Speaker 1: I couldnot fucking sleep all night, all night, been up
Speaker 1: like a fucking owl, like THEO Vaughn was telling Donald.
Speaker 2: Trump, I should have you like an owl.
Speaker 1: Oh man, you be your own fucking not you being
Speaker 1: a street light light, just like and that's good. No,
Speaker 1: that's good, that's good.
Speaker 2: And that feeling you like that feeling.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, I do not want to feel
Speaker 1: like a vampire with a heart condition. And yeah, for
Speaker 1: the record, it's not because I was doing cocaine. This
Speaker 1: had been a low, great anxiety that kept me up
Speaker 1: all night.
Speaker 2: What they're calling it, Okay, okay, I'm like an owl.
Speaker 1: We call that. We call that poor people's cocaine anxiety. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just a.
Speaker 2: Little anxiety, the poor man's cocaine. Hello the Internet, and
Speaker 2: welcome to season three, p. Fifty three, Episode five of
Speaker 2: Daly's Like I Say production of iHeartRadio. This is a
Speaker 2: podcast where we take a deep dive into American share consciousness.
Speaker 2: And it is Friday, August thirtieth.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty four. Yeah, yes, last day. No, well, thirty
Speaker 1: they're thirty one day. They're thirty one days half August exactly. Also, Hey,
Speaker 1: guess guess who I get to shout out today, shout
Speaker 1: out to my dad is his way seventy years old
Speaker 1: up in this place. Congrats to you.
Speaker 2: I was just at a friend of my youngests and
Speaker 2: they have an amazing work from your dad on their wall.
Speaker 1: Oh they do? Yeah yeah, oh well you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're very white. My dad is internationally known and locally
Speaker 1: respected as an artist. So I appreciate, appreciate the support
Speaker 1: from everybody. But also August thirtieth is National Beach Day,
Speaker 1: National Grief Awareness Daytional Toasted Marshmallow Day, and for all
Speaker 1: you college fans, it's National College Colors Day. I am
Speaker 1: not wearing mine, sadly I should normally maybe kind of
Speaker 1: I need, I need some more gray. But I feel
Speaker 1: like I wear like my alma matership because I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: I gave these people so much money, like I have to.
Speaker 1: I need to get something out of it, where like
Speaker 1: they should brand me.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, the amount of money I gave them.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Yes.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, my name is Jack O'Brien aka my Doughnuts,
Speaker 2: bring jd Vance to the yard. And he's like, whatever
Speaker 2: makes sense, damn right, whatever makes sense. That one courtesy
Speaker 2: and Macaroni on the discord. What new jd vance flub
Speaker 2: just dropped? I'm sure we talked about it yesterday's trending,
Speaker 2: but his uh did you did you see? Don't worry
Speaker 2: any every everybody. I'm not gonna take my shirt off. Okay,
Speaker 2: it's a banger. It's another Certifi.
Speaker 1: He was being booed by firefighters, so he just silence. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: Anyways, I'm thrilled to be joined as always by my
Speaker 2: co host, mister Miles.
Speaker 1: It's Miles Gray a k. A whale was beached? Yeah,
Speaker 1: be headed it with the chainsaw and it strapped it
Speaker 1: to the top of the car. Whale was beached? Yeah,
Speaker 1: because I'm a normal hunter and whales are cool. You
Speaker 1: know that they are whales? Okay, shout out to cleoly
Speaker 1: dot universe for that creep. Tlc RFK hunter another creep. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a true true creep. But yeah, that whale was beached
Speaker 1: and hey, whale. As Michael Knowles on the Daily Wires,
Speaker 1: and whales are.
Speaker 2: Cool and he's a hunter, so it's normal. Find a
Speaker 2: new angle exactly, chainsong of whales head? Does normal? Find
Speaker 2: a new angle? Miles whale juice thrill whale juice is wonderful.
Speaker 2: Thrilled to be joined in our third seat by a
Speaker 2: poet and a lawyer who is the co founder and
Speaker 2: executive director of Partners for Justice, which is designed to
Speaker 2: create a new model of collaborative public defense designed to
Speaker 2: empower You probably read her deep dive on Twitter into
Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five. Please welcome to the show, Emily
Speaker 2: Galvin Omonza.
Speaker 3: Very happy to be here, and I'm so sad that
Speaker 3: I don't have an Internet supplied jingle or joke to
Speaker 3: go along. I'm just sitting here like horrified at you
Speaker 3: guys having unearthed my deep poet history.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you do a little googling do the math is
Speaker 2: a public You are a published poet.
Speaker 3: I am. Math Poetry is the most marketable genre of literature.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's a top seller.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you were doing math poetry.
Speaker 3: Yes, poetry is math, right, like when you have a
Speaker 3: rhythm of word, you know, the same way music's math.
Speaker 3: Poetry is math. I just started with other math first
Speaker 3: and then tried to create poetic forms that adhere to
Speaker 3: that math again.
Speaker 1: Real bang yeah wow, Okay, that's like some like tool
Speaker 1: type shit. You're like I'm using a sacred geometry to
Speaker 1: write my words down. Yeah yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Oh if only I could be in the same category
Speaker 3: as Tool, I would be. I mean, that's that's the best,
Speaker 3: that's the that's the height of my poetic career. You
Speaker 3: just you just made it right there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's exactly right. I get it. I get it.
Speaker 1: I get it.
Speaker 2: So we did reach out to you on the strength
Speaker 2: of project your Project twenty twenty five, Twitter thread, Deep Dive,
Speaker 2: and and then we found out, like, we have a
Speaker 2: bunch of mutual friends and we're a big fan of
Speaker 2: your work otherwise, but the Project twenty twenty five thing,
Speaker 2: you were just like kind of reading it because you
Speaker 2: can read and comprehend lots of text, and you're like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is worse than I imagined.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: What makes the Project twenty twenty five texts really really
Speaker 3: dangerous is that it's written to sound super normal, and
Speaker 3: it's also in credibly long. It's like nine hundred pages long.
Speaker 3: And so if you are a lay person who's just
Speaker 3: a little bit concerned about what the Heritage Foundation might
Speaker 3: be putting out there, because you recognize that they were
Speaker 3: heavily influential in Donald Trump's last administration, and you see
Speaker 3: that a lot of his administration cronies had contributed to
Speaker 3: this document. You want to peruse it, it might not
Speaker 3: seem as scary as it actually is, because it's written
Speaker 3: again to sound very very normal and that sort of
Speaker 3: like policy speak. But having you know, gone to law
Speaker 3: school and been forced to read lots of stuff, I
Speaker 3: think it was a good use of time to try
Speaker 3: to kind of get in there and translate for people
Speaker 3: some of the scariest aspects of the policy plan. And
Speaker 3: then I got really far in there and wrote like
Speaker 3: a four hundred tweet thread about how bad it is
Speaker 3: and also how insane, like they're weird obsession with boyfriends
Speaker 3: and like how scared of boyfriends they are?
Speaker 1: Yeah, wait, what is their obsession with boyfriends?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: My yead?
Speaker 3: So they think that single terrible, right, super popular PRESI
Speaker 3: let's all hate on single moms. Yeah, they had this
Speaker 3: fixation on fatherhood. They're of course very very interested in
Speaker 3: preserving the nuclear heteronormative family, right, But from that flows
Speaker 3: this like weird paragraph where they actually talk about how dangerous,
Speaker 3: like a single mom is bad, Like a single mom
Speaker 3: with a boyfriend it's the worst possible outcome for children,
Speaker 3: and like this part is actually not done in like
Speaker 3: very elegant policy speak. They like actually hate on boyfriends
Speaker 3: for a while. It's just there are these twists deep
Speaker 3: within the document that are worth.
Speaker 1: It's like, yeah, they're probably named Craig, and like they
Speaker 1: eat your cereal and like and they don't even ask
Speaker 1: you when you're twelve or when maybe your kid is
Speaker 1: twelve whatever. Maybe my life is bleeding into what I'm
Speaker 1: writing here policy equivalent.
Speaker 3: If you're not my real dad, it's just right, yeah.
Speaker 1: Which is so weird. But yeah, but I mean so
Speaker 1: many conservative men have that energy of like you're not
Speaker 1: my real dad, and you're like, wow, dude, you weren't
Speaker 1: even talking about anything related to that, and you went
Speaker 1: with that. Okay, okay, you seed to.
Speaker 3: Say get down like six notches, yes.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, yeah, absolutely, all right.
Speaker 2: Well, we will link off to the entire thread in
Speaker 2: the footnotes. We are going to get to know you
Speaker 2: a little bit better in a moment.
Speaker 1: First.
Speaker 2: A couple of things that we're talking about later on
Speaker 2: when we get to the news. The mainstream media, it
Speaker 2: has been pointed out recently, seem to actually be for
Speaker 2: all the talk of there being a anti Trump bias,
Speaker 2: they really seem to help him in a lot of ways.
Speaker 2: So we just want to cover a couple small examples.
Speaker 2: The Right has their new case closed winning strategy against
Speaker 2: Harris Waltz. This time it is taking down Harris's Donald's
Speaker 2: job story in the least convincing way possible.
Speaker 1: Oh, she's being mixed. Swift voted to.
Speaker 2: Be mc Swift voted yep. And then we're going to
Speaker 2: talk about a company called Axon. Now I know you're
Speaker 2: hearing the name Axon and you're like, that company sounds
Speaker 2: like they do good in the world and probably not scary.
Speaker 2: Axon is actually a terrifying fucking company that is like
Speaker 2: the private arm of America's police, and they are experimenting
Speaker 2: with using AI to help police do more damage. So
Speaker 2: we're going to talk about that and just some of
Speaker 2: the other shit that they've done. There is a photograph
Speaker 2: that our writer JM put in the doc that is
Speaker 2: their CEO addressing a crowd and he is not him.
Speaker 2: Like the person addressing the crowd is in an all
Speaker 2: black suit and has a motorcycle helmet on and then
Speaker 2: an iPad strapped to the front with his face on it,
Speaker 2: but is like gesture as he delivers the speech from wherever,
Speaker 2: bunt whatever, like volcanic layer. He's at. The person is
Speaker 2: like gesturing with his words too, So it's like a
Speaker 2: weird avatar situation. Sick is just it's all so very.
Speaker 1: On the nose.
Speaker 2: Also talked about this New York Times article about alternative
Speaker 2: policing and just where we're at with the mainstream media
Speaker 2: when it comes to, you know, things that aren't police,
Speaker 2: that aren't armed police, and how that's being talked about
Speaker 2: these days in the mainstream All that plenty more. But first, Emily,
Speaker 2: we do like to ask our guest, what is something
Speaker 2: from your search history that's revealing about who you are?
Speaker 3: Oh man, So it's actually really great that you guys
Speaker 3: asked me this because a few months ago, Okay, so
Speaker 3: the story is gonna get weird, a deer impaled itself
Speaker 3: on my colleague's fence. Oh no, And my colleague, of course,
Speaker 3: shared a photograph with our entire team to ask Jesus,
Speaker 3: what do I do now? There's a dead deer on
Speaker 3: my fence, And it just so happened that I dipped
Speaker 3: into my own Google search history to demonstrate how ready
Speaker 3: for this topic? I actually was, and I took a
Speaker 3: screen grap I'm actually going to show you guys to
Speaker 3: prove that it's really a screen grab of my search
Speaker 3: results from that day, which were as follows wordle how
Speaker 3: to gut a deer at home? Oh no, how to
Speaker 3: dress a deer at home? Inflation Reduction Act Rebates twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four Massachusetts driving directions to the Magical Bridge Playground.
Speaker 3: That's there? You go, wo.
Speaker 1: Wait, what's the Magical Bridge break? I'm like, more like,
Speaker 1: what's the Magical Bridge?
Speaker 3: You know it's there. It's actually really cool. In this
Speaker 3: area where I was living in California at the time,
Speaker 3: because I teach at Stanford during the winter, there is
Speaker 3: this playground that was actually designed to be really accessible
Speaker 3: for kids with disabilities. And it turned out that the
Speaker 3: playground that's accessible is actually the best playground ever made,
Speaker 3: and it's everybody's favorite playground. So that's the one I
Speaker 3: was taking my kid to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this place.
Speaker 1: Looks like a fucking theme park.
Speaker 3: It's amazing. There's like three there's more than three of them.
Speaker 3: They're they're popping up everywhere. They're they're the next generation
Speaker 3: of playgrounds.
Speaker 1: Really wow. Wow, wow wow. Okay, I like to see that,
Speaker 1: and you can tell us gott that like tartan on
Speaker 1: the ground, like that makes it real soft and sunshine,
Speaker 1: like yeah, yeah, hurt.
Speaker 3: Their little heads on, like when they've grown up and
Speaker 3: it was just all concrete.
Speaker 1: Yeah, or i'd get like wood mults stuck under my
Speaker 1: toenails or something, because like try to go barefoot down
Speaker 1: the slide.
Speaker 3: Yes, the slide burns you, and then the wood impales
Speaker 3: at the bottom and that makes them.
Speaker 1: Stronger and then you get that nice aroma of like
Speaker 1: smoky playground for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, safe for my kids, the tartan. And also I
Speaker 2: feel like I jump higher on it, and so I
Speaker 2: like to show that off when I'm at the playground, like, look,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna dunk on these monkey bars.
Speaker 1: Oh it's five feet high.
Speaker 3: Cristiana Ronaldo of the Magical Bridge Playground.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Why was your partners or the person who texted you?
Speaker 2: Why was their fence so sharp? Is that a thing
Speaker 2: that is normal?
Speaker 3: Great question. I don't know. They live in the South.
Speaker 3: I can't speak to Southern fence practices. I don't I
Speaker 3: have a lot of fence experience. I've myself constructed a
Speaker 3: lot of four string barb wire fence grown up in
Speaker 3: ranch culture, but never something with an impalable top.
Speaker 1: I have real questions, right, yeah, yeah, like that is it?
Speaker 1: Is that by design?
Speaker 2: Is he like I'm going to leave the deer there
Speaker 2: to tell the other deer what happens when you try
Speaker 2: to come on our property? Or is it just like
Speaker 2: an accident because it was, So I'm.
Speaker 3: Going to go with the former. I'm going to decide
Speaker 3: that whoever install that defence wanted it to be a
Speaker 3: place where you could impale ahead just really.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, oh yeah, like what like in Game of
Speaker 1: Thrones when like Kalisi takes over that place and all
Speaker 1: like the heads are like on pikes and stuff or
Speaker 1: yeah yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Guess, or in real life in human history, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was like everywhere that was just interior or
Speaker 2: exterior decorating.
Speaker 3: Back in the day need like a wisconce and then
Speaker 3: a head.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it was like we like to around Christmas
Speaker 2: have points set. He has the rest of your heads
Speaker 2: just heads decorating everything.
Speaker 1: What is uh? What's something you think is underrated?
Speaker 3: So I I thought about this question a lot. I
Speaker 3: think that tea time is underrated. And I'm going to
Speaker 3: make a defensive of tea time because when I see time,
Speaker 3: say tea time, people usually think of sort of like
Speaker 3: stodgy British, pinky raised, unpleasantly meticulous. Okay, tea time is
Speaker 3: supposed to be an incredible spread at like four o'clock
Speaker 3: in the afternoon, where if you are like me, you
Speaker 3: are most ravenous. There should be pastries and cakes and
Speaker 3: like sa every things. My husband is Bolivian. Bolivians really
Speaker 3: do tea Time like they do. They will fill your
Speaker 3: table at tea time and then dinner is like a
Speaker 3: light snack. I think this is a really underrated way
Speaker 3: of living one's life because that's when I actually want
Speaker 3: to just become a complete glutton and move my way
Speaker 3: across a full table at four o'clock in the afternoon,
Speaker 3: when I'm just when I've had it with the world.
Speaker 3: So I think tea Time we should bring tea Time back.
Speaker 1: Wow, I didn't know like Bolivians are really I'm just
Speaker 1: reading about these. They got salon the Olivion. They love
Speaker 1: the tea time.
Speaker 3: Tea Time, it's a whole it's very elegant, it's very comforting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, snack time. I'm for me, like I'm just wondering,
Speaker 2: Like I feel like I basically recreated this in my
Speaker 2: own life, but with a snack drawer, because you know,
Speaker 2: being raised Catholic, I have shame and so like I
Speaker 2: just have all the snacks, but they're like in a drawer,
Speaker 2: and I just like eat over the drawer all.
Speaker 1: The different snacks.
Speaker 2: Bullets leave it in there, my tea time, shame drawer.
Speaker 1: Wait, what do you wait? What do you got in there?
Speaker 1: Like loose bread slices or just loose breads all stale,
Speaker 1: A couple of pieces of wonderbread.
Speaker 2: No, I got got chips, I got some some pretzels,
Speaker 2: I got cashoes, maybe maybe some sort of nuts in there.
Speaker 2: And then you know, I'll bring out one bag of
Speaker 2: either chips or pretzels at a time to accompany you know,
Speaker 2: some things from the.
Speaker 1: Cold cut drawer.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, or some you know or hummus, how dignified?
Speaker 1: Wait, what's a dead time? What's the spread out of
Speaker 1: Bolivian tea time? Emily?
Speaker 3: Oh my god. So you're obviously gonna have different beverages,
Speaker 3: including tea, but you're also going to have both an
Speaker 3: array of savory and an array of sweet options. Okay,
Speaker 3: and I'm going to state right here that asking an
Speaker 3: actual Bolivion would get you a better answer, being of
Speaker 3: course being there, you know here without a Bolivion on
Speaker 3: the call. I'm going to highlights like Southenia's, which are
Speaker 3: a breakfast food as one of the best Bolivian foods
Speaker 3: you can get. You can get a ton in like
Speaker 3: the DC metro area, a ton of Bolivians there. You
Speaker 3: can get them sort of all across Virginia and some
Speaker 3: in California. But South Anias is basically like a like
Speaker 3: a savory pastry full of delicious stew and you can
Speaker 3: kind of bite off the end and sip the stew
Speaker 3: and then eat the pastry.
Speaker 1: Oh shit, it's souping because like when I see a picture,
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, this looks like an empanada, but.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, you will never touch another panada now, Like, no,
Speaker 3: South ania is our next level.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: We have counez, which are like a like a cheese
Speaker 3: pastry that are really fluffy and delicious. They're kind of
Speaker 3: like a powered casual but better, oh better than oh
Speaker 3: way better, way better.
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, go on, go on, will I'm.
Speaker 3: Here to talk about Lyvian food, and I will tell
Speaker 3: you some of the best in the world. No, they're
Speaker 3: gonna have all kinds of like real dishes, like meats,
Speaker 3: prepared meats, and maybe a stew. And then you're also
Speaker 3: gonna have a lot of like cakes and pastries and
Speaker 3: the sort of usual like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I just started sweating, like the peel meme.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I love paladaccasual. Like when I first had
Speaker 1: that the first I'm like, my god, what the fuck
Speaker 1: are we doing up here? Like I love and now
Speaker 1: seeing the other one we say is the fact that
Speaker 1: it's sort of like a soup dumpling, but the Bolivian
Speaker 1: version was like first you got to take the bite
Speaker 1: and then get the soup out and then keep going.
Speaker 1: I'm also intrigued by the structural integrity of the pastry
Speaker 1: that can contain a stew within it. This comes down
Speaker 1: to scale.
Speaker 3: I mean the pastry is like really robust and like
Speaker 3: almost has a slight sweetness and thick chewiness to it.
Speaker 3: But it's also like you're gonna get judged on your
Speaker 3: skill level, Like some people are beginners and they need
Speaker 3: to use a utensil or they might get stew on
Speaker 3: them once they're real pro you're just holding that southenia
Speaker 3: on one hand and like longboarding down the road. Uh
Speaker 3: no stew anywhere on your person.
Speaker 1: Bottle?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what is something you think is overrated?
Speaker 3: I'm gonna stay with my food theme. I actually think
Speaker 3: we've gotten to the point where where brunches is overrated.
Speaker 3: I think, yeah, what do you think Everybody's doing brunch
Speaker 3: every weekend? And it's getting the point whe it's just
Speaker 3: like flat, flabby breakfast food at a different time of day,
Speaker 3: and I'm no longer excited by it. I'm no longer
Speaker 3: inspired over it.
Speaker 1: I think brunch like loses its appeal the earlier I
Speaker 1: wake up, Like when I was like younger and like
Speaker 1: like you know, going out and ship like that, and
Speaker 1: I'd wake up Lane, I'm like, yeah, brunch, but yeah,
Speaker 1: let's eat at one that's breakfast. But now I'm like,
Speaker 1: not that already eight or it's depends on, you know,
Speaker 1: if there's an occasion, but yeah, I get that. I
Speaker 1: guess is that is that maybe one of our latest
Speaker 1: food fads that's going only now it was a brunch.
Speaker 3: Oh it'll never go away? Yeah, maybe maybe actually the
Speaker 3: right answer to how to live one's life is to
Speaker 3: only have brunch and tea. I mean maybe breakfast, lunch
Speaker 3: and dinner.
Speaker 1: Two meals.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, two meals. Give me a brunch,
Speaker 2: give me a tea, give me that tea. I mean,
Speaker 2: does the enthusiasm for tea just like make you less
Speaker 2: likely to have anything at dinner? I feel like dinner
Speaker 2: becomes an afterthought at that point. A little snack for dinner,
Speaker 2: spread for tea.
Speaker 1: Okay, I like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, brunch is not a natural time for me to
Speaker 2: be hungry. If I've eaten breakfast, then like brunch is
Speaker 2: not real.
Speaker 1: Or you do the thing where you wake up you're like, fuck, dude,
Speaker 1: brunch is in four hours, and you're like, I don't
Speaker 1: want to like go and not eat anything. So then
Speaker 1: you're like walking this tight rope of not eating before
Speaker 1: or showing up hangary and you're like this showing up mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, all right, Uh, let's take a quick break
Speaker 2: and we'll be right back. Mm hm.
Speaker 1: And we're back. We're back. And yeah.
Speaker 2: So there's been some talk it's being called sane washing
Speaker 2: when it comes to the Trump campaign, like that, how
Speaker 2: the mainstream media covers President Trump former President Trump's long
Speaker 2: rambling press conferences. Yeah and yeah, but it just it
Speaker 2: does feel like there's a different standard when it comes
Speaker 2: to him, possibly because of the glut of insanity that
Speaker 2: is like coming at us, or possibly just because I
Speaker 2: don't know that you want to make it a good
Speaker 2: a good game. Everyone wants to see a good game,
Speaker 2: so we gotta we gotta make sure it's close.
Speaker 1: No one likes to blowout, So we got to prop
Speaker 1: up the orange guy who's deteriorating before our eyes. But yeah,
Speaker 1: like you, like you said Aaron Rupar like on a
Speaker 1: lot of his videos that he clips out and puts
Speaker 1: out on Twitter, like whenever he cut Like, We've played
Speaker 1: a couple of those clips where Trump will be rambling
Speaker 1: on and they'll cut back to someone in the student
Speaker 1: Like what he means to say is actually this not
Speaker 1: that Hannibal Elector was a real person and a good guy.
Speaker 1: What do he means A.
Speaker 2: Late great Hannibal Elector represents our democracy? I just wanted
Speaker 2: to talk about.
Speaker 1: He's a poet actually, But like, two recent events in
Speaker 1: the presidential race have kind of underscored how the mainstream
Speaker 1: media tries to normalize Trump and like his circus of
Speaker 1: political aids. So this week, obviously he made headlines for
Speaker 1: insisting on taking photos and filming a TikTok video for
Speaker 1: his campaign in a section of Arlington National Cemetery that
Speaker 1: prohibits that very thing. In fact, it's a violation of
Speaker 1: federal law to use a military cemetery for campaign purposes.
Speaker 1: So while this was happening happening, there was a press
Speaker 1: release that came out of the Trump campaign to sort
Speaker 1: of like paper things over, and journalist Brandon Friedman he
Speaker 1: pointed out on Twitter how the Trump campaign's press release
Speaker 1: had a very dumb typo in it. Quote the statement
Speaker 1: campaign manager Chris Losovita incorrectly used the word hollowed instead
Speaker 1: of hallowed on this.
Speaker 2: Hollowed hallowed out, Yeah, knocked on like a hollowed gesture,
Speaker 2: hallowed ground exactly right, precise almost precisely Fredian slip.
Speaker 1: Like so Axios, the Daily Beasts, they added the sort
Speaker 1: of parenthetical sick to sort of say like that they
Speaker 1: misused the word this is what they meant to say.
Speaker 1: But a few other organizations, as you pointed out, sort
Speaker 1: of caught the misuse but then corrected it. On behalf
Speaker 1: of the Trump campaign, like CNN did, and just like
Speaker 1: they're like they meant hallowed, dude, just change it so
Speaker 1: people don't make like, you know, point out they made
Speaker 1: a typo. The New York Times predictably ran the story
Speaker 1: with the typo unedited, and then but like so if
Speaker 1: you searched in Google, you'd be like, oh, yeah, they
Speaker 1: wrote hollowed haha. But when you click it, they republished
Speaker 1: it and edit it, edited it to be hallowed without
Speaker 1: any sort of reference to the fact that there was
Speaker 1: a typo. And then they had you know, dud you basically,
Speaker 1: we're doing some copy intern stuff for the camp, the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. But this is like a subtle example, but
Speaker 1: like worth noting because these like small accommodations are at
Speaker 1: the very least bad journalism and at best being like, no,
Speaker 1: we're helping them because like they we just need them
Speaker 1: to look a little bit more like together than they
Speaker 1: obviously are. So the other thing that has been like
Speaker 1: being pointed out across the media is from like the
Speaker 1: CNN shit, Like during the DNC they would have these
Speaker 1: panels of like quote undecided voters to be like, well,
Speaker 1: so would you think about that You're undecided. And right
Speaker 1: after Kamala Harris gave her acceptance speech, they spoke to
Speaker 1: a panel of supposedly undecided voters in Pennsylvania, and one
Speaker 1: man was clearly an outlier. Like after the speech, he's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, that thing was like bad. Most people
Speaker 1: are like, yeah, that was that was pretty good. That
Speaker 1: that wasn't that wasn't fun. That yeah, that was fine.
Speaker 1: He's like, nah, there's nothing. There's a big nothing burger.
Speaker 1: And then when the panel, like the person who was
Speaker 1: hosting the panel said, has anyone decided yet after this
Speaker 1: beach who they're going to vote for? This guy immediately
Speaker 1: raised his hand. He's like, yeah, I'm voting for Trump.
Speaker 1: They're like, oh, okay. Midas Touch looked into this guy
Speaker 1: and his social media is like littered with MAGA crap,
Speaker 1: Like he's very much clearly like a Trump supporter. And
Speaker 1: when they pressed CNN and him on it, they both
Speaker 1: kind of had conflicting stories. The man said, yeah, dude,
Speaker 1: I told CNN I was a Trump like, I'm a
Speaker 1: Trump guy, and they just asked if I could keep
Speaker 1: an open mind, and I said, yeah, I can keep
Speaker 1: an open mind. So I went and they called me undecided.
Speaker 1: CNN was like, well, technically, when we spoke to him,
Speaker 1: he said he hadn't decided who he was gonna support,
Speaker 1: so we invited him to speak on the panel. And
Speaker 1: that's where you're just like, what the Like, I'm always
Speaker 1: confused when they do these like undecided sort of panels.
Speaker 1: I'm like, who, Like, who really are these people? Like
Speaker 1: are they really that undecided? Because they seem pretty informed
Speaker 1: for being undecided. And then I'm like, what is it
Speaker 1: that you're waiting for on either side for you to
Speaker 1: be like? All right? Trump said the thing I needed
Speaker 1: to do here, all right? The Democrats that the thing
Speaker 1: I needed to hear. And this could be like a
Speaker 1: one off or like a you know, simple mistake, but like,
Speaker 1: you know, Parker mcloy pointed out that CNN has like
Speaker 1: a pattern of this shit, Like in twenty fifteen, they
Speaker 1: had a roundtable with Trump supporters where like a woman
Speaker 1: went on like a viral tirade against Obama and the
Speaker 1: issue here. It's just that this wasn't like some fox
Speaker 1: brained normal person. This was like a sitting New Hampshire
Speaker 1: legislator Birther who tried to keep Obama off the New
Speaker 1: Hampshire ballot, who's just presenting as just a citizen in
Speaker 1: New Hampshire. Then in twenty eighteen, CNN also had a
Speaker 1: discussion with quote five conservative women from Florida to discuss
Speaker 1: the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, and the women's
Speaker 1: responses were, yeah, here, I just I'll just play the
Speaker 1: supposed five conservative women from Florida talking about the allegations
Speaker 1: against Kavanaugh a.
Speaker 3: Show of hands. How many of you believe Judge Kavanaugh
Speaker 3: when he's says this didn't happen, Abalida believe believe Abalea.
Speaker 5: How can we believe the word of a woman or
Speaker 5: something that happened thirty six years ago? When this guy
Speaker 5: has an impeccable reputation. There wasn't nobody, nobody that has
Speaker 5: spoken ill will about him. Everyone that speaks about him.
Speaker 5: This guy's an altar boy, you know, a scout, he's
Speaker 5: you know, because one woman made an allegation, sorry I
Speaker 5: don't buy it, but in the grand scheme of things,
Speaker 5: my goodness you, there was no intercourse.
Speaker 3: There was maybe a tip. Can we really thirty six
Speaker 3: years later, she's still step on that had it happened?
Speaker 4: I mean, we're talking about a fifteen year old girl,
Speaker 4: which I respect, you know, I'm a woman. I respect.
Speaker 4: We're talking about a seventeen year old boy in high
Speaker 4: school with his thoughts ll running high Tell me what
Speaker 4: boy hasn't done this in high school?
Speaker 1: So the thing is a HU journalist looked into these people,
Speaker 1: and at least three of them are political operatives, like
Speaker 1: like one woman like was hosting fundraisers for the GOP,
Speaker 1: another was running for like was a candidate for office.
Speaker 1: So they had people that were like part of like
Speaker 1: the GOP, like machinery go in there to sort of
Speaker 1: provide intellectual cover for people to be like, yeah, whatever
Speaker 1: happened to our kavanall is out that bad? I mean
Speaker 1: these five normal people just said that it's nothing, so
Speaker 1: maybe maybe it is. They just framed them as like
Speaker 1: some people with conservatives, Yeah, just as conservatives that were
Speaker 1: living in Florida and their take on it. So it's
Speaker 1: just a very Yeah, it's just an odd, odd practice
Speaker 1: but may be quite intentional. But I guess it depends
Speaker 1: on how you look at things. Emily, how do you
Speaker 1: sort of see this kind of journalism? What's your take
Speaker 1: on that, Well.
Speaker 3: It's not happening in a vacuum. When I look at this,
Speaker 3: what I see, honestly is I'm a trial lawyer. I
Speaker 3: see the jury selection process, right, which is a similar space. Right,
Speaker 3: was this space where we're all pretending to be neutral,
Speaker 3: and we have no pre existing beliefs, and we're coming
Speaker 3: in here with a totally open mind, and yet everyone
Speaker 3: walked through the door totally looked at my client was like,
Speaker 3: I wonder what that person did. Right, So we also
Speaker 3: see real restrictions on who's invited to be part of
Speaker 3: that process. Like you got to look at how media
Speaker 3: put out the call for people to sign up for
Speaker 3: opportunities like this, the same way you got to look
Speaker 3: at how you know in the jury system, people with
Speaker 3: prior convictions are excluded, People who aren't on the voter
Speaker 3: rolls are excluded. People who may not have a driver's
Speaker 3: license can be excluded, people who don't have a mailing
Speaker 3: address are excluded. So you get these juries that are
Speaker 3: sort of made wealthier and wider and more conservative by
Speaker 3: the ways in which people are even invited to attend.
Speaker 3: And then that's sort of distilled into an even more
Speaker 3: sort of pro prosecution extract through the process of questioning
Speaker 3: people and then if a person's like, I don't know
Speaker 3: if I can be fair, the judge is like, you
Speaker 3: can keep an open mind, right, Same, it's the CNN question, right,
Speaker 3: You've told us who you are and what you believe in,
Speaker 3: but you can sett all that aside, can't you.
Speaker 1: Right, So I'm a cause I can keep an open mind.
Speaker 1: Yeah I think so, I think so wrong, But that's
Speaker 1: not a problem for me brother in law technically. But yeah,
Speaker 1: so yeah, like.
Speaker 3: Who's who's the producer, who's setting up the process through
Speaker 3: which these people appear, and who's the person not doing
Speaker 3: like a basic social media.
Speaker 1: Search, right, because like in that instance of the guy
Speaker 1: like in the undecided, Like I mean whatever, that guy
Speaker 1: just there's like I get to be on TV or whatever,
Speaker 1: Like I mean, that's clearly on the producers, like you're
Speaker 1: saying of how they're selecting people and whether they they
Speaker 1: are doing it intensely or just don't care because they're
Speaker 1: like I don't know, they said they were, man, I'm
Speaker 1: just trying to get five people in the room so
Speaker 1: they could talk. And yeah, I guess maybe it was
Speaker 1: a mistake for me to reach out to my friend
Speaker 1: who like runs the local Republican Party to ask if
Speaker 1: they knew five people who wanted to be on camera
Speaker 1: for CNN.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it's also like what's the utility, Like, what
Speaker 3: are we really gaining? It's not a scientific process. This
Speaker 3: group of people doesn't necessarily represent or speak for the
Speaker 3: average undecided voter. Now we know that they're maybe not
Speaker 3: even undecided at all. Maybe they're just a political operative
Speaker 3: who has a good, you know, makeup face. Right, I
Speaker 3: don't understand what the average viewer is gaining fraze events.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, it's always meant to. I think I don't know,
Speaker 1: like half the time when I see those panels or
Speaker 1: people undecided, like like I said that, they seem to know,
Speaker 1: they don't seem like low information voters, you know, like
Speaker 1: and so then I'm like, I that's where I'm like,
Speaker 1: these people sound like they're basically Democrats or Republicans who
Speaker 1: are being like I don't know, but probably this.
Speaker 3: Low information voters would be great. Like honestly, you put
Speaker 3: people on there who first of all normalize being a
Speaker 3: low information voter, make it okay to be like, hey,
Speaker 3: I actually don't know about this or this issue is
Speaker 3: confusing me, and I'd like a better explanation and then
Speaker 3: present an opportunity for the mass media audience to also
Speaker 3: receive that explanation, so that people it's the same way
Speaker 3: as high school teacher might say, like, if you have
Speaker 3: a question, somebody else probably has the same question. Please
Speaker 3: ask your question. We could do that. I don't know
Speaker 3: why we're doing this instead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no stupid questions. The thing that every good professor
Speaker 1: will tell you or teacher who's like, no, no ask,
Speaker 1: ask because you got to know, or else, yeah, you
Speaker 1: ask weird stuff or learn weird stuff because you don't ask.
Speaker 2: There's that sketch. And everybody's in la the John Malay
Speaker 2: series where they're like doing a daily show style like
Speaker 2: interview with a guy who's like saying really stupid shit
Speaker 2: about like Trump and his support for Trump, and then
Speaker 2: they like follow him home and he's like, yeah, no,
Speaker 2: I'm stupid on TV for a living. That's like my thing.
Speaker 2: I actually got interviewed by Borat a couple of years
Speaker 2: ago that was a career highlight, and like he's just like,
Speaker 2: I have this like room that I keep in my
Speaker 2: house that looks like shit and has like a Confederate
Speaker 2: flag up and then but like I keep that stuff separate,
Speaker 2: Like I actually live with my family and the kids,
Speaker 2: Like we have this nice house that Yeah, I feel like, yeah,
Speaker 2: these are political operative essentially, like it's.
Speaker 1: The real, the real version of.
Speaker 2: That, except you know, obviously they are employed and like
Speaker 2: working within these massive parties to convey what those parties
Speaker 2: need to conveyed.
Speaker 1: But I think it's also yeah, it sort of shows
Speaker 1: too how we talk about how like a lot of
Speaker 1: media outlets just aren't able to reckon with real issues
Speaker 1: because of the fact that they're so entrenched in a
Speaker 1: lot of these systems themselves. They're like, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: this is this is good enough. Can we actually speak
Speaker 1: objectively about that? I don't know, but you know this
Speaker 1: is like I think, yeah, this is where a lot
Speaker 1: of the media is falling short at a time when
Speaker 1: people really need to have like the truth, which we
Speaker 1: don't get all the time.
Speaker 3: I also don't know what objective necessarily looks like, because
Speaker 3: you're right, when you're deeply entrenched in the system, it's
Speaker 3: very very hard to see it's equilibrium from the outside.
Speaker 3: I'm a like devoted NPR listener. I go running in
Speaker 3: the morning and I pop on Morning edition and I'm
Speaker 3: very happy to hear it. But like, even on NPR,
Speaker 3: there have been these few times where they're covering, you know,
Speaker 3: a democratic event or Republican event, and they'll be like, well,
Speaker 3: they talked about the economy, which is a bad issue
Speaker 3: for Democrats, and I'm like.
Speaker 1: Is it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is actually like listen to Bill Clinton, a
Speaker 3: person of whom I am not always a fan, but
Speaker 3: with Bill Clinton, who like spelled out how great the
Speaker 3: economy is built by Democrats over the last several decades
Speaker 3: have been, and it's weird to hear that coming from NPR.
Speaker 3: I think it's like their gesture towards equilibrium that doesn't
Speaker 3: actually speak to truth.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that's a problem with the mainstream media that
Speaker 2: we'll also get to on you know, policing, and you know,
Speaker 2: they they are these things that they just assume are
Speaker 2: bad for progressives that everyone disagrees with, and they just
Speaker 2: do a very surface level pass over those things, just
Speaker 2: being like, yeah, well those things that everybody assumes about
Speaker 2: progressive ideas around this are true, and like we just
Speaker 2: have to take that into account as opposed to like
Speaker 2: digging into some ways that they can be proven not true. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: MPR drives me fucking crazy. All right, let's take a
Speaker 2: quick break and we're going to come back and talk
Speaker 2: about policing and Axon finally find out a little bit
Speaker 2: more about this cool company named Axon, and we're we're back,
Speaker 2: all right, So that you may have seen this story
Speaker 2: that AI police reports are here to save the police
Speaker 2: from doing police work. Basically, it's only a matter of time,
Speaker 2: you know. It was only a matter of time until
Speaker 2: the two of the shittier things on the planet, AI
Speaker 2: and policing joined forces. In this case, the AI helps
Speaker 2: them churn out recaps of incidents using bodycam footage, thus
Speaker 2: sparing the officers from having to pen lengthy reports. And
Speaker 2: the cops like in talking about it, the ones that
Speaker 2: they're like interviewing for these puff pieces on the technology
Speaker 2: are like, I can't write for shit, come basically an idiot,
Speaker 2: and this thing made me like it. This is a
Speaker 2: quote from one of the stories. It was a better
Speaker 2: report than I could have ever written, and it was
Speaker 2: one hundred percent accurate. It flowed better, better than I
Speaker 2: could have ever written. That's first of all, it's supposed
Speaker 2: to to be a rough draft, like it's not supposed
Speaker 2: to replace the reports that you're writing the post. They
Speaker 2: give you a rough draft that you then like work backwards.
Speaker 1: Nah n, I gotta cut corners and how like it's
Speaker 1: called draft one, by the way, that's the name of
Speaker 1: the technology is draft one.
Speaker 2: And he's like, this is the goddamn best thing, best
Speaker 2: version of a report I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: And how important are these like police reports in terms of,
Speaker 1: you know, like when people intersect with the justice system,
Speaker 1: Like is it how vital are these and how much
Speaker 1: like how much room is there for you know, dubious
Speaker 1: ship to pop into these kinds of police reports.
Speaker 3: All right, to be clear, they're already largely made of
Speaker 3: dubious shit, Like let's let's start from there.
Speaker 1: Okay, there we go, thank you.
Speaker 3: Things. These things vary really really wildly from place to place.
Speaker 3: So when I started out as a public defender, I
Speaker 3: was in Santa Clara County, California, in which the police
Speaker 3: are trained to write reports. So when a thing happens
Speaker 3: and the police are there, they'll like write down what
Speaker 3: they saw, and then the second cop there will write
Speaker 3: down what he saw, and then they talked to a
Speaker 3: witness and they write down with the witness set and
Speaker 3: all and all you get this packet, which is really
Speaker 3: really helpful if we are going to believe that the
Speaker 3: legal system is in any way about finding truth, right, Like,
Speaker 3: you want to have detailed accounts from the people who
Speaker 3: are there about what they what they heard, and what
Speaker 3: they saw. I then went out to New York to
Speaker 3: work at Bronx Defenders, and that's when I learned that
Speaker 3: the NYPD is essentially like really really really good at
Speaker 3: not writing stuff down. When you get an NYPD discovery packet,
Speaker 3: it's like a whole bunch of pages, but all of
Speaker 3: the pages have the same one line copy pasted on them.
Speaker 3: It's like, at the time and place of occurrence the
Speaker 3: incident did occur.
Speaker 6: Yes, anything, and that is when the suspected perpetrator did
Speaker 6: occur onto the occurrence, and it would happen that at
Speaker 6: that moment in her jo graphical location in question heretofore.
Speaker 2: It's just like it's ill.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we could have a whole conversation about like the
Speaker 3: police attraction to big words. They don't quite use it.
Speaker 3: You want to have a great time as a defense attorney,
Speaker 3: ask a cop on the stand what furtive means. They
Speaker 3: love saying every furtive movements, but like, what what is
Speaker 3: what is furtive to you? Now, indeed, this whole situation
Speaker 3: is furtive. So when you get to a place where
Speaker 3: essentially nothing is written down you you create a systemic problem,
Speaker 3: which is, in order for me to get any information
Speaker 3: to protect an accused person and protect their US constitutional rights,
Speaker 3: I'm going to need to create a legal process to
Speaker 3: find out more about what this CoP's claims actually are,
Speaker 3: which means I may have to demand hearings that I
Speaker 3: don't actually need, Like I might have to file suppression
Speaker 3: hearings that I don't actually need, just to get the
Speaker 3: cop on the witness stand just so I can cross
Speaker 3: examine them about what the heck they're saying they saw
Speaker 3: and did. So it's really really really inefficient, and it's
Speaker 3: bad for truth and it's bad for justice, Like it's
Speaker 3: very very bad for any simple of accuracy in the system,
Speaker 3: and it causes massive delays. So all of this is
Speaker 3: to say, bad discovery is a huge driver of our
Speaker 3: system being inept at creating any semblance of truth.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: It's also like you have to remember that police writing reports.
Speaker 3: There's kind of a double edged sword here because police
Speaker 3: get a ton of overtime out of writing reports if
Speaker 3: they make an arrest at the end of their shift
Speaker 3: and they get to sit at their desk for the
Speaker 3: next three hours, like carefully inscribing documents with at the
Speaker 3: time and place of occurrence the event.
Speaker 1: Is right and over again, very cursive.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they make a ton of overtime doing that. So
Speaker 3: I think, I mean when I say a ton, I
Speaker 3: mean like millions and millions. Wherever you are in the country,
Speaker 3: you should google who the highest paid public employee in
Speaker 3: your jurisdiction was, and there's like a decent chance it
Speaker 3: was a cop who made a lot of overtime. A
Speaker 3: few years ago. It was like a port authority cop
Speaker 3: in New York City.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just like over a million bucks in overtime. And
Speaker 3: so when I think about what AI would do to
Speaker 3: this process, I think of a couple of things. One,
Speaker 3: it's less accurate because it's not giving you the police
Speaker 3: officer's impressions of what happened. It's giving you the AI's
Speaker 3: impressions of what happened. And this is even assuming the
Speaker 3: AI doesn't hallucinate, which, as we know, like AIS make
Speaker 3: stuff up all the time. So yeah, like if you're
Speaker 3: going to totally hand over your faith to a robot
Speaker 3: to tell you what happened in a video and abandon
Speaker 3: the idea that human perception is necessary to interpret what
Speaker 3: happened in a video, you're also leaving by the side
Speaker 3: of the road things that I might need to know
Speaker 3: about the cops ability to perceive about what the cop
Speaker 3: was focused on what Like For example, in a police report,
Speaker 3: let's say the whole report is written about I don't
Speaker 3: know somebody's way of driving a car in a DUI case,
Speaker 3: and none of it's about the fact that when the
Speaker 3: person got totally furtively furtively across you know, when they
Speaker 3: get out of the car, maybe everything they did at
Speaker 3: that point was fine. Maybe they're talking, fine, walking fine,
Speaker 3: don't have any sort of symptoms of intoxication. If the
Speaker 3: entire report is about the driving, then I can to
Speaker 3: cross examine the cop on like why why didn't you
Speaker 3: talk about what happened after that? Like their omissions can
Speaker 3: be really really important to a jury to decide who's lying,
Speaker 3: who's telling the truth. You take the human perception out
Speaker 3: of that, and you take away this fundamental thing. Our
Speaker 3: system is designed to have twelve people tell you if
Speaker 3: another person is lying, right, twelve people can't tell you
Speaker 3: if an ai is lying or hallucinating. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: just it takes us even farther from the system having utility.
Speaker 3: And I get that in the system we are going
Speaker 3: to consistently prioritize the efficiency of punishment over the semblance
Speaker 3: of truth. But especially with the involvement of Axon, which
Speaker 3: has a grotesque history, I'd be more than happy to
Speaker 3: yeah about this is like five alarm fire.
Speaker 1: Wait, you're saying a company that used to be called Taser.
Speaker 2: I like that they went from Taser obviously, like trying
Speaker 2: to cover up the fact that they're the company that
Speaker 2: invented the taser that for some reason as a negative
Speaker 2: connotation with it to Axon is like so fucking aggressive.
Speaker 3: Well, it's also you know, that's a nerve Axon is
Speaker 3: what the electrical current runs down that stimulates the next
Speaker 3: nerve cell. So it's still like we're gonna zapia. It's
Speaker 3: just we're gonna zapA for people who took ap bio.
Speaker 1: That's right exactly. It's like the version of using furtive.
Speaker 1: They're like, what if we just clashed it up? I
Speaker 1: would just.
Speaker 2: Throw in the additional thing. And this might be like
Speaker 2: not this might be a controversial statement, but I personally
Speaker 2: don't want to get like it. So the CEO of Axon,
Speaker 2: who is a company behind this AI technology, we'll talk
Speaker 2: about other stuff there behind brag that the AI spares
Speaker 2: cops from the tedious work of spending half their day
Speaker 2: doing data entry. I don't want police to be like
Speaker 2: out roaming the streets more with their guns, like ready
Speaker 2: to get like suspicious about whatever comes across their plate
Speaker 2: while they're sufficiently bored. Like I feel like this is
Speaker 2: the job that we want to have a healthy amount
Speaker 2: of like downtime where they're reflecting on what they've done
Speaker 2: and like having to think about that and account for it.
Speaker 2: And this technology seems to be designed to like what
Speaker 2: if the police were like even more gas and less
Speaker 2: breaks like built into it. What if it was just
Speaker 2: more they don't really even have to think about it
Speaker 2: because the machine's there to like just document what they
Speaker 2: did to out you know, yeah, you know, exa more
Speaker 2: frictionless policing aka just like out there fucking shit up
Speaker 2: more of the time.
Speaker 1: I think the other thing that's really interesting too, is
Speaker 1: like to your point Emily. You know, the overtime is
Speaker 1: where a lot of budgets go and a lot of
Speaker 1: people they make their they make that money. We're like,
Speaker 1: how does that cop have that fucking car and like
Speaker 1: a boat and all this other stuff. It's like, yeah, dude,
Speaker 1: the overtime's wacky that they're never like this will actually
Speaker 1: help cut down on costs. They're more just like, dudes,
Speaker 1: it's gonna help the cops, dude, so they don't have
Speaker 1: to be bored at work, you know, and like you
Speaker 1: think the way to sell it to people who might
Speaker 1: be more progressive, like guess what, man, this could actually
Speaker 1: save a lot of money because now they don't have
Speaker 1: the time to do you know, claim as much over time.
Speaker 1: But again that's that's part of the appeal. So they'll
Speaker 1: just be like, no, man, it just makes their job
Speaker 1: easier so they can keep you the citizen safe, all right,
Speaker 1: next question.
Speaker 3: You're right though, it's also sort of exposing this terrible choice. Right,
Speaker 3: we have set up policing policy so that the vast
Speaker 3: majority of police time is spent on things that most
Speaker 3: people don't actually care about. So when you ask them people,
Speaker 3: what are they like scared of it's like burglary, robbery,
Speaker 3: sexual assault, murder. And when you look at how police
Speaker 3: spend their time, the vast majority of it is on
Speaker 3: like noise complaints and unfounded calls and like somebody was
Speaker 3: peeing outside and trespassing, and sometimes on what I sort
Speaker 3: of think of as like police manufactured crime, which is
Speaker 3: like convincing someone with a substance use problem to score
Speaker 3: some drugs and also score for the undercover who will
Speaker 3: then arrest them for a felony. And the reason we
Speaker 3: don't want them on the street more is because they
Speaker 3: are out there on the street, armed, dangerous, and not
Speaker 3: investigating the things that people really care about. If you
Speaker 3: look at clearance rates, a lot of people don't know
Speaker 3: what clearance rates are, but it's the rate at which
Speaker 3: police are able to close cases. And in any jurisdiction,
Speaker 3: you can search for your local clearance rates. You'd be like,
Speaker 3: all right, how many rape cases are my local police
Speaker 3: even closing?
Speaker 1: Got most places thirteen.
Speaker 3: To twenty percent. This is a whole other feminist sobec.
Speaker 2: Ninety is totally across the entire country. There's like at
Speaker 2: least ninety that they've closed in the past decade.
Speaker 3: Seriously, and that's because it's a policy choice. It's a
Speaker 3: choice from police leadership about what they're going to dedicate
Speaker 3: resources to. And if, yeah, if the answer was, okay,
Speaker 3: they're not going to spend their time writing trespassing reports,
Speaker 3: but instead, we're going to dedicate real efforts to how
Speaker 3: about wage theft or large scale pollution of poisoning entire towns.
Speaker 3: We're going to set the cops on that. If they
Speaker 3: were going to investigate crimes of the powerful against the
Speaker 3: citizenry instead of writing reports, I might feel differently about it,
Speaker 3: But I don't think that's the plant.
Speaker 2: Yeah, never has been. Yeah, But I do just want
Speaker 2: to get a little bit more into the history of axons.
Speaker 2: So they were taser. They made their initial money with
Speaker 2: selling tasers, and then bodycams. When that became the solution
Speaker 2: to police brutality corruption, they went with body cams and
Speaker 2: they basically have a monopoly for which they've been sued.
Speaker 2: They made four hundred and sixty one million dollars in
Speaker 2: the first quarter of twenty twenty four alone. They're also
Speaker 2: the same company that made headlines for endeavoring to solve
Speaker 2: school shootings with taser equipped drones. That plan was paused
Speaker 2: when the majority of Axon's ethics board resigned in protests.
Speaker 2: But I think probably the most relevant and also, like
Speaker 2: I mentioned, their CEO gets speeches via remote iPad, I
Speaker 2: use an avatar man glued to the front of the
Speaker 2: motorcycle helmet.
Speaker 3: They also created excited delirium in parts, so alls that
Speaker 3: are due to that.
Speaker 2: Yes, So I wanted to talk about that because I
Speaker 2: also think like that feels very relevant to this because
Speaker 2: this is them getting involved in police narrative and how
Speaker 2: police justify what they're doing, and they were involved. You
Speaker 2: actually have a great video on this on your Twitter,
Speaker 2: Emily where you talk about how about their role in
Speaker 2: the creation of and the proliferation of the term excited delirium,
Speaker 2: which is something we covered a while back, but I
Speaker 2: think it's always worth kind of refreshing people's memory of
Speaker 2: what is excited delirium.
Speaker 3: So excited delirium is a made up medical diagnosis that
Speaker 3: was originally invented in a sort of predictably racist way
Speaker 3: in Miami many decades ago, where a doctor claimed that
Speaker 3: people were dying of excited delirium, the sort of state
Speaker 3: of mania that caused them to behave really erradically and
Speaker 3: aggressively and dangerously and then they perish, They just expire.
Speaker 3: And it turned out that many of the women who
Speaker 3: are originally alleged to have excited delirium had actually been
Speaker 3: killed by a serial killer. But this idea that people
Speaker 3: could become so worked up that they are dangerous and
Speaker 3: then they die was seized upon by police because in
Speaker 3: police encounters where there is a need to justify use
Speaker 3: of force, it is very useful for them to claim
Speaker 3: that the person they used force against was dangerously worked
Speaker 3: up and had this medical thing where they became a
Speaker 3: risk to everybody's safety and they had to be taste
Speaker 3: and then oh, when they died from a heart attack,
Speaker 3: it wasn't because they got a massive vault of electricity.
Speaker 3: It was because they died of excited delirium. So excited delirium,
Speaker 3: which is not accepted by the way, by doctors, like
Speaker 3: medical associations are like, that's totally not a thing. Psychiatrical
Speaker 3: associations the same deal, not a thing.
Speaker 2: But there was that one panel that is a way
Speaker 2: I feel like we're good here. No need to look
Speaker 2: into the panel or who funded that. I think we're good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no need to look at how many doctors on
Speaker 3: the panel were put there by Axon. No need to,
Speaker 3: no need to connect this to no need to also
Speaker 3: think about how much this reduces Axon's liability, right, because
Speaker 3: if deaths are caused by excited delirium and not caused
Speaker 3: by a taser, they're not going to have they're not
Speaker 3: gonna be able to be successfully sued. But it's actually
Speaker 3: become a serious epidemic in this country of police using
Speaker 3: excited delirium to justify it not only taser use of force,
Speaker 3: but the use of paramedics as a weapon, like we
Speaker 3: saw in the Elijah McLain case where the police had
Speaker 3: paramedics inject Elijah McLain with a lethal dose of sedatives
Speaker 3: under this false diagnosis of excited delirium, so that that
Speaker 3: seed that Axon planted in eight in legitimizing this diagnosis
Speaker 3: has now caused many, many deaths and is continuing to
Speaker 3: cause deaths around the country.
Speaker 1: Right because like they'll hit people like ketamine and stuff,
Speaker 1: and then like they like I was reading a statistic
Speaker 1: that a lot of those people end up having be
Speaker 1: intubated because it's so severe, and they're like, I don't know, man, wait,
Speaker 1: the guy was excited. I mean then they also said
Speaker 1: the same thing about George Floyd too. Yeah, that was
Speaker 1: like very early on, like it's excited. I don't know
Speaker 1: what you want to say, man, let's let's just move on.
Speaker 1: So then like so action in for them, it's just
Speaker 1: more because they're sort of like, hey, we love what
Speaker 1: you guys do. Let's help out because this also helps
Speaker 1: justify the use of our products. Like is that sort
Speaker 1: of like their main motivation and like sort of pushing
Speaker 1: the excited delirium sort of craze along.
Speaker 3: I think it's also a legal shield. I mean, if
Speaker 3: I'm going to let's say I lose a loved one
Speaker 3: who was taste and I want a sue Taser for
Speaker 3: marketing a product as non lethal that was in fact
Speaker 3: lethal to my loved one. And they say, the medical
Speaker 3: examiner certificate doesn't say that your loved one died of
Speaker 3: an electric shock. The medical examiner certificate says excited delirium.
Speaker 3: So you can't actually get money from us in a
Speaker 3: civil suit or settlement. So it's it's covering them from
Speaker 3: being financially responsible for deaths they cause. The same for police.
Speaker 3: I mean, if the police are getting. The police could
Speaker 3: be sued in the same case, right, the taser for
Speaker 3: the device to the police for the action. But either way,
Speaker 3: if the Emmys certificate says this person died of excited delirium,
Speaker 3: it's a liability.
Speaker 1: Shield, right, Yeah, and disproportionately applied to black men. Yes,
Speaker 1: a lot of the time.
Speaker 2: It's a way for the police to justify that why
Speaker 2: they why they're scared.
Speaker 3: It's really reliant on racist tropes right on the adultification
Speaker 3: of black children. First of all, this this child is
Speaker 3: a risk to me because I'm perceiving this child as
Speaker 3: older because of racial bias, but also the racist myth
Speaker 3: of dangerousness of black men in an excited state. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is totally playing on long term American racist tropes
Speaker 3: and sanitizing them with a fake medical diagnosis.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. It sounds like something you'd get at like
Speaker 1: Willy Wonka's chocolate factory excited delirium for you and you're.
Speaker 2: Like, oh, yeah, and that's why, and that's why we
Speaker 2: had to drown him in the chocolate river.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: Just a couple more details about is it axin Axon.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna call them Axon because that feels sufficiently violent
Speaker 2: and sinister. Their CEO his like founding story. I just
Speaker 2: like founding stories for companies and CEOs because they are
Speaker 2: like the most full of shit things in America and
Speaker 2: like most widely believed people, like it was founded in
Speaker 2: the like everything was founded in a garage. No, it
Speaker 2: wasn't founded in like their rich dad's second home that
Speaker 2: was behind you his first mansion. But anyways, the CEO
Speaker 2: repeatedly told the story that he started the company because
Speaker 2: his two high school friends were shot and killed. He
Speaker 2: played high school football with them. It's just like two
Speaker 2: guys that he like knew about who were like four
Speaker 2: or five years older than him. Yeah, they weren't even
Speaker 2: he never went to high school with him. Yeah, but
Speaker 2: like it's just you know, for him, he's like and
Speaker 2: man like, that's the closest that I like, kids who
Speaker 2: were at your high school before you is like such
Speaker 2: a stretch to be like. That's also they The workplace
Speaker 2: culture includes group tasings and tattooing sessions in which employees
Speaker 2: are inked with corporate insignia and by the way, the
Speaker 2: drone thing. While they were like all right fine when
Speaker 2: their entire ethics board resigned. They did buy a drone
Speaker 2: company recently, so there it seems like what will their
Speaker 2: mouth says, all right, fine, god, their money is saying
Speaker 2: that their full full steam ahead on the Taser drones front. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so just all sorts of wild shit there, like truly
Speaker 2: the most dystopian, like a bunch of tattoo branded like
Speaker 2: corporate people, guy with motorcycle helmet, iPad face.
Speaker 1: Like ring, like knowing murder victims. Yeah, it's all I mean,
Speaker 1: they're in a way, it all does feel very appropriate.
Speaker 1: That then it's like and now that's what I like
Speaker 1: to do, is help other people lie about stuff and
Speaker 1: I just make money. And the institutional investment in this
Speaker 1: company is wild too. Oh yeah, it's like because they
Speaker 1: know they're like, wait, how much they're makeing Q one? Okay?
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, But just.
Speaker 2: Generally I just want to like kind of get your take, Emily.
Speaker 2: There was recently this New York Times article about a
Speaker 2: The headline is what a group opposed to police blow
Speaker 2: the whistle on its founder, And it was like this
Speaker 2: AI app that was like, We're gonna like create an
Speaker 2: alternative to the police by taking people's you know, complaints
Speaker 2: and routing them to like some of these other police alternatives,
Speaker 2: it turned out to be like the founder just like
Speaker 2: didn't have the ability to pull it off and was
Speaker 2: spending some of the money on like clothing and vacations
Speaker 2: that you know, like that I'm drifting. Sure, you can
Speaker 2: find scams in any nonprofit like category, but the way
Speaker 2: the New York Times writes about it and like frames
Speaker 2: this article is that whole argument of like, oh, you
Speaker 2: think the police are bad at their jobs, Let's see
Speaker 2: what you say when you're being robbed, is like basically
Speaker 2: the whole thesis of the argument, And what it comes
Speaker 2: down to if you read the article is like one
Speaker 2: person on the team is like, I didn't want to
Speaker 2: turn him over to the police because I like he's
Speaker 2: a black man and I fear what would happen to him.
Speaker 2: And then another person is like, yeah, but I did
Speaker 2: turn him over to the attorney general because I know
Speaker 2: that like you don't usually call the police on white
Speaker 2: collar crime because they won't do shit. So anyways, like
Speaker 2: the attorney general is working on investigation. It might be civil,
Speaker 2: it might be criminal, But the way they framed it
Speaker 2: is so much like based on this bad faith reading
Speaker 2: of any criticism of the police, and it just feels
Speaker 2: generally like the tone of the mainstream media and the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party recently is like, boy, those protests in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty were you know, unpopular. Let's never fight again, babe
Speaker 2: to the police, and it's like, I don't know, it's
Speaker 2: just so fucking frustrating. Like and meanwhile, police killings haven't
Speaker 2: have just like stayed the same or gone up, so like,
Speaker 2: where where are we with this? Like what you know,
Speaker 2: there were some programs that were funded that like worked
Speaker 2: really well, Like Denver had a control trial of a
Speaker 2: program that provides housing subsidies to people at risk of
Speaker 2: homelessness and found a forty percent reduction and arrests. Like
Speaker 2: there's all these cool examples they get like dashed off
Speaker 2: really quickly in a New York Times article that like
Speaker 2: has a counterpoint for everything that might suggest that like
Speaker 2: there could be alternatives to our fucking terrible idea of
Speaker 2: a system that if you've been to any other country
Speaker 2: in the world, you're like, oh, wow, why do we
Speaker 2: do it the way we do it? But yeah, I'm
Speaker 2: just curious to hear your thoughts on like where we're
Speaker 2: at in our conversation in the mainstream.
Speaker 3: So first of all, we're really lucky in this one way,
Speaker 3: which is that we are overrun with cool solutions. Like
Speaker 3: I'm writing a book right now, Like my book it's
Speaker 3: coming out in twenty twenty six. It's going to be
Speaker 3: a layperson's guide to the criminal legal system in all
Speaker 3: of its horribleness, and also solutions, Like I'm going to
Speaker 3: spend two thirds of the book on problems, and then
Speaker 3: I'm going to present a whole bunch of solutions. I
Speaker 3: had originally intended to write one chapter on solutions. I'm
Speaker 3: now at like page eighty eight of one hundred of
Speaker 3: all of these solutions, because there are just so many
Speaker 3: fantastic things happening that have better data than the status quo,
Speaker 3: Like we don't have data strongly suggesting that police are
Speaker 3: a feasible preventative mechanism. Police can disappear problems. They can
Speaker 3: take people and put them in spaces where they are
Speaker 3: no longer visible to the general public and where they
Speaker 3: may be then violently harmed in ways that make them
Speaker 3: more likely to engage in crime in the future. So
Speaker 3: police may be sort of like temporarily making a problem
Speaker 3: disappear in a way that long term makes it worse.
Speaker 3: We have that data, get a ton of data on
Speaker 3: like the Star program in Denver, or cahoots in Oregon,
Speaker 3: or you know, other alternatives to police popping up around
Speaker 3: the country. Massive public support for this. Most voters would
Speaker 3: love to have mental health first responders, and actually most cops,
Speaker 3: if you ask them, are like, yes, I would like
Speaker 3: to also no longer be treated like I'm a trained
Speaker 3: social worker, because I'm not one, and I would like
Speaker 3: that to not be part of my job. What's really
Speaker 3: what bugs me about the perspective you just described right,
Speaker 3: which is like, oh, these people who don't want to
Speaker 3: use the police, what happens when they need the police? Well, okay,
Speaker 3: when we on election day hear from voters that they
Speaker 3: are scared to go to their local polling place because
Speaker 3: there are proud boys outside the polling place intimidating buttential voters.
Speaker 3: No one is saying, well, it's your problem if you
Speaker 3: don't like the proud boys, don't you just have a
Speaker 3: way to work out. No, we say, okay, this is
Speaker 3: a problem because people have a legitimate fear. It is
Speaker 3: a legitimate fear of an organized effort, which is intimidating
Speaker 3: and threatening harm to the general public. And because the
Speaker 3: general public is afraid, we the government should probably take
Speaker 3: action to protect the general public. The blind spot with
Speaker 3: regard to when that organized harmful force is a governmental
Speaker 3: body is obscene. So by blaming people who are like, hey,
Speaker 3: I actually I'm nervous about calling the police on my
Speaker 3: black boss because black men get killed by police at
Speaker 3: igordinate rates, and also not to mention that subject to
Speaker 3: illegitimate prosecutions and overcharging and charge stacking and longer sentences
Speaker 3: and the incredible damage even of a pretop process. And
Speaker 3: by the way, I'm saying this with great care because
Speaker 3: here's a person who's accused and has not been found
Speaker 3: guilty of anything. So really weighing, hey, do I want
Speaker 3: to subject this person to all of these risks or
Speaker 3: is there a better way for me to seek accountability
Speaker 3: and truth without those risks of lethality, injustice, ruinousness. That's
Speaker 3: a fantastic thing for an ordinary citizen to be considering.
Speaker 3: And any government that doesn't say, you know what, I'm
Speaker 3: going to consider that with you, and I'm going to
Speaker 3: acknowledge that your fears are real and the problems you
Speaker 3: highlight are real and work on these problems to come
Speaker 3: up with something better. Is abrogating its duty to the
Speaker 3: public in favor of the optics of being pro cop.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, yeah, the pro cop turn that's happened in
Speaker 1: like the Democratic Party. I mean it's not that they
Speaker 1: were anti but like just I saw you retweet an
Speaker 1: article or a thread about how the platform changed, because
Speaker 1: I was like, I was definitely looking at a lot
Speaker 1: of the I was really interested in the foreign policy
Speaker 1: stuff that was in the platform and I was like, oh, wow,
Speaker 1: like just a ton of one eighties here compared to
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, and then reading sort of the excerpts on
Speaker 1: what was happening with policing was also very like, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're really embracing this thing about being like, let's not
Speaker 1: talk about the death penalty anymore. Let's I know, we
Speaker 1: were talking about choke holds. Let's like really tamp that down.
Speaker 1: And it really is wild how much it's become because
Speaker 1: I think, obviously this whole election is set up to
Speaker 1: be we have a prosecutor and a felon, and so
Speaker 1: because of that framing, we're gonna really lean into a
Speaker 1: lot of this like the like the prosecutorial aspects of
Speaker 1: this and also be make it feel like yeah, man,
Speaker 1: like we're the cops again and that's okay. That was
Speaker 1: just kind of like, I mean, I was very cynical
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty when I saw this sort of like
Speaker 1: upticking me, like, yeah, we really need to do something,
Speaker 1: and that's the most that will happen. I will say
Speaker 1: that we need to do something. But now to see
Speaker 1: like really formally stripped out, you're like, oh, right, right, right,
Speaker 1: this was never a real concern. But how do you
Speaker 1: sort of perceive that sort of like shift now or
Speaker 1: at least the now that you know, even in their
Speaker 1: written platforms, it's just sort of like, yeah, yeah, those
Speaker 1: are those are those are problems, but you know we
Speaker 1: can address them at some point later.
Speaker 3: I mean, the death penalty thing, I really don't get
Speaker 3: because Harris has been against the death penalty for a
Speaker 3: lot of her career, was criticized as ag for upholding
Speaker 3: the law instead of acting on a moral objection that
Speaker 3: she has to death penalty, which is super expensive and
Speaker 3: has resulted in the death of a lot of innocent people.
Speaker 3: Because our system gets it wrong a lot, because of
Speaker 3: things like junk science and bad Eyewinness, IDAs and insufficient
Speaker 3: funding of public defense. So let's just like Cavin, this
Speaker 3: is like, I don't I really don't get the Democratic
Speaker 3: Party stepping away from opposing the death penalty. I think
Speaker 3: polling on it has not changed dramatically, like Americans are
Speaker 3: not like rapidly pro death penalty now, So I really
Speaker 3: don't get it. But here's what I'll say about the
Speaker 3: prosecutor versus pellon thing. It's being treated as a sort
Speaker 3: of vicious backing a violent force against crime. But it
Speaker 3: doesn't have to be. Prosecutors are unique among lawyers. Rarely
Speaker 3: will you hear me say nice things about prosecutors. I'm
Speaker 3: going to now say some nice things about prosecutors. They
Speaker 3: have an ethical duty to do justice. That is a
Speaker 3: unique ethical duty. No other kind of lawyer has that duty. Now.
Speaker 3: I just got done teaching a course to some really
Speaker 3: talented law students, and in one of my exercises, I
Speaker 3: made half of them be defense lawyers and half of
Speaker 3: them be prosecutors. And I told the prosecutors in a
Speaker 3: bail argument, you had this unique ethical duty. You have
Speaker 3: to do justice, and not just justice for the people
Speaker 3: who were harmed in a crime. Or who you think
Speaker 3: of as part of the community. You have to do
Speaker 3: justice for everybody. That includes the accused person and their
Speaker 3: family and their kids and their loved ones, that includes everybody.
Speaker 3: When you talk for the people, you represent everybody. And
Speaker 3: when I told them that their assignment would be graded
Speaker 3: on how well they were able to consider everyone's needs
Speaker 3: safety and justice, they got up there on the record
Speaker 3: and did radically different things than I've ever seen a
Speaker 3: prosecutor do in real life. And largely we're thinking of
Speaker 3: restorative solutions and root causes and like how they could
Speaker 3: heal a community instead of just punishing and disappearing a person.
Speaker 3: If what prosecutor means is somebody who is enshrined with
Speaker 3: governmental authority to do justice for everyone in the community,
Speaker 3: including people who might be opposed to that very prosecutor,
Speaker 3: I think it could actually be a very powerful encapsulation
Speaker 3: of the best version of a leader, right, a person
Speaker 3: who's going to take this seriously and care for all
Speaker 3: of our well being and yes, stand up to abuses
Speaker 3: of people with less power, which is really what we
Speaker 3: would want prosecutors to stand up to the most. I
Speaker 3: think certainly it's not being done that way. I think
Speaker 3: the rhetoric sucks. I think half of Americans have had
Speaker 3: a loved one locked up. I just think that the
Speaker 3: rhetoric doesn't have to change if it was made smarter.
Speaker 3: In order to be smarter, though, the policy would not
Speaker 3: have to shift towards tough on crime. It would have
Speaker 3: to shift towards evidence based, root cause thinking and solutions
Speaker 3: that shift us towards something better than our shitty status quo.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, and now it just feels like, now
Speaker 1: let's embrace the status quo and bring it closer and
Speaker 1: closer and closer. But yeah, that's a yeah, such a
Speaker 1: the whole time, I'm like, wow, it Like. The thing
Speaker 1: that really makes you think a lot too, is like,
Speaker 1: we have so many people who are prosecutors that ascend
Speaker 1: in politics, and that's why, Like when Kantazi Brown Jackson
Speaker 1: was like the first public defender who had sat on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, I was liked, is that true?
Speaker 3: Oh my god, oh writ large the federal bench is
Speaker 3: largely prosecuted. I actually read. I wrote a really mean
Speaker 3: email today guys like my local representative, who I love
Speaker 3: is like moving to run for the state a different
Speaker 3: state office, and he endorsed it's a two candidate race.
Speaker 3: I live in a place with major housing issues. There's
Speaker 3: just not enough housing for people. Cost of housing are
Speaker 3: too high. And one of the candidates is a housing organizer,
Speaker 3: a local housing organizer, and the other candidate is a prosecutor.
Speaker 3: Guess who got the addressment? And I wrote them a
Speaker 3: note being like, like, come on, this housing is the
Speaker 3: issue of our region. If you are going to make
Speaker 3: prosecution once again a blind path to power, you at
Speaker 3: least have to justify why you are overlooking someone whose
Speaker 3: life work is in the zone we most need. And
Speaker 3: the thing that bugs me about it the most is
Speaker 3: that it tells young people. I mean, in my work,
Speaker 3: I work at public defenders all over the country, and
Speaker 3: I help them expand the practic their practice and expand
Speaker 3: what they can offer their clients. And I place a
Speaker 3: lot of new professionals, usually young people, into jobs in
Speaker 3: public defense. And as they start out their careers, I'm
Speaker 3: looking at how they think of their career trajectory. They're
Speaker 3: doing great things, like I'm going to learn all about
Speaker 3: how fucked up America's public systems are and I'm going
Speaker 3: to carry that knowledge into my own change making career.
Speaker 3: But to everybody else. The vast majority of young people,
Speaker 3: future lawyers who are not like these dedicated, brilliant advocates.
Speaker 3: They think, Okay, I'll be a prosecutor for like two
Speaker 3: years and then I'll get my elected office. If I
Speaker 3: just incarcerate young black men and separate families and crush
Speaker 3: people's dreams and lives and maybe cause a few deaths,
Speaker 3: then I could be a state senter.
Speaker 1: Right, I've been vetted right, and I've done the work right,
Speaker 1: and it's we shouldn't.
Speaker 3: We shouldn't make change making power reliant on willingness to
Speaker 3: harm others.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, sounds like we have a lot of
Speaker 2: work to do. Emily Galvin Almansa, what a pleasure having
Speaker 2: you on the daily Zeitgeist. Where can people find you,
Speaker 2: follow you, support your work and all that good stuff.
Speaker 3: Well, if they want to support expanding and improving public
Speaker 3: defense around the country, really transforming what we mean by
Speaker 3: public defense, and getting more help for poor people with
Speaker 3: housing and employment and benefits and transportation and all the
Speaker 3: things that people actually need, they can go to www.
Speaker 3: Dot Partners for Justice dot org where they can learn
Speaker 3: all about our work to support public defenders nationally. They
Speaker 3: can also catch us on Twitter at at PFJ Underscore
Speaker 3: USA or Instagram at Partners for Justice, or they can
Speaker 3: follow and I guess I should say, and they can
Speaker 3: follow my much my spicy tweets at Galvin Almonza it's
Speaker 3: just my last name. It do a weekly video on
Speaker 3: things that are awful in our legal system. So if
Speaker 3: people want to get like that, like spike of outrage
Speaker 3: once a week, come on Twitter with me and I
Speaker 3: will I will give you a spike.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's not just blind outrage.
Speaker 2: You also have solutions and ideas for things to do,
Speaker 2: so I do I highly recommend. Is there a work
Speaker 2: of media that you've been enjoying?
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm going to be really nerdy, guys. There was
Speaker 3: a paper that came out a couple months ago from
Speaker 3: Vita B. Johnson, who is a lawyer, and she wrote
Speaker 3: a paper called Whom do Prosecutors Protect? And I know
Speaker 3: that mostly people are not like you know, what I'm
Speaker 3: waiting for is the next hot law paper to drop.
Speaker 3: And I'm going to just dive into that bastard and
Speaker 3: roll around. But it's really good and it's really accessible,
Speaker 3: and it details every single way in which the kind
Speaker 3: of problematic incentives. We've been talking about prosecution as a
Speaker 3: pastive power and the inter reliance between prosecutors and pull
Speaker 3: police are robbing ordinary Americans of their chance of justice.
Speaker 3: And it's a really good paper.
Speaker 1: Damn that sounds good. Amazing.
Speaker 2: Miles. Where can people find you? And what is the
Speaker 2: latest legal brief that you've been in?
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me give me a second about the legal brief.
Speaker 1: I just found this one, the Pelican brief. Oh hell,
Speaker 1: yeah too, dude. You can find me. You can find
Speaker 1: me at is that? Oh yeah, that actually makes sense.
Speaker 1: Huh huh. Thanks for that little factoid. I'm gonna take
Speaker 1: that to the take that to the bar tonight. You
Speaker 1: can find me at Miles of Great on Twitter and Instagram.
Speaker 1: You can find Jack and I on the basketball podcast
Speaker 1: Miles and Jack Got Mad Boosties. You could also find
Speaker 1: me talking about ninety day fiance on four to twenty
Speaker 1: Day Fiance, a tweet I like, oh man, so uh
Speaker 1: the you know libs of TikTok person Chireachik tweeted out
Speaker 1: a few days ago. It said, I'm looking for parents
Speaker 1: anywhere in Ohio who have kids in public schools to
Speaker 1: be eyes and ears on the your identity will remain
Speaker 1: anonymous and protected. Please DM me if you fit this criteria.
Speaker 1: Patton Oswalt quote tweeted this and said, Chaia, I am
Speaker 1: so glad you're doing this. There's a boy in our neighborhood, Elliott,
Speaker 1: a child of divorce, who we think is hiding an
Speaker 1: alien in his closet with the help of his siblings
Speaker 1: Gertie and Michael me hitting her with that et. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that is one of my favorite tweets.
Speaker 2: Rees leave Ohio public schools alone, y'all.
Speaker 1: That's I I.
Speaker 2: Am a product of Ohio public schools. They do. They
Speaker 2: do fine work every once in a while, all right,
Speaker 2: tweet I've been enjoying. Katie at Skatie four twenty tweeted
Speaker 2: they should call that guy Edgar allan poem because of
Speaker 2: all those poems he did similarly smart, yeah yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: yeah great, and then Brandy Jensen tweeted, I love when
Speaker 2: an it guy refers to my laptop as your machine.
Speaker 1: Kind of cool here so cool.
Speaker 2: You can find me on Twitter at Jack Underscore O Brian.
Speaker 2: You can find us on Twitter at Daily Zeitgeist where
Speaker 2: at the Daily Zeitgeist on Instagram. We have a Facebook fanpage.
Speaker 2: On website dailyzeikeist dot com, we post our episodes and
Speaker 2: our footnote no link off to the information that we
Speaker 2: talked about in today's episode, as well as a song
Speaker 2: that we think you might enjoy Miles a song do
Speaker 2: you think people might enjoy?
Speaker 1: I stumbled stumbled across a producer by the name of
Speaker 1: Harrison and just going through some of their tracks, and
Speaker 1: there's this one track that's really popular of his that's
Speaker 1: called Selfish High Heels and it's with him Young Bay
Speaker 1: and mac Ross eighty two ninety nine. But the sound
Speaker 1: of it is like eighties like Japanese city pop kind
Speaker 1: of stuff from the eighties, but like a little bit
Speaker 1: more like modern and futuristic. It's kind of trippy. So
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed it. So this is Selfish High Heels
Speaker 1: by Young Bay and Harrison, and.
Speaker 2: It also creates like the next Pixheart movie about the
Speaker 2: promorphic shoes and you got the you know, funky sneakers,
Speaker 2: the selfish high heels, silly slippers. I don't know, you
Speaker 2: guys do the work. I gonna waste anymore of your time.
Speaker 2: The kind of high high tops, like they smoke a
Speaker 2: little weed you know.
Speaker 1: The Daily's Eye Guy is the production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeart
Speaker 2: Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 2: favorite shows. That is going to do it for us
Speaker 2: this week. We are back on Tuesday after Labor Day
Speaker 2: to tell you what was trending over the long weekend
Speaker 2: and we will talk to you all then Bye.