secretary from Massachusetts and former sheriff of Suffolk County. We say goodbye to those of you listening on NEPM. Thank you so much for tuning in. The fabulous 413 is at 3 this afternoon. We're going here in Boston after this quick break. Congressman Jake Ockinclos joins us to tell voters why they should vote for him in his reelection campaign in the 4th District of Massachusetts. It goes from Brookline to Vol River in my hometown. I'm Marjoriegan. He is Jim Browder. You're listening to BPR, GBI, NEPM, and stream. at YouTube.com slash GVH News.

Support for Boston Public Radio comes from the Museum of Science, from live science demonstrations to hands-on exhibits. Families can explore the wonders of Earth's evolution and the frontiers of space this summer. Learn more at mOS.org. And MIT Federal Credit Union, mortgages designed to make your home financing journey effortless, federally insured by NCUA, Equal Housing Lender, NMLS No, 699-225. Welcome to our number two of Boston Public Radio, 897, GBAH. We're going to be back at the Boston Public Library. Tomorrow we're going to have live music from hip-hop violinist. We're at Price Plus PBS travel writer, Guru, Rick Steves. We're also going to talk with Sue O'Connor. We're just talking about the Lindsay Clancy trial with Andrew Cabral. We're going to talk about it. Tomorrow, the latest updates from Sue, who's been in the courtroom every day covering the case for NBC10 Boston. Hello again, Jim. Hey there, Marjor. We're joined out on Zoom by Congressman Jake Alkin and Claus. is running for re-election, represent the Massachusetts 4th District. He is a Marine Corps veteran facing a challenge in the Democratic primary from Jason Pulas, who was on BPR last week. You can find that conversation at YouTube.com slash GBAH News. Congressman, good to see you. Thanks for joining us. Nice to be back. Yeah, thank you very much for joining us, Congressman. So tell people why you should be reelected this time around. What have you done? This job requires you to do three things. Fight, fix, and deliver. I'm doing all three. And I think I'm doing all three in a way that resonates with my constituents. I'm fighting against the most corrupt, the most cruel, the most incompetent administration in American history, whether it's the Iran War, where I went on Fox News on Sunday to speak directly to the president about his failures or ICE, where I have been. conducting fierce oversight over a presidential paramilitary that threatens our immigrant neighbors. I'm focused on fixing things. Most notably, the high cost of health care that is hollowing out the middle class. I serve on the Committee of Jurisdiction for Healthcare. I've taken on the corruption and grift of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. And I've also been willing to take on all the special interests within the health care industry, $5 trillion sector. that are colluding to keep costs high, whether it's pharma, whether it's hospitals, whether it's insurance companies. Everybody's got to give something to keep costs going, to make costs go down, excuse me. And then finally, you got to deliver for the district. I've brought home tens of millions of dollars from Fall River Marjorie where the horizontal infrastructure investments are going to unlock more housing production all the way up through the inner suburbs of Boston where we're improving transit and water quality. So if the Democrats regain control of the House, Congressman, come January, what are the, there's so many things that they've, some of your colleagues have spoken about doing in hearings and legislation and whatever. What are the three priorities you would suggest your colleagues and you focus on come January of next year? Voting rights, I believe the Democratic Party has a sacred compact on voting rights that we need to honor at a time when the VRA, the Voting Rights Act, is under threat. So we have to pass voting rights legislation, number one. Number two, affordability. Americans have been clear through three election cycles so far.

Nick, cost of living is their number one concern. I think that we need things that have tight feedback loops to cost of living. Real expansion of coverage, first dollar for medicines, expanding community health centers to create more access to primary and preventative care, things that make a difference in people's lives within one year, not 10 years. And then finally, vigorous oversight and accountability. Now, I've been able to do this in the minority. I helped get Marty Makary fired as FDA commissioner because he was trying to replace safety and efficacy at the FDA with fear and favor. But we can do so much more in the majority when we have subpoena power. We've got to go after the media firms that have been doing the president's bidding. We've got to go after Pete Hegseth for this illegal failed war against Iran. We've got to go after Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. for his grift. And that's just the beginning. You know, there's a big debate now in the Democrats, the so-called moderate wing, which I think you are considered to be in, and the more progressive end of things, which maybe your opponent, Jason Jared Polis, would be in. You've got this majority Democrat deal going with people like Abigail Spanberger, the governor of Virginia, and Mikie Sherrill. What is this? And where are you in this battle? Yeah, I reject that characterization about progressive versus modern. I don't think it's actually capturing what the Democratic Party needs to do. Leverage in politics goes towards those who define the terms of debate, those who define what it means to be in the center of American public life. And the challenge that Democrats have had over the last decade is that we've let Donald Trump define the terms of debate. We're always responding to him. He plays fetch with our attention span. We've got to stop chasing after the ball. My mission as a Democrat. is to help redefine those terms of debate, to say that there are good ideas across the ideological spectrum. We need a national wealth tax like the progressives talk about. We should also respect public safety. We should be proudly patriotic, but talk about patriotism through the lens of the core ideals of the United States, freedom, equality, and opportunity, not through the lens that JD Vance would adopt, blood and soil nationalism. So Democrats need to be much more muscular. about identifying what we are for, how we will deliver a new American dream, and stop just telling Americans who we are against. They know we don't like Donald Trump. So you mentioned the word debate several times there, Congressman. Are you agreed to debate your opponent for the primary? Have I agreed to debate my opponent? I'm sorry. Yes. Have you agreed to debate your opponent before the primary? I have not agreed to debate my opponent. I've also been one of the most accessible members of Congress over the last five years, on more than 50 town halls in the last two and a half years, won the Congressional Management Foundation's award for best constituent services, visit all 35 cities and towns every year. So my constituents know how to talk to me and where to find me, and I want to have that vigorous back and forth.

Don't think that's possible with this opponent. Well, I don't know. If someone qualifies for the ballot, what's your argument? I understand you about town halls and all that's commendable. Should individual candidates, incumbents, be deciding ad hoc if they're going to allow their constituents to see a challenger and an incumbent go head to head? Is that what you're? suggesting, why should every incumbent not debate a qualified challenger? Nothing's precluding my opponent, any of my opponents from making their case directly to the constituents of the Massachusetts 4th, and I'm going to make my case to the constituents of the Massachusetts 4th. Okay, so you've mentioned Iran a couple of minutes ago. Let's talk about another... crisis that's going on. You joined, I think, roughly 100 Democrats in the House recently to vote against the military aid package for Israel. Traditionally, you've been a supporter of Israel. You've reports suggest taken close to a million dollars, received close a million dollars from APAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups. Why did you decide on this vote that a no was the right way to go? Because I don't think Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu deserve a grant of trust or a grant of appropriations from the United States taxpayer when their decision making has led to a cataclysmic illegal war. Now, and the war you're talking about is obviously the war in Iran. Is that correct? Yes. Had there not been a war in Iran based upon Israel's behavior in Gaza alone, would that have caused you to vote no on the military aid or no? Jim, the Middle East is complicated enough without creating conjectural counterfactuals. I will vote on the policy looking at the situation in the moment. Situation I looked at in the moment is that having the U.S. taxpayer fund F-35s for Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu to dispose of as they see fit is a violation, I think, of where my constituents are at right now, which is my constituents think absolutely Israel has a right to defend itself, but... The United States and Israel together, Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu together, I should say, are making decisions that leave both countries worse off. Okay, so I withdraw the hypothetical and ask you, what's your reaction to how Benjamin Netanyahu has conducted his behavior in Gaza? I think Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to help architect an alternative to Hamas, which is what Hamas fears most, by the way. Hamas's nihilistic agenda is one that is ultimately threatened, not by the Israeli defense forces, but by a competent Palestinian authority that can actually deliver humanitarian infrastructure and economic development to Palestinians, which they deserve. I also think Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet has unleashed unconscionable settler violence in the West Bank.

that undermines the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own self-determination. And I think that Hamas and Hezbollah are evil organizations. And Democrats need to be able to say both those things at the same time. We're talking to Congressman Jake Alkenclose, who is running for re-election. So you could do some, I told you so, as on Graham Platner. You were not, he, of course, was running against Susan Collins up in Maine. Was the Nazi tattoo? I mean, that seemed to be what you talked about when you said he wasn't fit to run? I don't want to do I told you so on Graham Platner. I want to do, let's do better to my own party here. Ten years ago, we watched the Republican Party decide the character doesn't matter in politics, and they unleashed an unsurious era of American politics that looks like a reality TV show. And Democrats need to resist any temptations to do likewise. Character does matter. in politics. How you treat women matters, what you have on your body matters, what you say matters. And that constellation of behavior, to me, made clear early on last year that Mr. Graham Platner was not fit to be United States Senator. Yeah, speaking of not fit, one of the things that concerns me that Democrats don't speak enough about, they use language like, well, some do, that this, this. felonious sex-abusing president is not fit. But we, I think I speak for Marjorie, as constituents of his, we have deep concern about the mental health of the President of the United States. And he's got two years and whatever number of months left in his term, assuming he leaves in January of 2029. Do you worry about those issues and think about how to address them in a Congress that... on most issues walks lockstep in fear of this man? Do I worry about an 80-plus-year-old narcissist with no impulse control surrounded by sycophants? Yeah, I worry about it. So what are the Democrats, again, let's get back to January. What did Democrats do about that serious threat? If you, again, get the majority, two more years of Donald Trump. Fundamentally, Jim, it's about returning to the wisdom of the founders. Let's recollect that 250 years ago, the founders had just fought a war against an insane chief executive, right? King George III was mad, and he had committed a chain of abuses and depredations against them. And so they were very cognizant of the threat of executive power, and they put into place checks and balances and separations of powers that were meant to make, as Madison would have said, ambition, counteract ambition. Because... There are no angels in government, and so you have to have guardrails there. And what has happened in Congress in the 119th term is that Speaker Mike Johnson fundamentally ignores the wisdom of the founders. He thinks that Article 1, they made the legislative branch, the prime and first branch of government, should just do the bidding of Article 2, that he thinks of himself as a courtier at Mar-a-Lago.

I fundamentally reject that. I do not answer to anybody in Washington, D.C. I answer to my constituents in the Massachusetts fourth. They want vigorous, muscular, sustained oversight and accountability of this executive branch. That means hearings. That means subpoenas. That means peeling the bark off of these criminals who are operating the government right now. You know, Jake Ockin-Clawson, and we're speaking, by the way, with Congressman Jake Ockin-Claus, who's running for re-election in the fourth congressional district of Massachusetts. An odd. way it goes from Brookline and Newton. No, it's not odd. You don't think it's odd? You don't think it's odd? Forty-five cities and towns from Americans from all walks of life. I love every nook and cranny of it. Okay. It's diverse. It's a very diverse district. Well, that's for sure. But one of the big issues, obviously, is housing. So tell us your plan. Every American, if they're working hard, if they're contributing to their community, if they're obeying the law, should be able to buy a home by their time they're 30. Baby boomers were able to do that. Millennials and Gen Z are not. Now, Congress struck a blow for home ownership with the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, which is a series of carrots and sticks to get states to unlock housing production and make housing more affordable. But we have to do a lot more. And one step in the right direction would be to pass Question 7, the starter home initiative here in Massachusetts, which I have endorsed. That would make it such that for any 5,000 square foot parcel that is connected to public water and sewer, you can by right build a starter home, affordable to a young family. You know, we talked about the essay with Bob Rivers from Eastern Bank. He was on our show, obviously a major proponent trying to get fellow business leaders. And one of the questions we asked them, I'd be interested to hear your reaction to because you have to deal with them as well. This is a ballot question that has virtually no opposition. The only opposition is the Mass Municipal Association and their opposition. Maybe that's too strong a word. They're concerned that they don't like statewide zoning mandates. They want individual cities and towns to decide. In light of the fact that there was virtually no opposition, what do you say to the fact that an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature decided to do nothing on this bill? which they could have passed, which Governor Healy could have signed, and we wouldn't have to go through a million dollar campaign or whatever it is, and wait another six months or four months until it goes into effect. I think this points back to the wisdom of the architects of American governance, which is they understood there had to be multiple avenues. to get things done and multiple checks and balances on those avenues. We have the legislative process. We have the ballot initiative process. Now the ballot initiative process is also checked. It can't do things that impair, for example, due process or civil rights or court rulings. So I think this is kind of governance in action where you hit one roadblock, you find another way. But why should there have been roadblock, Jake Hawken close? Why should the legislator, particularly with no opposition, why should the legislature not just have enacted the ballot question or maybe done some?

moderate amending and made the thing in the law. Yeah, I mean, Jim, you're asking me to weigh in on the State House legislature. I have my hands full in Congress with that legislature, so can I worry about one at a time? You may. Yes, you may in Congress. You know, I have often wondered, you know, you're a well-educated guy. You went to Harvard, MIT, get all these great degrees, not usually the place where you find men and women leading there to go sign up for the Marines. Why did you become a Marine? We have a minute. I'll go to bat for Harvard for a second on this count because people often are surprised by Harvard graduates going to the Marines. Actually, Harvard has more Medal of Honor laureates than any higher education institution other than the Service Academy. So Harvard does have a long lineage of this. I did not know that. But the short answer is I wanted a challenge. I wanted personal responsibility and I wanted to serve a country that I think is the greatest nation in the history of the world. Congressman, we really appreciate your time. What's your website if people want to learn more about your campaign and your career? Jake for MA.com. Terrific. Good to see you. Be well. Thank you. Very much for joining us. We appreciate it. We were speaking with Congressman Jake Alkin Clause, who's running to keep his seat representing the 4th Massachusetts District, which is not weird. It's a beautiful district, as the Congressman just corrected me and told me. We've heard from his Democratic primary challenger Jason Poulouse on BPR last week. Again, thanks to the Congressman. Coming up after this quick break, David Steiner and his wife, Ina, were stalked and harassed by eBay executives, terrorized, really, starting back. in 2019. Just this year, they settled for millions of dollars and damages, but the case still haunts. We'll speak with David Steinher himself as attorney Chris Murphy about the lengths to which they had to go to get justice and accountability. I'm Marjoriegan. He's Jim Brow. You're listening to BPR 897GBH streaming at YouTube.com slash GBIH news.

Welcome back to BPR and 897 GBAH where the library to marvel of live music from hip-hop violinist Red Price. Rick Steve's PBS Travel Guru will zoom in, and Sue O'Connell will also zoom in live from the Lindsay Clancy trial. In 2019, David and Ina Steiner were publishing their e-commerce bites blog when they started receiving anonymous threatening messages and disturbing packages in the mail. you likely know what happened next. eBay executives engaged in a massive corporate terrorism campaign against the native... and natick couple. Among the items that arrived on the doorstep of bloody pig mask, a book on surviving the death of a spouse, live cockroaches, spiders. Their address was posted on Craigslist, on and on. And then executives from eBay flew from California to Natick, try and install tracking devices on their car. As the harassment and stalking continue, they were forced to sleep in separate bedrooms to better be able to respond and call for help if one of them... was attacked for a time they wouldn't even go out for groceries. The Steiner's did bring their case to the police. Some eBay executive was resent the prison, but Steiner's argued this campaign came directly from the top and sought damages from the former CEO of the company, who was found to text at another executive stating if you're ever going to take her down, meaning Ina Steiner, now is the time, referring to her who had written critical but fact-based articles about eBay in the couple's newsletter in which Ina can... continues to cover to this day. Last month, as I'm sure you read, David and Ina received a settlement, $50 million. from eBay, with the CEO himself being forced to contribute $2 million. An additional $7 million went to charity with First Amendment implications for journalists across the state. One half of that incredibly courageous couple, David Steiner joins us now with one of their attorneys who fought for the settlement, Chris Murphy. David, it's good to see you again, and Chris, welcome to the show. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having us. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, thank you. Thank you very much, both of you, for speaking with us today. So, David, let's start with you. How do you feel about this settlement? Would you think this was exacted accountability? I think it was as close as we could get to accountability through a trial. And a trial certainly could be brought with peril. We looked at over 68,000 documents when we finally received discovery. And, you know, it wasn't certain that we could present everything during the trial. In fact, I don't know the exact number, but I think there was something like 3,500 or 5,000 exhibits. And eBay didn't object to only...

I believe. So everything was going to be a battle. With this, you know, if you look past the $55.7 million, the thing that I'm and I are most proud of is having no non-disclosure, which means that everything that we saw, and trust me, we went, we poured over those 68,000 documents. We can speak about freely. There is no non-disclosure, which is, I guess. unheard of in settlement cases like this. We'll ask Chris about that in a second, but staying with you for a second, David. I read quotes from both of you, both of you, meaning you and your wife, saying that as this thing proceeded, you realized I'm putting words in your mouth, but I think they're fair. You'll tell me if I'm not, that this case was not just about you and accountability for the two of you, but for... address broader concerns? What were those broader concerns? Absolutely. You know, when eBay wanted our contacts, they wanted our sources, and we did not want to give those to them. And because Massachusetts doesn't really have a journalist shield law in Massachusetts, it was ruled that we would have to give. those over. We sort of got around it on a technicality because eBay narrowed their ask. And there were really, it was sort of a null set, people who said they were not going to work with us anymore. Think about that. You know, Deep Throat goes to Woodward and Bernstein and beats them in the garage and says, hey, guys, I'm not talking with you anymore. And it disappears. That's not the way it works. They just don't talk. The other thing that's very important to us is the lack really of a Massachusetts civil stalking statute. that you cannot in this state really holds a stalker or harasser civilly liable. I think that Catherine Clark tried to introduce something at a federal level almost 10 years ago that died. And I think that if we modeled something more after the California Civil Code, that we would have a lot more teeth. Because how better to keep someone from going back after a victim than to hold them civilly liable, economically liable. So that's going to be something, both of those.

are very dear to us. Can we just give an update before we get Chris Murphy into this conversation? We had the general counsel or corporate counsel of the Globe here a couple of weeks ago before the Senate had voted on this shield law, and that night they voted 40 to nothing. So it's now before a conference committee to resolve House and Senate differences. If you care about protecting journalist sources, as David was talking about, call your legislator. Chris, can you comment on a couple of the things David said about the reason for settlement? versus going to trial? Yeah, well, I think, you know, to get to a settlement like this, and David said it, it's unusual. You need a client with resolve. David and I were victimized horribly. I mean, you read some of the facts, and it's just a small peek into the terror that they experienced. Then to say, we have to now run through the criminal justice system to hold some of the folks criminally accountable. And in that system, you're victimized again. You're giving impact statements. You're reliving it. You're talking with prosecutors. And then finally, when it gets down to you. You have to engage a legal team. You have to fight. And it's an arduous process and you get victimized again. Your medical records get scrubbed. Your findings get scrubbed. If you're a reporter, their sources are in jeopardy. On and on. And what helped craft this settlement was David Naina. From day one, they said, we're not settling unless. And they were very clear with the purpose. A charitable component. Non-disclosure. Personal accountability, financial accountability from the CEOs. And on and on. And so thankfully, they fought and fought. And it was years of litigation before they got what they want. So yes, you can go to trial. Trials are confined little fishbowl. We were only given six weeks to try the case. And with the amount of evidence and witnesses to tell the full story, it would have been shortchanged there. And this settlement... that David Niner really worked for is a great, great outcome for them. Well, David, one of the things when I was reading, particularly the long Boston magazine piece that went through A to Z is you, Ina's a great reporter, great investigative reporter, you're a guy with the big brain there. I was thinking to myself that the helplessness of somebody that had less, less wherewithal than you. I mean, the knock the Natick police, but this was a very involved case that your wife, Ina, had to do a lot of the investigating herself. You talk about the anti-stalking law. The helplessness is what came through for me if it were not people of your wherewithal, as I said. Well, listen, don't discount the United Police and what they did. They worked well over their heads. You know, they really dug in, especially Sergeant Jason Sutherland, Detective Haswell. They just went above and beyond.

The thing that helped us, and I can't honestly tell you why, but we documented everything from the outset. We made police reports. I called the retailers after they sent the packages and tried to get as much information from the retailers themselves to present it to the police. We had to, you know, present sort of a sane. presence to the police. Yeah. And, you know, and it's a shame. But they, they. dug their teeth in, and I give them all credit in the world. But, you know, one of the things you're talking about creating a sane presence, but then I read in that piece how you had a laundry cart by the back door full of pasta and pants, so if anybody tried to come in, they'd make the noise and alert you, which is quite frightening. You know, meeting, you and your wife were kind enough to join me with Rosemary Skopico on TV, I think three years after this happened. And that... Your appearance, both of you, has stayed with me in the intervening years. And you talked about, I mean, your wife talked about how she believed at some point her life was at risk, meaning you could be killed by these people. You talked about the fact that you still were, this wasn't your word, but I'll use it traumatized by this. It's six years after the fact. How much is what these people did to you still part of your everyday life, or is it? Well, yeah. I mean, making a mistake, we were, and I were both diagnosed with PTSD. And there is some aspect to it lingers. I would say that over the past month or so, we're starting to work back toward baseline. We're starting to talk about things that we used to talk about. You know, we're starting to enjoy our relationship. again, without 24 hours a day. And literally, it was almost 24 hours a day because we didn't sleep much over the past seven years. And so I would say that we're both strong people. And, you know, we're looking forward to whatever lays they had. You know, Chris, could you, one last thing. We'd love to give our audience assignments, and we have urged them to support a shield law, as we said, pending before the legislature. Could you just expand just a drop on that? And this won't come up, I don't think, in this five-month weird time, but could next year. What is our law missing around anti-harassment? things, anti-stalking things, that, for example, the judge, in this case, Judge Saris, I believe, said California law could apply to that would exact more serious consequence for terrorists like eBay in this case. What are we missing that we should add to our law? So we know what happened to I and David, both as reporters and as individuals. And...

In Massachusetts, in our Commonwealth, you can go and get compensatory damages, right? You can get the harm you suffered back, dollar for dollar. That's hard to quantify when you've been stocked for a day or a week or two months. And usually it's on a lower dollar end. So if you're a terrorist, right, a harasser, you don't fear monetary damages coming to you. And when you go to see an injury lawyer about it, they're going to say, well, look, You know, there's not a lot to get here. It's not really worth it. However, Judge Saris, as you pointed out, Patty Saris did a great job. We argued before the court that eBay is domiciled in California. And in California, for a corporation who commits these acts, they can be held punitively liable. So punishment damages on top of compensatory damages. And we argue that- And that's where the deterrence, that's where the real deterrence is- Exactly. So- That's what we argue to the judges. They shouldn't be allowed to leave their home state, come into our Commonwealth, terrorize a couple from Natick, and get away with it. And Judge Sarac said, you're right. And so that was brought in in this case. In this case can now be used as precedent around the country for anyone in any state that doesn't have punitives who's harassed or aggrieved by an entity that has punitives in their home state. And that is the Einis Steiner versus eBay. case that can be cited and should be, you know, championed loudly. I love that. I love that. Well, we're going to champion that measure before this legislature, too. I just wondered, and either of you can answer this, but I hope this kind of thing, you know, cockroaches and vandalizing your property, following you around, all these terrible things, I hope this is unusual, or is this kind of thing going on to a lesser degree we just don't know about it? David, you want to talk a letter? Well, I'll take the first half. You know, I think that it's, I think it's more, it happens more often than we think about their online retailers that actually have packages that you can send to. people who relationships when there's a breakup and they contain some pretty dead dastardly stuff um so i do think it happens especially if they can support e-commerce like that businesses who are who are making a living on doing just that chris i you know Marjorie, to your point, I think things like this happen more often because, again, we talked about accountability for harassers. The C-suite needs to be held individually accountable, right? So this was a case of a corporate voice saying, take her down, and then it spiraled from there. And the C-suite escaped criminal prosecution entirely. The lower-level employees. The people that actually went and did what their bosses told them to do, all are now convicted felons. In most cases, there's corporate indemnity, so the C-Suite doesn't have to pay a judgment when they do wrong. We wanted personal contribution. And to really sum this all up, that CEO, Devin Wenig,

When he left eBay after doing this, he got $57 million parachute. His lawyer paid for and probably would have gotten indemnity if Einin and David didn't ask for personal responsibility. So that's one of the big areas that needs to be addressed. You can't. You shouldn't be able to have that power and that autonomy and that insulation. It's awful. You know, David, I just want to say to you and I know I'm speaking for Marjorie, the two of you are inspirations to... Heroes. Everybody who knows about... I'm serious, your courage, your fight, your relentlessness. And I'm just hoping I'm looking over Chris's right shoulder that in the near future, you and your wife get to go under that beach umbrella that is sitting on Chris's right shoulder. Send our best to your wife. And David, congratulations. And thank you for being who you two are. Thank you for having us. Yeah. Thank you very, very much. And congratulations. Thank you. Thanks so much. Take care. Take care. We have been speaking with David Steiner, one half of the native couple who fought for their right to publish articles critical of eBay in their commerce newsletter. And then before we leave this, shield law, call your rep for a senator and urge the conference committee to come out with a strong bill for the governor to sign. And as the months go along, we'll talk a little bit more about this potential legislation dedicated to INA, how we could strengthen our laws around stalking and harassment. And we just want to say that their criticism of eBay is what resulted in. this terror campaign against them that was just beyond horrific. Anyway, and we also talked to one of the couples' attorneys who fought for this settlement. Chris Murphy, we're grateful both to David and Chris for coming in. Thank you again for your time. Coming up after this quick break, another awkward BPR transition. We're going to open the lines for M-I-V-A-Hole and ask to what is the acceptable response to someone who's perpetually late. Do you wait for them and wait for them and wait for them or do you just leave without them? I'm Marjorie Egan. Houston Browdy listening to BPR 897 GBAH streaming at YouTube.com slash GPH News.

Welcome back to VPR and 897 GVH. We're at the library tomorrow with live music, with Rick Steves and Sue O'Connell for the Clancy Trail. Our intern, Jack, this is, I'm reading a note from one of our coworkers, who usually doesn't work with us on Thursdays, stopped by the studio, and he said, quote, I came in today just to see who the A-Hull is one last time. It's his last day. We'll talk about them in a second. Right now, it's time for MIVA Hull. The only reason Marjorie comes to work on Thursdays, today's prompt involves four men who regularly take vacations together. Or, as the original poster would put it, he and the lads go on holiday often. So they go to Cyprus recently. One of the lads opts to go on a hike on their very last day in the country. The rest of the group reaches out to him as their departure time approaches, only to find out he's sitting in a cafe, a three-hour walk away from them, and is unlikely to make it back in time for their flight. So the rest of the lads plead for him to take a taxi. He's too cheap to do it. So they leave his suitcase at the villa, take their own taxi at the airport, board the plane without him, and say, you've got to take the next plane. So the lines are open on 87-301, 8970. We're not so much interested in who you think is the A-Hull there, but the larger issue about all the people in your life who may have a different interpretation of time, let's say, the perennially late among us is the... late person, the jerk, the a-hole, or the rest of the lads, the jerk for not waiting up, or let's say being flexible enough to accommodate a few minutes or hours of someone who's late. The number's 877. 301.89.79. I want to talk to, I mention my role model here. I've mentioned it a number of times whenever we discussed tardiness. When George W. Bush was the President of the United States, cabinet meetings would start at 9 a.m. If a cabinet secretary arrived at 901, what happened, Marjorie? Too late. Too bad. Locked out of the room. That's right. You show up on time or you're locked out. And as George W. Bush was wont to say, they weren't late again. 877301.8970. Who's the A-Hull? I think that the guy that was late is the A-Hull. Yes, because they told him over and over and over again. They're going to take an airplane. They expect him to just everybody else to wait around for him and miss their own plane because he's off taking a hike somewhere. You know, a lot of people use excuses. A lot of people say that tension deficit disorder. That's why they're late for all the time. We know people that do that. They blame their lateness on that. And that may be legitimate. I don't know. But generally speaking. So the late person is the A-hole.

I would say generally speaking. Okay. Let me give you a hypothetical. I should say. I'm an A-Hole. Yesterday, yesterday. Because I am late a lot. We had a staff meeting at 850. We did. I got a call from someone at 849 saying there are buses because the Green Line is down. So I'm going to be late, even though all of us knew there were buses because the Green Line was down. Yeah, I forgot there were buses. So was that person, the A-Hull? I was the A-Hull for being. I am late. I'm better. I'm better. I've improved. But I am off and late. But it was all those buses. We waited for her, by the way. Yeah, a million buses. And they're all driving on the bike lane. You know that? I heard the story yesterday. You know that? I should have him arrested. 877301, 8970. He's the person who's late in your life, who's the A-Hull, unless they have a really good excuse. Or are you the A-Hull, or whoever is the A-Hole, when you refuse to give them a little leeway and wait to give them a break. We have cell phones now, so you can usually call up and tell somebody if you're going to late. But that was always the question. before people had cell phones, which I guess is a long time ago. But if you're going to meet someone for coffee or dinner or whatever, how long do you wait before you say, the hell with this, I'm leaving? How long would I wait? I generally wait. I give 15 minutes and I send him a text. But what's wrong with that? No, that's good. And by the way, if I'm thankful that they're not showing up, because occasionally agree to something that you realize, I can't believe I agree to this, I usually... will not wait in the place. I will wait at a place where I can make quick egress and then maybe seven minutes in. Say, I assume we had a cross-up. There were different times. We had different times. So I'll see you soon. And don't you know people in your life that are always late? Of course I do. And what do you do about that? I don't tolerate. I really. By the way, let me just say, I never say a good thing about myself, as you will know. You're very punctual. I am never late for anything. You are early. Excuse me. And I am always late, early for something. Okay. You know why? Because it's respectful. other people, Marjorie. It's very disrespectful to be late. To be late. I must say you have made a big change in my life, Jim. I now am more often on time. And by the way, the anonymous text says you're right. You can avoid being late by driving in the bus line, which you do. Even though you deny it. Yeah. Well, how about all those MBTA buses driving in the bike lane? I thought that was outrageous. That's a problem, by the way. It was outrageous. And there were like three of them in a row so you can't get by them. It's absolutely terrible. By the way, lady, I don't mean to make more out of this than it deserves. Being late is really, you're basically saying to somebody else, your time is more important than yours. No, that's true. It's very, very, very disrespectful. But some people just do it. all the time. They just kind of do it all the time. There used to be a theory that people wanted to make a dramatic entrance, you know, if it was to a party or something. But I don't know. It's not managing your time while. It's not planning ahead. It's not looking on ways to figure how long it's going to take you to get somewhere and then adding an extra 15 minutes or half an hour if it's far away. But some people, I mean, in fairness, some people have executive function problems. That's what I was talking about. You may. Do I have executive function problems? I have a lot of problems. I didn't say you're a lot of problems. Some may say

that you might have an executive function problem. A modest one. You mean because I lose everything, you can't find out of my papers? Lose everything you're late. But again, she's not as late as she used to be. Matthew in Connecticut, you're first. Hi there. Who's the A-hole? Well, I've been the A-hole for many, many years of my life. I have. And, you know, you just mentioned the ADHD thing. I have that. I've always felt that I had time blindness as a result, where it doesn't matter how well I plan. I'm very capable mentally, intellectually, but I couldn't be on time if my life depended on it. And what do you try to do about that to fix it? Now, here's the weird thing. Yes, please. I got on a GLP1 about a year ago. And, you know, that affects brain chemicals. Of course it does. Now, I haven't discussed this with my doctor yet. I have a physical coming up. I'm going to mention it. Okay. But my time blindness has disappeared. Wow. I'm not late anymore. Wow. It's the most bizarre thing. And I called that to say, it sort of made me think, okay, my time blindness, A, was real, and B, maybe it's chemical. You know, we know that GLP-1s treat a lot of different addictions, but I hadn't heard one like this. That's amazing. I'm not saying. We know, we know, we know. It's not causation, but hey, look, I'm 40 years old. For the past 22 years, I haven't got the things on time. Well, Matthew, stay at it. That's a great call. We're going to broach that with the next medical person we have on the show, Matthew. Yeah, please do. Stay tuned. They're using it to treat addiction and all the different things. Maybe there's something there. Maybe there is. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. That's what you know, Matthew. And that's why they really struggle to be places on time. And you know, and you see how that if you're going to go somewhere, okay, we've got to leave in five minutes. But in that five minutes, they're over there. They're fixing their hair or they're. brushing their teeth or they're looking for something in the house or it's like they can't like focus on getting up the door. A lot of texts. Mike and Arlington, these lads that left are my heroes. Patrick from Canton, when I meet friends for drinks, they can be late, but however many drinks I have between the time I get there, through the time they get there, they pay for them. Anonymous texts of bringing late. Being late is the ultimate disrespect. My ex made me late to a funeral once. A funeral. It was almost his funeral. Next. And Sally, I don't want to talk about this, but says, now we know what happened to Harriet Heinemann. She was late.

Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn't. Okay, listen to Violet from Gloucester. Repetual Late. I am from a laid-back island culture. My friend is Swiss-German, precise to the second. I am more late than not at our get-togethers. We decided to compromise. We have now a 10-minute buffer and Violet manages to get there most of the time. But that's another thing, too, if it's a more laid-back culture. I think people are much... We're less worried about lateness in places like California. Well, then don't pick a ton. If you pick a time, you pick a time. The anonymous text, the only excuse for being late is being dead. Paula and it's a little harsh. Paula from Marshfield. Hi. Hey, I just think it's so rude when people are late. Yeah. And my, we knew a couple that I would make these great meals for. And it'd be like a half an hour to 45 minutes late. And then the meal was ruined. So then what I decided was, I'm just going to make crap for them that can just sit in the oven. until they arrive because it was just so frustrating and I'm anal like like I have to be 15 minutes early for a doctor's appointment thank God my husband just needs to be there on time but I just think it's rude I am Paul I'm with you every word of that whole thing the 15 minute thing the crappy food everything you said I'm with and thank you much for the call excellent 877 301 8970. How did you get better? We didn't discuss this. How did you get better at not being late? Well, it mostly was about realizing how stressful it is to be late. Yeah, and that you're like you're in a panic getting there. Am I going to miss something? And I've missed a lot of things. It was really embarrassing. Like what? By the way, I will tell a story that she often tells, Marjor often tells. I was at a statehouse press conference. I don't remember which governor was. Jane Swift. Was it 156? Was that the room in the statehouse? I don't know. This is a totally true story. And I'm going to, and I didn't know Marjorie well then. I'm going to press conference at the state house and the governor, Jane Swift is doing this. And all of a sudden the door is locked and there's a knocking. a desperate knocking on the door to the governor's press conference, relentless. Who was knocking? I was knocking. Because you were locked out. Yeah, it was so funny. I heard the press reports. You could hear me banging on TV where they had the thing that night. Yeah, I was late. I knew it being in big trouble if I didn't get in. Those kinds of things are so upsetting and so stressful. Here's one. This is, I can be a cultural issue, as we talked about before. Deborah from Grodden. Yes, Debra from Grodden. I lived on the border of Switzerland and Italy, two countries with vastly different concepts of being on time. The train's departing Switzerland would leave on the dot, even waiting for the second hand to reach 12 before going. Five minutes later, the train was in Italy where absolutely no one cared. That's pretty great. Jackie and Havril. Hi, Jackie.

Hello, Jim and Marjorie. Hi there. I love you both. Thanks. Almost as much. I mean, almost the same. We know what the next sentence is. Don't say it. It's not necessary. Everybody feels that way. Some people really love you, Jim. No, but not many. Go ahead, Jackie. I'm sorry. That's okay. I'm going to tell you about my friend who lives in London, outside of London. And I went to London for a business trip once, and there was an American friend of a friend named Laura, and she lived in London. So I arranged to meet Linda, Laura, and my friend whose name shall not be mentioned. A wonderful guy, and everybody loves him, but he's always late for everything, and we were going to meet for dinner in London at a certain time. But I had to tell him, as all of his friends there do, an hour earlier, because he's usually at least... a half an hour or an hour late for things. And sometimes he was a whole day late. Once he was a very, a day late. Wow. Yeah. So that's another story. We won't go into that. No, of course. So I told him, you know, let's say five o'clock. And I told Laura, Laura and I agreed on six o'clock. So of course, Mr. What did your previous caller called? Had my time blindness friend. Yes. He got the earlier train. For like for the first time in 15 or 20 years of knowing him, he was on time. Actually, he was early. So I kind of tried to dilly dally with him, and we moseyed our way to the restaurant, and then we're sitting there, and he looked at me, and he said, you told Laura five o'clock, didn't you? You told me five o'clock, and Laura six o'clock, and I said, yes, I had to admit it. I tell you something, though, a lot of people are texting saying that our thing. That's unfair to the people aren't. They have to scam your way around this thing. Jackie, people should just be on time, and the burden shouldn't be put on us. But thank you very much. My partner is from our producer. My partner's ADHD, often tell on the wrong departure time to build in a few extra minutes so we aren't late. He recently found out that not only do I do this, but the rest of his family has been doing this for years. He was deeply offended, but I am deeply offended by being late. Who is the A-Hull BPR producer edition? Clearly, it's your partner. Yeah. Absolutely. Well, I think we resolved that issue. That was actually very little disagreement. Okay, diva. In any case, Edgar is here. Edgar B. Herrick III. What is, were you on this late kind of deal? I am never late. I know I was supposed to be in here two minutes ago. No, no, no. I mean, no, but.

reasonable stuff. Seriously, folks. I will say this. As somebody who, I am better about it than I used to be, but I used to be one of these people who was very late. But I feel like if you are a person who is chronically late, it is your responsibility to accept the consequences when they come your way. I like that. What should the consequences be? The consequences are. Like if your friends are going to leave without you because you're late for the 50th time, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like, you got to be like. What are you doing on your show there? So, question, are either of you left-handed? She is. You are. Yes. Are you? I am not. My mother was left-handed. But did you know it's International Left-Handards Day? Oh, my God. It is your day, Marjorie. It is my day. What percentage of people do you think are left-handed? 10%. Yeah. It's 10%, which is super small. We're going to talk about it. We're going to talk with somebody who's a lot of geniuses. A lot of the great geniuses. Like me. Go on. Can I tell you're not going to do your usual thank you. So I want to talk about the two interns. It's the last day today. Do that. We have. Charlie Dejajan and Jack Siciliano, Jack and Charlie, it's their last day, and they both have been great. Jack is going back to his senior year at Syracuse. Charlie's going to Emerson as a senior, and they've been wonderful interns, and thank you very much for all they did. By the way, I hope people realize how important interns are to the show when they're good. I mean, it's, Mukta Darmapurker's our intern has been unbelievable. I mean, the intern, the young people these days, I say, I mean, they're incredibly impressive. They're never late. Never late. That's a great point. In any case, but in our case, Jack and Charlie, thanks for everything. You've been hugely helpful to us and good luck in the future. We asked them already. On the show? Left-handed writing. Where's what are you here or what? I don't know. I was late to the fair. Hi, guys, good to be in here. What are you talking about? Who are you, by the way? Thank you very much. Thank you very much for listening to another edition of Boston Public Great. We're going to be live at the Boston Public Library. Oh, wait a second. What's on your show? Oh, good. Oh, ha, ha. Marjorie here tomorrow. Left-handed. Rick Cee, Sue O'Connell, Shirley Leone. Yes, Sue O'Connell's going to talk about the hip-hop, Lindsay Clancy Cake. Whoever. I'm Marjorie Egan. Thank you for tuning in. I am left-handed. Sorry, I miss left-handed day. Bye. Bye. Bye.