8/14/26 Panel

Good morning. Welcome to the Roundtable for this Friday. It is the 14th? What is the day is it? That's what day is. 14th, 14th of August. It's delightful, delightful to have you all here. I'll be honest with you. Today is, we've been working on construction in the building and redoing the building, and it's beautiful. Really. It's very nice. And I don't think I'm being unkind when I say that... In my many years here, I do not remember major renovation projects going on. Plus Central Avenue is getting torn up. Yeah, it's quite an obstacle for us. So it's really something to have things redone, and it's really lovely. I mean, paint and new carpet and new desks and lights, and it's really very, very nice. But today is moving day. Today is where we go from our old spaces to our new spaces. And I think all of us can agree on just how much fun moving is. Yeah. And then you start going through the old folders and you think, oh, do I want to keep this? And oh, this is really cool. And then you start telling stories. And then the next thing you know, you're 10 minutes late for your show. There we go. You only scared us a little bit. I know, I know. I saw it. Donna could speak for me. I could speak for you. I could hear. Yeah. I do not do the soliloquy. No, that's true. Well, it's wonderful to have you all here. Thank you very much for being with us. A quick announcement. Something that I hope you can join us with. We're going to be, I'm going to be talking to Richard Russo, Rick Russo, at the... Universal Preservation Hall in Saratoga Springs on Sunday at 4 p.m. And he has a new book called Under the Falls. It is a terrific book. And it actually takes place in the southern, in the Adirondacks and has a lot to do with Saratoga and Albany. And is really a very cool story. It started initially as a television show. And it didn't get picked up, so he made it into a novel. And it's really good, and we're going to be talking about it on Sunday at 4. You can go to northshire.com. I believe there are some tickets left. Northshire.com, and it's at Universal Preservation Hall. What's going to happen is you're going to go to northshare.com. You're going to see the link, and then the link is going to bring you to UBH to get the tickets. But information and all that stuff, Northshire.com. I hope you'll join us. Looking forward to it. It should be quite, quite a beautiful Sunday afternoon. Sounds great. All right. Let's get started. I'm going to introduce our group to you. Stuart Rice Honorary Chair at the University of Massachusetts Amherst College of Information and Computer Sciences and Faculty Associated at the Berkman and Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. Fran Berman is here. Good morning, Fran. How are you?

Jo, can I tell you how much I'm enjoying your newsletter? What a cool idea. Well, thank you. I will tell you sheepishly that it was not my idea, but... It wasn't? Well, I mean, they asked me to do it, and I said, sure, and I'm loving it. I'm having a great time. It's a lot of fun. Issue 4 comes out on Monday, and if you want to sign up, you can do it right now. It's at wamc.org slash roundtable. But thank you. That's very nice of you to say. I'm having fun with it. You get to tell stories that I said this the other day, and it got misconstrued. I get to tell stories that I don't tell on the air, which makes it sound like they're dirty stories or have bad language in them. That is not the case at all. It's just, you know, other personal stuff that I wouldn't perhaps share here, but I would share in a newsletter. And that's very fun. They are completely delightful to read. I encourage people to sign up. And then you and I, when I'm on next, we'll have an announcement about something we're doing together. That's right. Fran and I, we got an agent and we booked a gig. So we're very excited. It's very cool. We're looking forward to it. That'll be in September, and that's right. We'll let people in on that very soon. Good to have you here, Fran. As always, Judith Eng joins us, Senior Fellow and Faculty Member in the Center for Advancement of Public Action at Bennington College. Good morning. How are you? Great. Great. President of Beyond Plastics, former EPA Regional Administrator, and the... co-author of the new book, The Problem with Plastic. And that's, you're still on tour. Yeah, it's easier because it's more local. So I'm headed to Lake Placid on Friday, September 4th. Come join us at the Lake Placid Public Library at 4.30. Then I'm at Northshire Books in Saratoga on September 17th at 6 o'clock. And September 27th, Sharon, Connecticut in the town hall, 4 p.m. The book event in Saratoga is moderated by... Sarah LaDuke, so that'll be fine. Former WAM see her. That's great. Read Judith's book. It's fantastic. It really is. It's fantastic. We look forward to that event coming up. Allison Kee joins this full professor in the history department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Good morning, Allison. Hey, how is everyone doing? We're doing fine. Yeah, doing well.

You know, except for the moving part. Nothing worse than moving. Graduate school teaches you the horrors of moving. Your friends move. You move. You carry all your furniture over and over and over. Yeah. It's not good. There's a lot of boxes. But it's fine. It'll be great when we're in. But which, you know, maybe done by the time I get done the show. Who knows? Yeah. Donna Welton joins us, diplomat in residence at Bard College. She retired from the U.S. Foreign Service in 2025 after 30. I keep on wanting to say for obvious reasons. You did that last time. It's probably true. Okay. Over 30 years in public service, her last post was ambassador to the Southeast Asian country, Timor Lestay. And good morning, Donna. How are you? Good morning. I am fine. Diplomats no moving. Yes, I bet you do. I bet you do. I need all your help of tips and ideas of things and how to make it easy. Keep nothing. Well, that's it. That's it. Exactly. So. I've been wanting to ask Donna, if I may. Yes, please. Do you watch the TV show The Diplomat? I've only watched the trailer. Oh. Yes, I'm sorry. You should watch the whole thing. Yeah, it's a fantasy world. It's not like that at all. But it's got a good storyline. Now, Fred Hoff. Yes. He likes the show. Well. You're going to say but Fred Wood, right? I didn't say that. You almost did. I almost did. It's good entertainment. But he didn't, I mean, he didn't speak to its accuracy. He simply said it was an enjoyable program. It's an enjoyable program. And certainly if it gets people interested in what happens behind the scenes, even though that's not really what happens behind the scenes, that's a good thing. Excellent. Good question, Judith. Thank you for starting us off this morning. Good stuff. We have an odd collection of stories this morning. I'll admit that and a lot to talk about. So here we go. We're on our way. Let us begin with talking about the USS Abraham Lincoln and the concerns over that. Democrats are seeking answers after reports of poor conditions on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Sailor's families told the military times that two men try to jump overboard as crews endure food shortages and broken toilets and water contamination. Senate Democrats are demanding answers from Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary. after reports of those conditions. The Defense Department downplayed the situation Thursday amid reports of supply shortages and attempted suicides.

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut sent a list of questions Wednesday to Pete Hegseth, enacting Navy Secretary Hongkow, regarding his serious concerns about the carrier's extended deployment to support military operations against Iran. The aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, is currently in the Arabian Sea. Richard Blumenthal said conditions seem to be worsening as reports come out from families, sailors' families about alleged food shortages. That water contamination, he pointed out that under normal conditions, working on the USS Lincoln requires long shifts around jet engines and heavy machinery, where mistakes can be deadly and the threat of attack is always present. The military Times reported this week that at least two sailors have attempted to jump overboard with a wife of one sailor saying burnout caused her husband to try to jump. Hickset told reporters that the situation has been, quote, completely misrepresented. He went on to say, we make sure every ship, every crew, every captain, has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Hakesh said in Panama, where he is attending a forum. Some deployments are longer than others, and I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody. In April, after reports circulated to a low-quality, diminishing food supplies, Pete Hegseth, and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations publicly denied the claims, and Pete Hegseth called the reports of fake news. Democrats reacted strongly this week to reports of the worsening conditions. Yeah. There's a lot going on in that story. And I would see, first of all, you've got an aircraft carrier, but it's not just an aircraft carrier that's out. There's a whole strike group along with that carrier. The carrier has over 5,000 people at any given time. And they put out from San Diego, I think, before Christmas. And they've been out that. But it's symptomatic of a situation that has, you know, lack of purpose and very poor planning. I'm... wonder why this has become a partisan issue because the House Armed Services Committee should be all over this. You know, our military members are not partisan. They're service members. They're out there. You know, they were given their orders and they should not have to put up with substandard.

living conditions if there have to be on alert and in a potential combat and attack situation hourly. The Theodore Roosevelt was refurbished less than five years ago. And so if it's not getting supplied and if it's a logistics problem and a planning problem that should be addressed. There's been no mention of... the captain of this particular vessel. I've I've been on carriers. I've been overnight on carriers. And even on the best of times, they're not comfortable places to be. You're sleeping like like the center, like the the senator said, right next to mechanics. You have, you have F-35s on the deck. And you're in close quarters with, you know, a whole five times my town of Valacia. I've... I've been in situations where, you know, in Afghanistan, which is sort of like a carrier on the ground, it was when the embassy was there, where our food supplies were cut off because of a conflict or a disagreement with Pakistan. And, you know, every morning it was Pollock for breakfast. There was Pollock for lunch and it was Pollock for dinner. And I had a secret stash of lentils and rice under my bed, but, you know, you can't do that on a carrier when you're sleeping in. in a bunk bed. It's just representative of the lack of, you know, of the lack of attention to how difficult such a deployment and such a, such a combat situation actually is. We should note that there are reports that the Abraham Lincoln is set to return home after 244 days at sea, that they... They have started that journey, and that has not been made official, but that is the reporting that is out there. But it could take quite a while for that transition. They're moving a ship from near Japan, I think. Yeah. So. This is what happens when you select a Fox News weekend host to head a large sprawling agency and a Fox News weekend host who won't tell the president that... The war is a bad idea, but if you insist on going to war, we actually need to do some planning and make sure that military lives are protected. I didn't know 5,000 people are on this ship. Most of them never get to come up top, so they're underneath. Right? There's several decks.

So, like, the top deck is where the airplanes are. Right. And when the aircraft take off, there's two or three lower decks where people can, you know, walk around and be in the fresh air. Right. So they've been out there for about seven months. Typically, they will... dock somewhere so people can walk around, but this hasn't happened. Yeah, port calls are very difficult in that part of the world. And they can't pull into any port because the aircraft carrier requires a very large... It's big. A very large berth. But, you know, imagine your tour of duty keeps getting extended. And you don't know, no end. Right. They say indefinitely. Of course there are going to be... mental health issues. Of course there's going to be food shortages. And yesterday, J.D. Van said that we may be in that area indefinitely. So you can imagine. What that's doing to morale. But I think we come back to that, you know, when Trump announced this war, he said, we're going to be in and out, four to six weeks, tops. And I don't, and it's terrible what the sailors are experiencing. And I can't imagine the worry from their families and loved ones. But also we've got to remember that this is. an endless war that didn't have to happen. And on the very first day, the United States bombed a girls' school in southern Iran, killing 175 young girls. And that was the kickoff to this horrible, horrible war. What seems to be driving public opinion more than anything is the price of gas. Maybe this reporting by military times will get the public this summertime more focused on this pointless, endless war. But it seems Donald Trump grew bored a long time ago. I've said on this show I was struck maybe three weeks into the war. Trump was doing a news conference with reporters on a different topic and he wanted to wrap it up. And he said, all right, we're ending this now. I got to go back to watching my war like it was a video game or something. And, you know, there are reports that people in the Pentagon are looking for an off ramp. And it might be that they're going to stop bombing and just... play along like economic sanctions might work. I think stopping the bombing is a good thing, but this is a really serious mess with these sailors paying the price along with everyone else that is, you know, suffering in the region. Fran Berman. Yeah, those are such good points. I mean, for me...

This is just so tragic. And there are 5,000 people who have signed up to serve their country, and they're in terrible conditions. But to me, this also... You know, it's the long tale of a hypocrisy we've had about the military for a long time. I mean, you know, not even starting with Vietnam, but we so revere our service people. But when you think about their conditions, the impact of their lives when they come back home, think about the folks that suffer from Agent Orange and the folks that are having a hard time getting health care, getting jobs. You know, we talk a really good story about the military, but in fact, in real life, we don't do as much as they need for the sacrifices they're making. So to me, this is, you know... A terrible thing. The news media is making it a big deal, which we should all be knowing about. But it seems to me that we do have this sense that this war, not war. Is it a war? Is it not a war? you know, is putting them in harm's way. To me, there's such a stark contract, talk about hypocrisy between the amount of money that we're spending on presidential vehicles, all of these various planes, et cetera, and the kind of needs for the people out there doing the work that they were asked to do for the United States and these conditions they're in. That's problematic for me. All of these comments by, you know, Hegst and Trump and JD Vance, another fundamental thing I worry about is the diminishment of our trust in government. You know, do I expect that the things they say are truthful? Not necessarily. You know, they all sound like they're covering their butts. Do I get to say butt on the radio? Yeah, okay. We've cleaned it up dramatically, actually. Thank you very much. I didn't say the other words. But, you know, the other thing I worry about is, okay, how do we address that? So now we can pull the boat out and try to bring it home and put another boat there. You know, all of the conditions that made this our current reality are still there. So we can put a band-aid on it, and we should because these people need to come home. But, you know, then what? So I just find these kinds of stories tremendously frustrating.

I want to go to Alice and KB. I just want to mention that the U.S. George Washington is reportedly on the way to relieve the USS Abraham Lincoln. Also, the U.S. will be applying economic measures, quote, that have never been seen on Iran, end quote, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. I don't know exactly how to read that one. What could that possibly be? I mean, they've already put a whole panoply of sanctions. They've already done a lot that I've never seen before, right? And maybe they're just going to start paying a Trump coin, so I don't know. This will be in conjunction with the military blockade imposed by Washington. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the U.S. can keep a naval blockade of Iran going, quote, indefinitely. And you see the cost of it. You see the cost of it in the military members' lives. Alison. So I think everybody's made such great points. I'm just going to speak to the human cost that seems to me to be lost too often when we do these sort of tactical analyses of military operations. Obviously, Richard Blumenthal is right to say that there should be oversight and that obviously maybe somebody in government should go check on things. We're long overdue to check on things. But when people... commit to defending the nation, they are putting their trust in a government that makes good decisions. And unfortunately, I do not think that we see that kind of thoughtful, critical analysis going on in this engagement. And we have not since we started it, in my opinion. And I think perhaps a more generous person would say since the first month. What I am very concerned about is the... ongoing decline in morale in the military that has occurred under Pete Hegseth. There's a Guardian article on this. There's a Bulwark article actually from 25, December of 25, that speaks to the loss of confidence in leadership under Pete Hegseth. And when the people who have signed up to defend the nation no longer believe in the command that is making decisions for them, it becomes almost impossible for them to function as. the highly trained, highly disciplined people that they are. I also want to just go back to the points that Judith and Fran raised because we have a long history of treating our veterans poorly. we tend to deny them necessary health care. We do not give them the kind of career opportunities and educational opportunities that, I, to be frank, assumed were available from things like you come back from a tour and then we pay for you to go to university and to get a good job. That is no longer really happening.

And the veterans that I've had the privilege of teaching at John Jay have demonstrated to me that kind of not just intellectual commitment but perseverance under extraordinarily hard circumstances that shows the strength and the character of these individuals. And that is overlooked too often, I think, in our consideration of how poorly they're treated when they get back. And as recent as yesterday, so that is so well said, Alison, thank you. Veteran homelessness, mental health issues, substance abuse. Existing military families living in substandard housing with mold and lead. I mean, that's been documented. So even yesterday when Pete Hegseth said that these reports were exaggerated, it's really not that bad. And when he was asked, you know, what they're doing to address it, he mentioned his initiative to deal with low testosterone. You're kidding. No, yesterday. That'll help. He said it again. Right. It's going to help a lot. What is this dude focused on? I don't know. I'm sorry. It's like he plays with little plastic toy soldiers and has this strange kind of video game approach to his work. But, okay, I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt here, but, but how would that? How even in his brain is that connected? He said something like that's one of the problems that the... the staff on the soldiers, the sailors on the boat are dealing with that some of them may have low testosterone. Now, half... That's why they're jumping overboard. Half of the people on the ship are under age 25. So I don't think testosterone is the issue, but he thought, you know, that would help improve people's medical situations. I guess. Judith, it's not the first time, but you've rendered me speechless. We're going to take a break. We'll be back and continue after this.

Good morning. Welcome to the Roundtable and so nice to have you here. Today's panel music is from the band North Mississippi All-Stars. They're performing at the Bearsville Theater in Woodstock tonight. Doors opening at seven. Concerts starting at eight. You can find out more information at bearsville.com. The playlist on our website, wamc.org slash roundtable. WAMC.org slash. Roundtable. Anybody else have anything to say about the Lincoln and that current? Okay, we have letters. Let's go to those. What has this done to the mental health of all these sailors? How many are there who are teenagers? What will this do to their lives going forward? These are basic questions of what will become of their future. Mental illness, homelessness, we are having problems with veteran health issues, and how are we lacking in our care of individuals who put their lives on the line for us? This is abhorrent of a country that was once thought of as a country of plenty. We have lost our way. That from Diane. That's a great question. And I have a question for you guys. Do you know how long it would take them? You know, how long will it take them to get home? to get some place where, you know, they can see medical people and get off the boat. And, I mean, I don't know anything about this. They're out of San Diego. Yeah, but they wouldn't be, I mean, they might be returning to San Diego and there might be a port caller to. I mean, there should be medical people on board, but they're probably overwhelmed as well, right? So maybe they could stop somewhere and get more medical people? I mean, how does this actually happen? It's 5,000 people on this. Yeah. I mean, I think there's kind of a rolling deployment. So sometimes when they pull into port, a certain group of people will be offloaded and then flown back or flown to their next. So it's very, very complicated. It's not, they don't work. Yeah. But certainly the sailors identified as having had been rescued from going overboard or probably airlifted somewhere else right now. But it's a larger problem that, you know, that you've been discussing is how, and our listener who wrote in did. ability for our veterans to access support both health-wise, mental health-wise and physical health-wise, as well as support for social services, is greatly diminished under this administration. So we're aware of the, we are now aware of the conditions on this ship, but.

Then you extrapolate and say, okay, but what are the conditions on the other ships? And on bases around the world. I mean, there's P-FAS in the water. There's black mold in military housing. It's a serious problem. And yet the military budget keeps going up, up, up to pay for more weapons that they're depleting. Yeah, but that's for gear, Judith. It's not for the people. And this is not a new problem. I mean, we've had problem with services for both active and retired military for a long, long time, but it just seems to be exacerbated in this space. I agree. We do have a real problem with the Pentagon budget, though, despite the fact that it keeps gas for more and more money every year. It's not able to fund things like 172,000 military children enrolled in the child care program. They're unable to staff that program with the 19,000 workers that they need. And the proposed plan to modernize the military health network, which is responsible for serving active and retired. troops has stalled out because there's no money. So what we're doing is saying humans are expendable and machines are not. And I think that's really the... And by the way, it's not just, you know, gears, you know, ships and things like that. The military also has to deal with cybersecurity. And cyber war is a huge part of all wars now. And so even sort of beefing up that part requires a budget. But, you know, I don't know. I don't have much transparency into how those military budgets are spent or, you know, what the different things are. And, you know, maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't. But I'm really worried when, you know, the humans that run it all are really at risk. Well, there are occasional congressional briefings, and this week a number of congressional Democrats and Republicans said that the briefings to Congress are a joke, that they're disorganized, they don't answer questions. Congress, which appropriates the funds, cannot get basic answers on questions. I mean, I think Senator Richard Blumenthal is very persistent and talented, if anyone can. get to the bottom of this at Senator Richard Blumenthal, but they're going to block him on important data and info. We go to Anna, who says, this morning NPR had a heart-rending discussion.

with the head of Islamic Studies at a respected California University about the devastating effects of our war in the Iranian people who are not supportive of their government's action but are not able at the moment to overturn it. The discussion is worth a listen. We need to expand our empathy to our troops, yes, but also to the fate of all civilians in this unnecessary and purposeless war. That from... Anna, we go to... Agreed. And good point. Barbara, who says my father was a 102-year-old World War II veteran who was denied monetary assistance to remain in his home because he was over the $1,500 earning monthly limit. For someone needing 24-hour assistance as well as household expenses, how far can... a social security and pension last. And let's not forget immigrants who have served in the military and are now being grabbed by ice. Shouldn't anyone who serves in our military be granted automatic citizenship? That from... Barbara. Then we go to Steve, who says, I happen to agree with almost all of what the panel has said so far about America's poor treatment of its military and the lip service paid. Please keep in mind that the treatment of the military is so much worse under Trump, who has derided the very idea of serving in the military, calling people that enlist suckers. And let's not forget how he commented about John McCain, saying he wasn't a hero because, according to Trump, heroes don't get caught. That from Steve. Then we go to Matthew. Although we can call him Matt, he says. So we will do just that. The issue with how the sailors on the Lincoln are being treated speaks volumes about two aspects of Trump. First, let's face it, he's old. And as an old man, he views the military as if it were still 1950. And to that, he believes that everything he does is the most important thing ever. He genuine believes that this war he created in Iran is as important as World War II. And thus, in his old school mind, those sailors should be able to sacrifice and suffer in the same way the soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge did. And meanwhile, this weirdly contrast with his paralyzing fear of deploying soldiers on the ground, go figure. That from Matt. We go to Morgan, who says one thing that strikes me about the conditions our sailors and Marines are experiencing on all of our naval vessels currently patrolling the Persian Gulf is that... With so many other outcomes of the actions taken by the United States and Israel against Iran, this was completely foreseeable. One of the first things Iran did as a response was to attack our bases in the Gulf region.

A very important naval logistics base in Bahrain has been severely damaged by Iranian attacks, the failure of the current administration, particularly Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump, to see what would happen and not listen to the military planners who have war experience. say this, have seen this entire scenario multiple times over decades and see what it's costing all the American people, but particularly our service members dearly. Those two knuckleheads, except than Trump, seem to have forgotten that the enemy in any conflict gets evoked a move on the chess board. Anything you like to add, Donna? No, I think they all made very good points, and it's, you know, and it's all the more distressing because we shouldn't be in this place. James writes and says, one issue is the shortage of food and other supplies on the ship. Replenishment at sea was developed to a very effective level during World War II and maintained through regular exercise during the Cold War and maintained through regular exercise. I'm sorry, take two. Replenishment at sea was developed to a very effective level. Attribution of some of the current difficulties to unavailability of ports for resupply in the region suggests the Navy has permitted replenishment at sea to atrophy in recent years. That from James. Yeah, I can say, too, that they, because they... eliminated a large number of civilian jobs at the Pentagon. Many of the experts in logistics and planning are not uniform members. They're civilian employees of the Pentagon, and that's something that they're also suffering from as well. I mean, to be fair, anybody who has managed anything with any complexity, which is anything from your family to your job, you know, the military to any. Summer camp schedule, yeah. Summer camp schedules, there you go. My phone. I mean, these are really complex situations, and the answer is almost never you have an infinite amount of resources and everything gets what it wants. And so one has to be strategic. You have to decide, you know, where do you, you know, do something short term? Where do you do something long term? Where do you say no but later is okay? I mean, these are the kinds of decisions one needs to make and one needs to have perspective and thoughtfulness and, you know, some sense of strategy. and ethics. I mean, think about, you know, the current AI disaster where machines are attacking each other. You know, all of those strategies are coming into play in the automated world. Those are strategies we use in the human world. And so it seems to me that like whoever is in charge, if that's Pete Hegseth or, you know, some set of lieutenants, they're not thinking strategically.

for the best interests of what they're trying to do. They're thinking in terms of they're going to make, you know, Trump happy. I'm so sorry to keep going on and on. I apologize. I was sensing the end. I'm sorry, Fran. Fran's on the phone, by the way. So we don't get any facial signals. We don't get the cues. Go ahead. The military has so much money. The Pentagon has so much money. It is bloated, even before Trump. I've been in the Pentagon. If only EPA had a tiny amount of the Pentagon budget to address the PFAS issue, removing unexploded ordinance of VECAs, what I was meeting with them on, etc. They can cancel one or two giant, you know, bombers and feed every veteran healthy food and provide housing, this is a political choice. And it's, you know, it's horrible under Trump, but this is not the first time that we've seen a bloated military budget and important needs for veterans. Or misallocated budget, I would say. Yeah, misallocated. That's probably a fairer. I'm voting for Judith for Department of Defense. Let me add it. So you don't think we need the eight polar icebreakers. Can I do that? We don't need the polar ice breakers. Eight. Sadly, because the climate change, the ice is melting anyway. But, I mean, you talk about a bureaucracy wasting money. It is the Pentagon. That is the very definition. And what's so frustrating is VA doctors and nurses and psychiatrists cut, you know, just beyond. anyone could have imagined even a year ago. So it is a misallocation, but they're not looking under the couch cushions for money. You know, what's the percentage of our federal tax dollars that go to the military? Isn't it about half? A lot more than goes to research, I'll tell you that much. And that was even before Trump. I think it's third after Medicaid and Social Security. Yeah, yeah. They sure get a lot more than education and housing and EPA and, you know, and the two agencies that are doing very well financially are the Pentagon and Homeland Security and ICE. No shortage of money there. No. Electrocuting people with gloves is an important and valuable technological investment. I want that school. We did. We were depressed yet. Yeah. I think we've got to change the vibe. It's Friday. We did talk about the gloves yesterday. We have two minutes and then we'll take a break and then when we come back, we'll just, we'll get all sunshine. We'll sing. I promise. Lynn says right or wrong, testosterone has the reputation of making people combative. Of course, X-Seth wants his forces to be more angry and more combative. War fighters. Testosterone. Let's pump up.

our forces chemically and that from Lynn. We did get this. I'll reason. I'll say, oh, never mind. I apologize. I realize I can't read that letter. Now I want to look over your shoulder. I know. You know, the. Well, anyway. Never mind. Trump's whole presidency, maybe his whole life is about TV. His knowledge of what's happening in the world is all from Fox News. He hired his cabinet from TV. He posts all night because he can't sleep, so he has the TV on and he's responding to what he hears there. His actions or policies are intended to look good on TV. It's all TV all the time. And that's from Peter in New Paltz. I know our sailors are volunteers and they volunteered to follow orders, but I think most of them volunteered to follow orders for the best military in the world. Not one that treats them like... pressed conscripts from the age of the mercantile conflicts on the seas, which is very, is there ever a more NPR sentence than that? Yeah. Which is very much their treatment seems like and so does the whole straight of Hormuz ordeal. That from Gwen. Nice job on that. We'll take a break. When we come back, we'll continue. We welcome you panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We are going to take a break and go over to news with David Gistina.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning. We have Fran Berman, Judith, Anglican, K.B, and Donna Welton with us, and we look forward to hearing from you as well. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org.org. It is wonderful to have you here. as we work our way into the weekend together. All right. I don't know exactly if this is the vibe-changing story that Judith was looking for, but it's, I think it's a really interesting issue, and it's one that can still make you mad, but it is, I think, a fascinating story that really is dividing. U.S. cities and not only dividing U.S. cities, but I mean, just from the smallest villages, like the town I live in, is having a real problem as far as dealing with outcry regarding flock cameras. Let me read you a little bit about flock cameras. Law enforcement agencies have embraced them, so have many cities across the United States, large and small municipalities. But the proliferation of flock cameras, a brand of automated license plate readers that employ artificial intelligence to identify and track vehicles, has divided the public in rattled civil liberties watchdogs. Some say the cameras are a vulnerable tool to help catch criminals while critics argue they are an invasion of privacy and that the information they collect can be misused by the government or rogue law enforcement officers. Flock Safety is a private company based in Atlanta that supplies many of the license plate reading cameras used by law enforcement offices across the nation. The company was valued at $8.4 billion, billion with a B. As of April of this year, less than a decade after it was started by three graduates of the Georgia Institute. of technology. More than 7,000 organizations in the United States have contracts with flock safety, according to the company. The equipment which relies on solar power or batteries and uses cellular networks as normally leased, not own. The camera systems can cost clients six to seven figures, including installation and subscription fees, depending on how cameras, how many cameras are deployed. Because Fox Safety's cameras have so quickly spread across the country, flock cameras has become a kind of short hand for any cameras that use AI.

Many of the cameras known as ALPRs, automated license plate readers, use algorithms to read the letters and numbers on license plates, which then are cross-checked with so-called hot lists of vehicles that have been involved in crimes, including those reported stolen. The cameras usually rely on infrared technology to help distinguish cameras, excuse me, distinguish characters against the reflective backgrounds of license plates. So why the criticism? Well, the primary criticism of the cameras is similar to one of their key selling points that they produce a trove of highly sophisticated surveillance records instantly. While proponents say this helps prevent crime, opponents say the information can be dangerous in the wrong hands. That criticism has intensified as the Trump administration has carried out immigration crackdowns across the nation, fueling concerns about clients sharing license plate information with immigration and customs enforcement and other federal agencies. Flock has challenged that narrative declaring on its website that it does not work with ICE by default. The data collected from the cameras is not shared with federal agencies, according to the company, which said the communities or organizations using the technology gets to decide what happens with the data. They do share it with ICE. I mean, they can or they can't, but they have that decision to be made, right? In some... Yeah, that's with local authorities. It's a technicality. They share it with systems that share it with ICE. In some states, Fox Technology warns users that its cameras cannot be searched for immigration enforcement. Okay. So this, and obviously, this goes without saying is... echoed by many of our panelists just a second ago, civil liberties watchdogs are unconvinced contending that ICE can simply ask local police for the license plate data. All right, Fran, I picked this story for you. Yeah, but I think you just want to, and the others want to talk to, which will be wonderful. Everyone wants to talk about fly cameras. Yeah, let me talk about three aspects of this because it's really important. Tech, politics, and social impacts. And so here's what the flock cameras do. And they're networked, by the way, so they can now, you know, collaborate. But what the camera does is it detects a passing vehicle. And it extracts from that image. You know, the make, the model, the color, you know, all of the kinds of things about that vehicle. And as one can imagine, you know, these vehicles are going fast. You know, sometimes there's only partial information. So the AI system actually kind of slices, dices, and manages it in such a way that that information can become searchable.

And then what it can do and what it does is it actually connects with databases that help identify what that vehicle does and other things about maybe people in the vehicle or people in general. And so when ICE uses flock, it uses it as part of a very comprehensive approach to kind of figuring out what the data is and how it gets there. And so you can imagine that the data comes from flock cameras. It comes from all of the data that's now available from the federal government because a lot of our data. The barriers between different agencies have been dismantled by DOD and other kinds of things. GPS data, phone records, all of that can be in the mix. And then there is a managing application. Palantir makes one of the more popular ones that can just feed that up. So this is why we've seen ICE agents in Minnesota walk up to a car of someone they think who is getting in their way and say, Judith, we know your address. And the camera has been part of that, but all of this other stuff has been part of this as well. So the tech is doing what tech does in a lot of parts of our lives. You know, when you go to Amazon and you buy something, they're using a lot of information about your financial situation, about your preferences, about your demographics, et cetera. So, you know, everywhere we look, we have these kinds of complex systems that use other systems. So the focus on flock, appropriate, inappropriate, whatever, is not the only thing that's going on. But I think the focus is appropriate. In terms of politics, I think that a lot of people, including myself, are really concerned about the use of this kind of information for citizen surveillance and in terms of immigration and in terms of immigration. you know, trying to get people for various things they do. And you can imagine when this kind of surveillance is available, you know, it's really great when we're trying to catch criminals. It's not so great if somebody's trying to track you. It's not so great if you have a, you know, you're in a domestic abuse situation and you have a partner who now knows where you are all the time. So all of those things, I think, are causing people a lot of concern. And then lastly, in terms of societal impact, you know, we are clearly moving in a direction where, you know, there are a few, if any, secrets.

Anywhere you go, there are surveillance cameras, that information is connected with information about you. Much of it's correct, much of it's not correct. You would have no way of knowing. You would have no way of changing that. And one way we can change that is to put pressure on the public sector and the private sector in order to have more protections, more regulations that are appropriate for protecting people. Those are the kinds of directions they've gone in in places like Europe with the General Data Protection Regulation or the AI Act. But we don't seem to be, at least in this administration, going there here. So Flock is just really a tip of the iceberg. A tip of the iceberg, you know, which begs to the question, do we want to live in a surveillance society? Do we want the surveillance to be used for ill more than good? You know, how do we want to deal with all of that? Judith, you were making notes madly as Fran was talking and sighing, yes, that too. That was great, Fran. I don't want to live in a surveillance society. I don't think most people do. Me either. Yeah. And Flock is surveillance on steroids. People really need to contact their local governments and say, are you considering a contract with Flock? So much of this is happening without any public input. I live in a teeny tiny town that has... One blinking light, and a resident in my community who's since passed would often call and give me assignments. Like he would say, do you know our local newspaper is being delivered in plastic bags? Isn't that against the law? And then I would work on that. And then once he contacted me and said, the county sheriff came to the town board meeting and wants the town to agree to flock hammer is being put up. No one knew about this except this one amazing citizen advocate. And our town board, which I think at the time was all Republicans, voted against the installation of flock cameras. And it was a really interesting public hearing. with liberals and conservatives united in saying, we do not want this surveillance. This is being heavily debated in Troy, where, oddly, the mayor has declared some kind of public emergency and not wanting to rescind a contract. I read this morning that Schenectady is installing not flock, but something similar. I think step one is if your local government is going to even entertain the installation of these cameras, tell your residents and get some input. Don't do this secretly, which is I think what's been happening. And part of the outrage is no one knows until the cameras are up. Is there some value in terms of law enforcement?

looking for missing children, for instance, yes, but how often does that happen? Are there other tools? We know that ICE has access to this information and they've used it. We know that victims of domestic violence. Their batterers have been able to access some of this information. Law enforcement has accessed this inappropriately. I think New York State should put a moratorium. And every state government should put a moratorium on this until we learn more. And I don't know this for certain, but I think state governments are sometimes funding the installation of these cameras, certainly the federal government. So let's get this out in the open. Let's have an honest and real debate, the pros and cons. But I think part of the outrage is that... No one knows this is happening until the cameras are up. And I just don't think the benefit to law enforcement outweighs the need for privacy and not being constantly surveilled. I have a thought about that, Judith, but I don't want to get in other people's way. No, please. They need to talk. No, no. Go ahead. I mean, my thought about that is. I think the black and white solutions are really, really hard because the situation is so complex. In my fantasy world, I would like law enforcement to put the people first and to be fair and have high integrity and have tools that they need that they use inappropriate ways to keep me safe. That's my little fantasy world, which does not exist, by the way. And so the question is, what kind of tools do law enforcement need? And, you know, are there alternatives to sort of mass surveillance that can be used by bad actors and bad agencies and governments who do not have my interest in mind in a way that makes me more unsafe rather than more safe? Because to me, it's not just like, do you not give police tools, or, you know, and plot cameras or tools you might not want to give them, or do you give them tools and just let them do whatever they want with them? And to me, there's sort of a middle, more complicated, less recipe-driven ground. And I don't know what it is, and I don't know what their alternatives are. But I think, you know, maybe it's more citizen oversight. Maybe it's more oversight of some sort. Maybe it's different kinds of products. But yes, I don't, I think people in my mind are justifiably upset about being surveilled, about that surveillance being used in negative ways, about that surveillance being taken out of the, you know, traffic light situation and put into, for example, an immigration situation. And I agree with that. I just think that the solution is probably complicated.

Yeah, and there's certainly not enough transparency, as you all have noted. You know, it's really, in many situations, it's like, who owns your data? And how do you get a say over how it's used? And also what struck me in this particular iteration, this article, was how so much of the regulation had been ceded to the vendor. that flock was supposed to somehow regulate itself or audit itself. And, you know, it had developed this audit tool that they had passed along to police oversight. And that it's totally backwards. You know, that they have a product that they're supposedly responsible for making sure that there's fair use of. And that's not the way it should be working. The sad, the sad, I'm so sorry, I keep... No, no, you're no better than I do. I'll be there on September 3rd, and I'll get to come to the studio. I'm so excited. But, yeah, I mean, I think the sad fact is most of the time you do not own your own data. You might have rights to it, maybe not, but, you know, Facebook owns your data, or Flock owns your data, or, you know, Amazon owns your data, or your car owns your data. I mean... Most of the time, when you buy these products or sign away these products, you know, data is owned by the vendor. And the vendor gets to do, you know, there's these long data agreements. And they basically say most of them, we really respect your privacy and we're going to do whatever we want with your data. And that's the fact of it. And you can't use this unless you agree. Yeah, and you can't use it unless you agree, and you may have no other options. You know, you have to drive your car down the street. If, you know, flock cameras are all over, it's like, where are you going to drive that there are no cameras? How are you going to get to where you're going? Yeah. But I think it's also important, as you raised earlier, about the networking of the data and how it connects together. That needs real examination. Right, because it not only marks that you have been in a particular location, but it can mark your trajectory. Yeah. And, you know, that's where things get really dicey because now people know where you're going. Alison. I just wanted to go back to an earlier technology, the EasyPass, which I think we all use now, where they would even think you about it too. Yeah, but the debate that we're discussing now that we're saying really needs to take place should have already taken place because Easy Pass does exactly all of these things.

It shows where you have been, where you are going, where you stopped, how fast you were going, and it has been used by law enforcement to track vehicles. So I think it's pretty important that we start to have both local and state-level debates about these issues and the ways in which technology poses new challenges to... the balance between privacy and policing. And unfortunately, when you raise this kind of question, you often get a knee-jerk response. Public safety is most important or privacy is most important. But it's a much more nuanced discussion. It's one we don't have very often. I mean, obviously, I work at a criminal justice school, so we do have it very often. But outside of the walls of John Jay, I don't hear it as a well-considered set of points. And certainly in my small town, there is not a balanced discussion of this kind of technology and its uses and potential threats or benefits. And I would like to see that discussion happen in every little town in New York and in every little town in the country. I think it's very important, much as we are seeing the AI debates starting to happen in small towns all over the country because the towns that didn't have those debates already have AI centers and they're beginning to see that that is not such a jolly way to spend all of your water and electricity. But 7,000 contracts already in place for flock with hardly anyone knowing. And monthly billions of data, billions of license plates recorded. It's really astounding. One thing, Fran, just a quick question because we have about three minutes, but it's one of the things, you know, Band-Aid, Scotch tape. those brands that we say the brand name when we mean any generic thing. And we tend to be doing that with flock cameras now. But I, in my little town, the first thing that the police department said is, these aren't flat cameras. These are Motorola cameras. Same thing. And as if I could make that distinction. I don't know. But they do different things, I guess. And I am curious how the citizens are to know that information. And because obviously it goes to what they're being told by the municipality. Yeah, that's such a great question, Joe. And it is sort of, I think the problem, and in my opinion, you know, Flock deserves all the bad press that's getting. But the problem is really surveillance. And it's interesting. I love that comment about Easy Pass because somehow, now Easy Pass things aren't everywhere, and that's true. But somehow we all trust Easy Pass to have some internal protections and guardrails.

about how that information gets used. So if you think about these cameras, You know, how are you being protected? Does the data, you know, go away after a while? Is it shared? Is it exchanged? If, you know, flock went belly up and in a merger or acquisition, you know, all bets about, you know, how any protections it might have had are off, you know, so now your data is somewhere else and you have no control over it. So I think the real issue. to work on in addition to surveillance and all of that is what kind of data protections do we have? And if you look at countries around the world in Europe, there's a data, sorry, there is a data protection regulation. And the EU data protection regulation really gives European citizens rights. Companies have been fined billions of dollars for going against their rights. They have the right to say yes or to say no. They have the rights to data. This doesn't work perfectly, but we don't have that same kind of legislation in the U.S. We are more sectoral about our data here. We have protections for health data. We have protections for credit data. We have protections for data around children. We do not have protections for consumer data. You know, those are things that are actually, you know, we can do that in our towns. We can do that in our federal government. We can do that in our state government. California actually has a data protection law. It's not as strong as it could be. But your privacy is protected in California's state constitution. It is not protected in the U.S. Constitution. So there are things we can do to create the ecosystem. by which these companies can take the information and use it in positive ways and not to exploit people. We are going to pause there. We will take, how was that for a vibe changer? Okay. We'll take a break. When we come back, we'll continue. We have much more to discuss. We welcome you and your thoughts. We'll take a couple of your letters on flock cameras as well. I haven't looked, but I bet there are a lot of them. And we'll go through some those and move on to other topics and much more as we... Wrap up the week here on the Roundtable. We welcome you, as always. Roundtable at wamc.org.

Let's open the mailbag, shall we, and see what people have to say about flock cameras, which is the subject that we talked about just before we went to break. We welcome you, panel at wamc.org. I'm not going to tell you what I said, but I gave the wrong... I gave a very, very, very old email address as we were going into the break, and I don't know what came over me, but it's panel at wamc.org. Don't use the other address. I mean, we won't get it anyway, so don't worry about it. Was it an AOL address? No, that's right. That's exactly what it was. You've got mail. Hot mail. People still use it. Panel at wamc.org. Okay, Lynn says Flock is about facial recognition, which is not acceptable, but regular street cameras is about public safety on the streets. And I argue the kid who has been beaten to death by several officers and filmed on the street is an argument for street cameras. This is not an all-or-nothing scenario. I hate it when my progressive colleagues don't make distinctions. Okay, and I'll simply correctly said, I just did. Question for Fran from Joe, not me, but another Joe. I'm involved in my town government, and I've been thinking about how we could. restrict surveillance in public areas, but maybe there should be a broader local policy regulation or law that we can bring before the townspeople. Are there any organizations that consult with tiny towns like ours to help create this kind of legislation? Wow, Joe, such a great, both Joe's, such a great question. The short answer is I'm not sure. And here's some places I might start looking. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a lot of stuff around privacy and may have some thoughts about surveillance and those kinds of issues. The ACLU may be a place where you could go for information. I know there's a group at MIT, which is here's something you should also think about. There's a group at MIT that is working with small towns, especially those in Massachusetts, but maybe all over, to make sure that their data is safe and they are less vulnerable to ransomware. You know, as we know, a lot of times. ransomware hits, you know, public sector organizations, you know, hospitals and towns and, you know, stuff like that. And that's another place to look. So I don't have very, very specific dresses to give you, but those places might be a good place to start. And you're quite correct.

in trying to look around for experts who are already sort of thinking about how one thinks about this very complicated situation and does a good job that suits your environment and, you know, puts the public first. I would also check out Institute for Justice. Okay. Make an help for that. Help with that as well. Let's go to Bruce, someone named Ben once opine, that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Flock cameras, what an insidious name. We are the sheep. I have two major issues, writes Anthony. The mayor of Troy declaring a state of emergency in order to bypass public opinion to fund this tech equipment. So can someone in San Diego now go online and tell Carmela Mantello exactly where she lives and how many times she went in and out and how many times she went to CVS or the hairdresser? Question mark. Then we go to... But credit to the Troy City Council who are standing up on this, and mostly because residents of Troy are organizing and asking very reasonable questions. I think the state of emergency thing, perhaps a bridge too far. Mike writes, the proliferation of flock cameras is yet another example of the creeping advance of surveillance technology. Critically, the use of these devices have not been subject to the affirmative consent of the people. In other words, none of us agreed to this. Who is to say that these technologies are inevitable? Oh, right, the dead-eyed billionaire Cretans who own them. If throwing more money into cops, prisons, and surveillance technology really was the solution, it would have worked by now. writes Mike in Albany and an email with a subject line that says you can flock right off. We go to Sally who says the proliferation. I'm sorry. Did I say get to Sally's? Yes. What is the difference between? I love that. I love that. What is the difference between the UK system and flock cameras? Isn't the UK system successful? Well, you know, that's the other thing I wanted to say. There are many places around the world that have a great deal even more surveillance than we do. UK is one of them. And that's an example of something that's not a communist country. China has a great deal of surveillance, as we all know. And some of you might remember that in the early days of COVID, Their use of surveillance actually kept the numbers low because they surveilled everyone. And in your, you know, cards that let you get on public transportation or go to the mall or whatever, they would designate you green, yellow, or red. If you were green, you could go. If you were yellow, you know, they had to take their temperature or whatever they did. And if you were red, you had to be quarantined. And that worked well for COVID.

You know, whether it works well for people, you know, that's a different thing. And so, you know, that's why I said, and I think my fellow panelists and the letter writers, these are complicated things, and they need thoughtful people to really think them through because they're pros and cons for any level of freedom, of privacy, of surveillance. You know, is it protective or is it, you know, intrusive? I mean, those are real questions that we have to answer. Jay writes, could Fran please discuss what other entities could potentially have access to the data collected by the cameras? other entities as in addition to law enforcement? I assume, I mean, I'm not answering the letter on your behalf, but I mean, it does seem like Jay is asking what other entities, and I assume there would be, once you have the data, it can go to whoever the law enforcement agency who has that data deems should have it, right? Right, right, right. And this is why. Previous to this administration, there were actually some policies. Judith can probably speak to that more than I can, but there were some policies that said which data might be shared or exchanged between, for example, different government agencies. And when Doge came through and tried to consolidate all of that data, there was much more information available, some of it out of context. that could put people at risk and for bad actors to use. And so, yeah, once the data is out, unless there are strong protections that are enforced and that are well thought out, you know, that data could go a lot of different places. I mean, one thing we all experience all the time is something called surveillance pricing. where the price that you are offered depends on a lot of different things. And some of the prices that you're offered may be based on your ability to pay. And, you know, that is something that's documented and bad and terrible. So, you know, why should, you know, all of my fellow panelists get less prices than me because they have decided that I can pay? I mean, that's not fair. We go to Paul, who has a long girl letter, but just one question that I wanted to, or one statement that I wanted to include, misuse of the data should carry civil and criminal. penalties. We go to Eric who says the easy answer here is no cameras. As Americans, we are our own worst enemies. In recent years, we hear more and more about weaponizing government. Imagine if a citizen angered the wrong, powerful person, and suddenly a person could be tracked and harassed.

constantly. The Fourth Amendment gives us a right to privacy with the cameras. All that privacy is gone. Great point about getting state government involved. State laws to protect our data and privacy are necessary. Thank you very much for this discussion. Can I just point out that, sorry for talking so much today, you guys, but can I just point out that some of our lack of privacy is voluntary? If you have a ring camera, if you're taking pictures on your cell phone of random things that you really like, there's a lot of bystanders that might come through that. And, you know, that's an invasion of their privacy. And, you know, you have cameras on your cars, right? That's what makes self-driving cars safe. It's cameras that can detect things. Now it's detecting things. You know, what does it do with that data? So we really need to think very thoroughly about what happens to data, what's appropriate use, what's inappropriate use, you know, and what our protections might be. We need to have some transparency about what these things are. You know, all of those things are things that we could do to make it better without just throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And, you know, that doesn't seem to be our priority. I just wanted to respond to the last letter. Yes, please. There was the eBay stalking and harassment scandal that was just resolved in a case, I think, two weeks ago. So we know what happens when powerful companies or powerful people are enabled by technology to harass and make the lives very unpleasant of people. They've decided are problematic. I also want to remind everyone in a truly academic and sad moment for me that the Habermazian public sphere is the basis of the American Republic. And that if we're not engaging in these small discussions, Facebook does not replace these discussions. We have to have meetings, town meetings, community meetings, et cetera, where we discuss the merits of the balance of the Hobbsian versus Locky and a group. you know, diplomatic settlement that you give up some things in order to get some things. But if we don't have these discussions on every street at every level, then what we're doing is handing that decision over to people who will inevitably benefit from a particular answer. And I think... sitting here in a public radio studio. I have to say public radio is a big part of that conversation, but I also think everyone has to have the conversation. And unless we're engaging in it at our tables at home and in our town halls and at our libraries, we're not really engaging in what it means to be a citizen of a republic, small our Republican. I think the privilege of living here requires that we engage at that level all the time and that you need to think about the balance between personal privacy, personal liberty.

and the safety guaranteed by a stable and, we hope, fair government. And technology can be part of that, but it should not be an assumed good and it should not be an assumed bad. Unless we're willing to engage in this discussion, we're essentially abdicating our responsibility as citizens. Last letter that I'll read before we go to... Here here. To what Allison said or to the last letter? No, to what else? Just checking. He needs to write on the money. Eric writes to us and says, one thought on Easy Pass, it started as an option for people who wanted it. Now there's no option. So these cameras may not seem like a big deal now, but what would be like in 20 years on that from Eric? We had several letters on this regarding. regarding Easy Pass of something initially that it was that you were opting in for, not that was just being implemented within your municipality. And I will, I rely, I'm going to end on this letter for the moment and go to Dolores who said, you know, today is like attending the best college class ever. Cool. We'll continue. We'll take a quick break and then class will be back in session right after this.

Good morning, listening to the music of North Mississippi All-Stars. They are going to be performing at the Bearsville Theater in Woodstock tonight. Doors opening at 7, show at 8, and you can find out more at bearsville.com. Our playlist posted wamc.org slash roundtable. I have wanted to talk about this story all week, and I have not because I was waiting for the opportunity to have four female panelists on the show. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's sharing of her decision to freeze her eggs, the news that her longtime relationship had ended and talked of a presidential run have intensified the debates that swirl around her. Question one, why do there have to be debates swirling around her? But we'll get to that in a moment. Since she won her first election in 2018 at 28, becoming the youngest woman ever elected. Congress, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, has been a political obsession for fans to adore and critics to ebbhor. Her body, her weight, the clothes, the clothes she wore in a magazine. the magazine shoots, her lipstick, her endorsements, her ill-fated decision to attend the Met Gala, and attacks the rich gown, have been parsed and picked apart in ways she has described as sometimes dehumanizing, even when that parsing was coming from her supporters. One area where she was insulated from such scrutiny was her love life. Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez arrived on the national political scene with her boyfriend from college, Riley John Roberts by her side, and he stayed there as she became one of the most consequential women in American politics. Well, now in 2022, her team announced in a full fundraising email that the couple was engaged. Four years later, rather, she is at a new juncture. Her relationship with Mr. John Roberts quietly ended some time ago. And the new information about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's private life is coming alongside a spate of speculation that she's preparing to run for president. She has said that she hasn't ruled out a presidential run or a run for Senate. which she could now be navigating a possible national or statewide campaign as a young world-famous single woman, a profile that would only intensify the ideological and cultural debates that swirl around her. And then there was her announcement. This was an announcement that she made, that she would be freezing my eggs as early as 2020, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was open about struggling to find a balance between life and more. work. I'm sitting here. I'm like, do I freeze my eggs? Can I afford to do that? She asked in an interview with Vanity Fair that year and made the amount spent that that is what she will be doing this year. Okay. A lot there. Who wants to begin? I, you know, this is all about a person.

having the freedom and responsibility to make her own choices or his own choices or their own choices about their life. And the interesting thing about this story, other than she's a master at using the public commons to show herself and to be a politician, is that... All of this projection that American society puts on people they gender as female is really astounding, right? So a person in the White House has to be father to their country or mother to the country. And what does that mean? And this is this, you know, she. is able to channel a lot of that. And certainly a lot of younger women who are in her same age cohort are facing a lot of these same questions. And she's able to be in a public way to do that. But I think the larger question is why in our political system does any of this freaking matter? Well, it does. And also because it's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the rate is, is not pleased with her. I applaud her doing this. She is taking this issue of reproductive rights and fertility questions out of the shadows. I think she's a master at social media, but... More importantly, I think the signals that she's going to be running for higher office, whether it's U.S. Senate or a president. I noticed Senator Mark Kelly is in Iowa today, you know, two years before, more than two years before a presidential run. And it reminds us that you don't. Reminds us that there was the field of dreams game last night. I'm sure that's why he went. Maybe. But he's at the Iowa Fair today having... Butter sculpture. He's going to avoid... I love the butter sculpture. The butter cow in New York is the best. All right, come back to me. So, um... Butter. Um... You don't decide the year of the presidential race that you're running. I mean, you go to Iowa two years early. You go to New Hampshire, two and a half years early. And so she's probably... You pass the waters. Yeah, she's probably making a calculation that if I'm going to be flying all over the country and raising a lot of money, it may not be helpful for me or my unborn child to be on the plane constantly. So I think it shows she's... probably planning to run beyond her congressional district in Queens. So I think that's the best news from my perspective, but it's also launching this debate. Like, are we supposed to have children? Are we not supposed to have children? How old are we supposed to be? How many children are we supposed to have? To your point,

I don't want to have any input into that decision. Every woman and man and person decides that themselves. Alison. So there's an opinion article today in the Times by Tressie McMillan Cauton. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Rady for the Glass Cliff? And then she talks about how she's running and blah, blah, blah. But the point that I thought she never made was... And she makes many good points about how women have run and failed for various reasons, unlikeability, lack of this, lack of that, whatever. But I am... standing in my barn this morning feeding horses at 545 thinking if I have to hear one more woman justify child care or having children or not having children in order to do a job that men do badly all the time I am going to commit some kind of act of violence I am just tired of it I am tired of it I'm tired of my male colleagues being like I have to go pick up my child from school so I can only teach until 150 no you can do what everyone who has been born with two X chromosomes has been doing for the last 60 years and get a babysitter. I am so enraged by the privilege to give it to men who have any parenting responsibilities at all. Whereas women. It's like they deserve a medal. Oh, their toddlers are on their laps in Zoom meetings. I. hate it because women are never allowed to do that women who parent disproportionately to men god forbid you hear a child in the background of a zoom meeting when a woman is running it Well, that's true. I mean, my wife and I don't have children. We decided we're not going to have children. And my wife, anger is much like you do in a moment, in the moment of saying when the office says, well, we need somebody to cover this. Oh, well, she can do it because she doesn't have kids. That drives me crazy. I am that woman. And I'm like, I have three kids. That drives me crazy. I was your chair for a decade. You can do it yourself. Yeah. I think we touched her nerve. And this is why I save this conversation. Yeah, we need two hours. Yeah, we need more time. You should have started here. I know, I was the first pregnant Foreign Service officer that most people had seen in 1986. You know, they were like, oh, you're, uh, your belly's getting big. It's like, that's what happened. Yeah. You are familiar with how this works, right? I will also still be a competent individual during the entire process. I know. Someone that after he was born, she said, you haven't changed at all. Geez. I had my first kid in 1986, and I remember thinking, why is this considered a disability? It's like, what? You know, it's like,

Yeah. Well, we'll leave it there, and God knows we did we I don't want to, but I do want to thank all of you for participating this morning. As always, you're a great group and I appreciate it very, very much. I hope you all have a good weekend. We'll be right back.