DROWNING IN DEBT WHILE THE COST OF COLLEGE KEEPS GOING UP ANOTHER BLUE-RED DIVIDE •.SOME STATES RESTRICT TRANSGENDER CARE, OTHERS PROVIDE SANCTUARY.

SIX MONTHS INTO THE GAZA WAR, WITH NO END IN SIGHT.

AND HUMANITY'S “UNCONTROLLED EXPERIMENT ” ON OUR KIDS.

STAY TUNED FOR IVORY TOWER ON THE ROAD, NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO A SPECIAL HOUR-LONG EDITION OF IVORY TOWER ON THE ROAD.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY SARAH PRALLE FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM GANNON UNIVERSITY, AND RICK FENNER AND LUKE PERRY, BOTH FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

LUKE, RICK AND I ARE ON OUR HOME TURF, AS WE'RE COMING TO YOU THIS WEEK FROM THE STREBEL STUDENT CENTER ON THE CAMPUS OF UTICA UNIVERSITY.

WE'LL TAKE SOME STUDENT QUESTIONS LATER IN THE SHOW.

THE COST OF A COLLEGE EDUCATION KEEPS GOING UP.

AT SOME ELITE PRIVATE SCHOOLS, WE LEARNED THIS WEEK, THE PRICE TAG IS NOW PUSHING 100 THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

THAT SEEMS HARD TO BELIEVE.

ALSO THIS WEEK, PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO CANCEL STUDENT DEBT FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, AFTER AN EARLIER PLAN WAS STOPPED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

BUT IS THIS SORT OF DEBT RELIEF A GOOD IDEA?

>> WELL, DAVE, FIRST, OUR STUDENT LOAN SYSTEM IN THE U.S. IS DYSFUNCTIONAL.

WE HAVE WAY TOO MANY CATEGORIES IS OF LOANS AND LOAN REPAYMENT PLANS.

IT'S SO CONFUSING.

IF YOU ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS REALLY GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HANDLING THESE PROGRAMS OVER TO PRIVATE LOAN SERVICING COMPANIES THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE TO EDUCATE BORROWERS AND LED LEAD THEM INTO THE RIGHT PLAN.

I SHARE THE PRESIDENT'S FRUSTRATION.

I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS.

THE FIRST IS EVERYTHING HE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT HAS BEEN LOOKING BACKWARD.

HE HASN'T SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GUIDING US TO, YOU KNOW, TRY TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE CURRENT GENERATION OF COLLEGE STUDENTS, LIKE THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE RIGHT NOW OR FUTURE BORROWERS DON'T SUFFER THE SAME FATE.

AND I THINK WE ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT.

WE ALREADY HAVE LOAN REPAYMENT PLANS THAT FORGIVE PAYMENTS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOW PAYING JOBS, WHO HAVE TAKEN ON SO MUCH DEBT.

SO I THINK IF WE WOULD JUST TRY TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLER AND EDUCATE PEOPLE, WE ARE ABOUT HALFWAY THERE.

>> SO ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF BIDEN'S DEBT PLAN, LUKE, IS THAT IT FAVORS PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE TO COLLEGE AT THE EXPENSIVE OF PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T.

SO ESSENTIALLY, THE TAXPAYERS, THOSE TAXPAYERS ARE SUBSIDIZING PEOPLE LIKE US WHO HAVE GONE TO COLLEGE.

SO IS THIS FUNDAMENTALLY AN UNFAIR SYSTEM?

>> YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK IS UNFAIR, DAVE?

I THINK PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD COLLEGE OUTRIGHT.

THEY GET COLLEGE LOANS AND IT'S THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND BANKS THAT PROFIT OFF THAT.

I THINK THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THE SYSTEM FISHES AND FOREMOST IS TO ELIMINATE INTEREST ON ALL COLLEGE STUDENT LOANS.

THERE IS NO REASON THESE ENTITIES SHOULD PROFIT OFF MODERATE TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE.

AND SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT FAIRNESS, THAT'S WHERE I BEGIN.

>> SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAY OF THE LAND, RIGHT?

IT'S LIKE 45 MILLION PEOPLE OWING 1.9 TRILLION IN STUDENT DEBT.

THAT'S LIKE THE G.D.P.

OF AUSTRALIA.

MIND BOGGLING FIGURES.

THIS SPURIOUS ARGUMENT, WHY DO WE TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY THEIR LOANS?

I THINK IT'S A SPURIOUS ARGUMENT MORE BASED ON JEALOUSY THAN ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE WE PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ALL DIFFERENT THINGS.

WE DID THIS MASSIVE BANK BAILOUTS OF 2008.

WE GIVE REGULAR INTEREST RATE SUBSIDIES TO MIDDLE-CLASS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE GIVEN TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE AT THE COST OF OTHER TAXPAYERS MONEY.

LET ME FINISH THIS QUICKLY.

YOU KNOW, A LARGE NUMBER OF THESE LOANS ARE AROUND $25,000.

SO WHEN FOX NEWS AND OTHERS THAT SAY THAT WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR THESE RICH KIDS LOANS?

THEY SHOULD LOOK AT THE DATA INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN JEALOUSY.

>> YOU KNOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT LOTS OF PLANS FOR OTHER GROUPS.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE UPSET BY THIS WEREN'T TOO HAPPY WITH THE BANK BAILOUT EITHER, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THERE IS A BOOK CALLED INDENTURED STUDENTS BY ELIZABETH SHARMA, I REFER EVERYONE TO READ, A GREAT HISTORY OF THE STUDENT LOAN AND HOW THE LOAN ITSELF IS FEEDING INTO HIGHER AND HIGHER FUSION BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU CAN GET AS MUCH LOAN AS YOU WANT.

>> SARAH, BIDEN HAS FORGIVEN DEBT FOR OTHER GROUPS AND NOW HE IS AFELTING-- ATTEMPTING TO DO IT AGAIN.

WHAT DOES THIS TELL US ABOUT THE SYSTEM?

THE SYSTEM OF PAYING FOR COLLEGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

>> WELL, ACTUALLY I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT LIKE BIDEN'S-- THIS KIND OF POLICY IS REALLY GOOD POLITICS.

IT'S POLITICS FOR BIDEN, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW.

HE NEEDS THE YOUTH VOTE AND THIS IS A VERY POPULAR ISSUE WITH YOUNG PEOPLE UNDERSTANDABLY, RIGHT?

BUT I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GOOD POLICY.

AND I KNOW IT'S GOING TO MAKE ME PRETTY UNPOPULAR IN THIS CONTEXT OR IN THIS SETTING.

BUT THE REASON WHY IS FIRST OF ALL, THE TIMING.

SO THIS ISSUE CAME OUT REALLY CAME TO A HEAD DURING THE OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT WHICH WAS AROUND 2011-2012.

THIS WAS RIGHT AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION THERE.

WAS ACTUALLY A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE YOU KNOW, HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT FOR COLLEGE GRADS.

RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN A PERIOD OF TREMENDOUS JOB GROWTH.

WAGES ARE ACTUALLY GOING UP FOR A CHANGE.

WE HAVE A VERY GOOD ECONOMY FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES WHO, OVER THEIR LIFETIME, ARE GOING TO MAKE A MILLION MORE DOLLARS OR MORE THAN NON-COLLEGE GRADUATES.

SO I FIRST THINK THE TIMING-- THE OTHER THING IS THAT COLLEGE PRICES ARE ACTUALLY COMING DOWN, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

IF YOU ADJUST FOR INFLATION, THE NET PRICE THAT ACTUALLY STUDENTS ARE PAYING HAS GONE DOWN 10 TO 13% OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

AND SO I JUST THINK WE NEED A MORE TARGETED PROGRAM.

I'M NOT AGAINST IT ENTIRELY.

BUT WE SHOULD TARGET IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED THE HELP, TO MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES.

BIDEN'S PLAN RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO GIVE DEBT RELIEF TO-- OR GIVE LOAN-- SORRY, GOING TO GET RITD OF INTEREST ON PEOPLE WHO MAKE $120,000 OR LESS OR COUPLES THAT MAKE $240,000 OR LESS.

TO, ME THAT IS NOT MIDDLE-CLASS.

THAT IS UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS.

I THINK THOSE PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS.

>> IN FACT, I THINK THIS PROGRAM IS BETTER THAN ITS INITIAL ONE TURNED DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT.

AMALSIS OF THAT SHOWED THAT MUCH OF THAT WAS GOING TO UPPER INCOME PEOPLE, SO I AGREE WITH SARAH.

>> LETS GET BEN IN ON THIS.

DOES HE EVEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS IN.

>> HE HASN'T IN THE PAST, BUT HE CAN DO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

IT IS BROKEN.

FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN TO SAY THAT IT'S HURT A LITTLE BIT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.

IT'S PATCHWORKED FROM THE RACE TO THE MOON AND TRYING TO MAKE HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT AFFLUENT.

SO IT'S BROKEN.

IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

I THINK PART OF FIXING IT IS MAKING EDUCATION AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYBODY.

>> SO I BET PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE WONDERING WHY IS THE COST SO HIGH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WE SHOULD POINT OUT, HERE AT UTICA UNIVERSITY, IT DOESN'T COST $100,000 A YEAR TO GO TO SCHOOL.

THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, SUPER, SUPER VANDERBILT, I THINK WAS THAT ONE.

BUT IT'S AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION ANYWHERE.

WHY?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN PAYING FULL TUITION USUALLY DOESN'T COVER THE FULL COST OF A COLLEGE EDUCATION; THAT ENDOWMENTS, GRANTS AND OTHER THINGS ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.

IF YOU LOOK AT AND JUST COMPARE THE RUNNING OF A UNIVERSITY WITH, SAY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, THE AMOUNT OF FACILITIES, FACULTY, STAFF AND EVERYTHING ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.

AND SO PART OF THE REASONS IS ALL OF THE SERVICES AND PEOPLE THAT TAKE PART IN THIS.

NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT OVER TIME EDUCATION HAS RISEN IN COST HIGHER THAN INFLATION AND PART OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO MOST COLLEGES BRAG ABOUT.

THE FACULTY TO STUDENT RATIO.

WE TRY OFTEN TIMES NOT TO BE EFFICIENT.

WE WANT TO KEEP THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER FACULTY NUMBER FAIRLY LOW.

THAT MEANS WE DON'T ALWAYS GET TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COST SAVING INNOVATIONS.

>> I WANT TO PUSH BACK ON A COUPLE THINGS MY COLLEAGUES SAID.

I THINK PRESIDENT BIDEN IS ON FIRMER GROUND WITH THIS APPROACH.

HE PREVIOUSLY RELIED ON THE HEROES ACT WHICH GAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SOME LATITUDE TO ELIMINATE DEBT IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS AND THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURT.

IN THIS CASE, THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO WORK THROUGH THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT WHICH I THINK IS A FIRMER LEGAL STANDING TO TRY TO DO THIS.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THIS IS PRESIDENT BIDEN'S LEGACY.

$146 BILLION OF STUDENT LOANS DEBT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED ALREADY AFFECTING 4 MILLION PEOPLE.

THERE IS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT BIDEN'S LEGACY IS.

I THINK THAT CLEARLY SPEAKS TO IT.

AND TO SARAH'S POINT, I STRUGGLE WITH THE IDEA THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE AFFORD IT MAKES IT RIGHT THAT BANKS AND THE GOVERNMENT PROFIT OFF THEM.

I WENT TO A COLLEGE VERY MUCH LIKE THIS, SMALL PRIVATE COLLEGE, AFFORDABLE, 20 YEARS AGO I GRADUATED OR SO.

[LAUGHTER] IT WAS $10,000 A YEAR.

BETWEEN THAT AND GRADUATE SCHOOL EVEN THOUGH I GOT A FULL SCHOLARSHIP I ENDED UP WITH 60 TO $70,000 IN LOANS AND THE LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM I WAS ABLE TO HAVE 30,000 OF THATY LIP NATEED.

WHAT IS THE PUBLIC GOOD IN THAT?

I DID THE 20 TO 30 HOURS A WEEK TO SERVICE.

THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE.

COMMUNITY SERVICE IN MY TOWN IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND GOVERNMENT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

I FEEL AN OBLIGATION BECAUSE THIS SOCIETY INVESTED IN ME TO GIVE BACK MY KNOWLEDGE THAT I GAINED IN COLLEGE AND GRADUATE SCHOOL WHICH INFINITELY CHANGED MY LIFE FOR THE BETTER AND WE NEED TO EXPAND THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.

>> WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THAT RIGHT THERE.

>> REAL QUICK THOUGH BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED THE PRIVATE LOANS BECAUSE THAT IS OFF THE RAILS AND THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED.

>> TWENTY-ONE STATES HAVE PASSED LAWS LIMITING ACCESS TO WHAT SOME CALL "GENDER-AFFIRMING" CARE FOR TRANSGENDER MINORS.

A FEW STATES ALSO RESTRICT ACCESS TO CARE FOR TRANSGENDER ADULTS.

IN RESPONSE, A NUMBER OF STATES INCLUDING NEW YORK ARE NOW PASSING TRANSGENDER SANCTUARY LAWS.

THESE LAWS SHIELD PEOPLE FROM OUT OF STATE WHO COME FOR MEDICAL CARE, AS WELL AS IN-STATE PROVIDERS, FROM BEING PROSECUTED BY THEIR HOME STATES.

IN MAINE, A PROPOSED SHIELD LAW THAT ALSO PROTECTS PROVIDERS OF ABORTION AND IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION HAS COME UNDER ATTACK FROM REPUBLICAN STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.

CAN STATES PREVENT PEOPLE FROM CROSSING STATE LINES FOR TREATMENT?

BEING PROVIDED IN ANOTHER STATE AND THE PROVIDERS THERE AS WELL?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE STATES HAVE THE POWER OR ABILITY TO KIND OF ENFORCE THOSE KINDS OF LAWS ACROSS STATE LINES.

U.S. IS A WONDERFUL CASE OF FEDERALISM.

LOOK, THE ULTRARABID RIGHT FAILED THROUGH THE DECISION WHEN THEY BE TRYING TO DO THIS AGAINST LGBTQ PEOPLE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

NOW GAY MARRIAGE HAPPENED AND ALL THIS HAPPENED, THE ULTRARABID RIGHT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT THIS.

SO WHO DO YOU TARGET?

LET'S CRIMINALIZE TRANS CARE.

LET'S GO AFTER TRANSGENDER PEOPLE.

LET'S GO AFTER SOME FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, WHICH IS BASICALLY CARE FOR YOURSELF.

SO WHEN PEOPLE ARE MOVING, AND I FOLLOW THIS AMAZING TRANSGENDER ACT VISITER ERIN REED.

ERIN IN THE MORNING.

SHE USES A LOT OF DATA AND SHOWS THE MASSIVE MIGRATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO CITIES LIVING OUT OF VANS.

NEW YORK AND OTHER PLACES ARE DOING THIS.

IT'S GOOD TO CARE, TO AFFIRM THAT CARE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT'S ONLY THE RICH WHO ARE ABLE TO MOVE.

NOW MY BIGGER QUESTION IS, AND MAYBE LUCAS AN AMERICANIST HERE, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CALLS SAYS THAT STATES HAVE TO HONOR THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF OTHER STATES.

SO DO YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD BE AN ARTICLE 4 VIOLATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU KNOW, NEW YORK PROVIDES THAT KIND OF CARE, WHICH IS MAYBE YOU KNOW, NOT LEGAL IN THE OTHER STATES.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT U.S.

FEDERALISM, ONE OF THE WAYS OFTEN DESCRIBED IS LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY.

WE SEE PARTICULARLY NOW IN A DEEPLY POLARIZED SOCIETY, WITH HYPERPARTISANSHIP STATES REALLY SEPARATING THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY ON SOCIAL ISSUES.

AND NOT ONLY ARE DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY COMING DOWN ON THIS ISSUE IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND OTHER ISSUES, BUT SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE MAKING EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS TO TRY TO PREVENT THEIR CITIZENS FROM DOING OTHER THINGS IN OTHER STATES.

THAT'S FAIRLY ATYPICAL.

WE DON'T USUALLY SEE THAT IN U.S. FEDERAL ITCH.

WHEN IT COMES TO DOING THINGS TO YOUR OWN BODY, I'M GOING TO GET A HAIR CUT OR TATTOO OR PIERCING OR-- I WON'T, DO DRUGS BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL THERE OR GET PLASTIC SURGERY, THE IDEA THAT NEW YORK STATE HAS ANY AUTHORITY OF ME WHEN I SPEND MY TIME SOMEWHERE ELSE DOING THESE TYPES OF THINGS IS UNUSUAL.

>> WE HAVE SEEN THAT, NOW IN TRANSGENDER CARE BUT IN ABORTION, FOR EXAMPLE, TEXAS, FOR ONE, TRIED TO-- >> TEXAS IS CLAIMING IF YOU USE THEIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, ROADS, WHATEVER, TO LEAVE THE STATE, THAT YOU ARE VIOLATING THEIR LAW.

AND WHAT THEY HAVE ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO DO IS USE CIVIL LAW TO SUE SO THAT THE AUTHORITIES DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND DO THIS.

YOUR NEIGHBOR CAN RAT YOU OUT.

THAT STEAMS TO ME REALLY STRETCHING THE LAW IN TERMS OF TRYING TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM GOING OUT OF STATE.

>> THE TRANSGENDER CARE, CLEARLY PUSH BACK FROM THE RIGHT AS ANIRBAN SAID, BUT SARAH, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THESE THINGS WORK?

>> I MEAN THERE IS A RECENT STORY ABOUT THE EUROPEAN UNION, ACTUALLY AND SEVERAL COUNTRIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT ARE RETHINKING SOME OF THEIR TRANSGENDER CARE AND FIRST I WOULD JUST SAY IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH ANIRBAN, THE DISCUSSION IN THE UNITED STATES IS TAKING PACE IS NOT A GOOD FAITH DISCUSSION, RIGHT?

IT'S NOT SCIENTIFICALLY INFORMED.

IT'S NOT GOOD FAITH.

IT'S HIGHLY PARTISAN AND PUNITIVE N. EUROPE, IT SEEMS TO BE LESS PARTISAN, LESS PUNITIVE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO REALLY ASSESS THE RESEARCH BELIEVE I'M NOT CLEAR WHERE THAT LEAVES US.

I'M NOT CONVINCED FROM WHAT I'VE READ THAT THESE THINGS ARE HARMFUL AT ALL TO PEOPLE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE EXPLORING IN EUROPE.

IN THIS COUNTRY, ALMOST ALL MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS SAY THAT AFFIRMATIVE CARE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE IN DISTRESS ABOUT THEIR GENDER IS SUPER HELPFUL FOR THEM IN TERMS OF THEIR ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, ACCESS-A-RIDALITY ALL GOES DOWN AFTER THESE-- SUICIDALITY GOES DOWN AFTER THESE TREATMENTS AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE IDEA OF DETRANSITIONING, PEOPLE MIGHT CHANGE THEIR MIND AFTERWARDS, IS VERY, VERY LOW.

>> I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ASK THE POLLS, THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT WHEN YOU PUT A SERIALIZED LIST OF THINGS, WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT, TRANSGENDER ISSUES COME UP ALWAYS THE LAST ACROSS ALL DIFFERENT POLLS.

IT'S NOT AMERICANS FIRST THINGS IN THEIR MIND.

IT'S JUST A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DRILLIZE OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

-- HO WANT TO CRIMINALIZE OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

>> I THINK SCIENCE SHOULD BE LEADING THE DISCUSSION AND I DON'T THINK IT IS IN EITHER EXTREME ON THIS ISSUE.

I THINK THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS WE'RE FINDING THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS PUBERTY BLOCKERS HAVE ALL SORTS OF SIDE EFFECTS.

THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN'S AND WHAT THE STUDY FROM EUROPE IS SHOWING IS THAT GENDER IDENTITY IS VERY FLUID.

SO TREATING PEOPLE, EITHER MEDICALLY OR EVEN WITH NON-MEDICAL REASONS MAY BE SOMEWHAT PREMATURE.

>> SO, BEN, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY TOUCHED ON THE MENTAL HEALTH ASPECT OF THIS, AND THAT HAS TO BE A HUGE PART OF IT FOR SOMEONE WHO IS IN THIS POSITION.

>> YES, GENDER DYSPHORIA IS LABELED IN BOTH THE DSM THAT WE USE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE ICD-11 THAT THEY USE IN EUROPE AND THE YOU CAN.

IN FACT, THE U.K. JUST RELEASED A REPORT THIS WEEK WITH A LOT OF EVIDENCE IN IT THAT IS CONTRADICTING A LOT OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID ON THIS STAGE.

SO I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND OUR VIEWERS TAKE A LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS CONCERNING THAT 1: WE ARE EITHER PATIENT PATIENT CENTERED OR WE ARE CUSTOMER CENTERED AS A MEDICAL DOCTOR.

WE GOT INTO TROUBLE A FEW TIMES IN RECENT HISTORY; ONE WITH TRYING TO RECALL MEMORIES THAT WERE THERE IN THE SYMPTOMS WERE ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION.

AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE EASILY-- THEIR MEMORIES CAN BE EASILY SCRAMBLED OR RECALL THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

SO WE DO NEED TO GO BACK TO THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE.

IT NEEDS TO BE EVIDENCE-BASED AND SCIENCE-BASED AND UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE-OF-THE-AGE OF CONSENT COMES INTO PLAY WITH THIS, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKING SOME SERIOUS DECISIONS WHEN YOU CAN'T LEGALLY SMOKE, YOU CAN'T LEGALLY DRINK, YOU CAN'T SERVE YOUR KUN COUNTRY.

THAT IS A BIG DEAL WHEN YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR BODY.

BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT-- IF YOU HAVE A SELF IMAGE PROBLEM AND YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND YOU THINK YOU ARE TOO HEAVY, THEY CAN'T HELP YOU.

>> THE THE-- THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY AS TRANS IS HIGHEST AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE, 13-17-YEAR-OLD THAT'S THE CASE IN AMERICA.

IN NEW YORK STATE, ONE STUDY SAID 3% OF PEOPLE BETWEEN 13-17 IDENTIFY AS TRANS.

BUT I'M WONDERING WHY IS IT THAT THIS IS, WE ARE SEEING MORE OF IT-- SELF IDENTIFICATION AMONG YOUTH.

ANYBODY HAVE A THEORY ON THAT?

>> WE ARE A MORE TOLERANT SOCIETY, HOPEFULLY, RIGHT IN OBVIOUSLY A BIG BACKLASH BUT I THINK PEOPLE ARE MORE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THAT IN A WAY THAT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, IF NOT DANGEROUS TO DO SO.

IT'S STILL DANGEROUS, AS WE KNOW.

BUT EVEN MORE SO IN THE PAST.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS.

>> WITH THE INJUNCTION AGAINST USING LEFT HAND.

WHEN THAT WENT AWAY, YOU SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAME LEFT HANDED.

IT PLATEAUED OUT AFTER A CERTAIN POINT OF TIME.

SO WE MIGHT BE SEEING THAT PHENOMENA WHERE PEOPLE ARE AFFIRMING THEIR IDENTITY IN A CERTAIN WAY BECAUSE NOW IT'S COMING OUT, LESS CRIMINALIZED IN CERTAIN STATES.

BUT OVER TIME, IT PLATEAUS OUT AND INTO KIND OF, WHATEVER THE NORMAL STATISTICS ARE.

>> AND I THINK AS SOCIETY CHANGES AND WE ARE MORE TOLERANT AS SARAH SAID AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BETTER ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THEIR IDENTITY HOW THEY LIKE, I THINK THAT LEADS TO MORE AND MORE PEOPLE KNOWING PEOPLE IN THEIR FAMILY, KNOWING PEOPLE THAT THEY WORK WITH, KNOWING PEOPLE WHO ARE THEIR NEIGHBORS, ALL THOSE APPLY TO ME, WHO ARE TRANSGENDER AND THAT GRADUALLY CREATES UNDERSTANDING AND I HOPE THE IDEALISTIC PART OF ME THAT WILL SHAPE BETTER MORE EFFECTIVE RELATED PUBLIC POLL.

>> I BUT WE CAN'T MISS THE BOAT OF WHAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS CONVERSATION IS AND THAT IS HAVING MEDICAL TREATMENT DONE TO A JUVENILE THAT CAN'T-- THAT CAN HAVE SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS TO THEIR PHYSICAL HEALTH.

AS A DOCTOR, YOU ARE BEING TOLD TO GO BEYOND YOUR DO NO HARM OUT OF THE GATE.

IF WE ARE TELLING OUR MEDICAL DOCTORS AFTER SEVEN YEARS THAT THEY ARE PATIENT-ORIENTED, THEN THAT'S ONE THING.

BUT WE ARE TELLING THEM THAT THEY ARE CONSUMER-ORIENTED.

>> IF WE LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THAT ARE REFERENCED EARLIER, 99% OF PEOPLE WHO GO THROUGH GENDER AFFIRMING CARE DO NOT LATER REGRET DOING THAT.

THAT NUMBER IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE KNEE REPLACEMENTS OR HIP REPLACEMENTS OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

I THINK AS WE TALK ABOUT, THE SCIENCE IS IN PROGRESS AND TO VARIOUS DEGREES CONCLUSIVE AND WE CAN DISAGREE ON THAT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS SERIOUS REGRET FOR PEOPLE WHO GO THROUGH THIS AND UNTIL THERE IS THAT EVIDENCE-- >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, THAT 99% INCLUDES ADULTS, AND AS BEN SAID, THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS TREATMENT FOR MINORS.

OUR DATA ON MINORS IS MUCH MORE LIMITED THAN IT IS FOR ADULTS.

WE ARE SEEING THAT, AGAIN, THE PUBERTY BLOCKERS, MAYO CLINIC IS COMING OUT SAYING THEY MAY CAUSE CANCER.

THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES-- AND AGAIN, I THINK WE OUGHT TO, REGARDLESS OF OUR PRIORS, LET THE SCIENCE LEAD THE DISCUSSION RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

>> THAT'S REALLY HARD IN THIS HIGHLY PARTISAN CONTEXT, RIGHT?

THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.

AGAIN, LIKE I'M SAYING, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THIS ARE NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

AND THAT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A SCIENCE DRIVEN... >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT BECAUSE WE ARE SO POLARIZED.

IF YOU BELIEVE THE WORLD IS ROUND, THAT'S ONE EXTREME.

IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S FLAT IS THE OTHER.

BETWEEN IS NOT A MODERATE POSITION AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT.

SO WE ARE SPRAILTED ON THIS-- WE ARE SO SEPARATED ON THIS AND IT HAS BECOME POLITICAL ON IT WHEN IT SHOULD NOT.

>> THAT'S THE LAST WORD ON THAT.

SIX MONTHS INTO THE GAZA WAR AND THERE'S NO END IN SIGHT.

THE DEATH TOLL IS MOUNTING.

FAMINE LOOMS.

HOPES HAVE FADED FOR A GRAND DIPLOMATIC DEAL INCLUDING SAUDI ARABIA.

HAMAS LEADERS ARE STILL BELIEVED TO BE HIDING UNDERGROUND, LIKELY SURROUNDED BY ISRAELI HOSTAGES.

ISRAEL IS FINALLY OPENING ANOTHER AID ROUTE INTO GAZA, AND IT HAS REDUCED ITS TROOP PRESENCE THERE.

BUT PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU STILL SAYS ISRAEL MUST INVADE RAFAH TO FINISH HAMAS, WHILE THE U.S. IS PUSHING FOR MORE TARGETED AND SURGICAL STRIKES.

THE UNITED STATES HAS TREMENDOUS LEVERAGE OVER ISRAEL, SHOULD PRESIDENT BIDEN USE IT AND THREATEN TO STOP SENDING MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND AID TO ISRAEL TO FORCE A CEASEFIRE?

OR A RES GLUTION HE HAS BEEN DOING IT ALONG WITH OTHER GLOBAL LEADERS, TRYING TO GET, AT THE VERY LEAST, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING ACCESS TO BASIC NEEDS IN GAZA.

THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING STARVED AND IT'S NOT-- YOU KNOW, LIKE IT IS BEYOND A WAR ZONE.

AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

YOU CAN'T EVEN GO IN AS A JOURNALIST AT THIS POINT.

THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE JOURNALISTS COME IN AND REPORT ON THE CONDITIONS AND YOU ARE NOT FEEDING THE PEOPLE THERE, THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM AND THE ENTIRE WORLD SHOULD BE UPSET ABOUT THAT.

>> YOU KNOW, FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF COLONIZATION AND STUFF, THE UNITED STATES BROKERED A NEW WORLD ORDER AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND THE CORNERSTONE OF THAT WAS THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL.

RECENTLY THE SECURITY COUNCIL CAME UP WITH A RESOLUTION SAYING THAT THIS CEASE FIRE, MADE A VERY STRONG DEMAND.

IT SAID THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL DEMANDS THAT THOSE INVOLVED IN THE WAR SHOULD AS A FIRST STEP CEASE FIRE AND DISCONTINUE ALL MILITARY ACTIVITIES.

WHAT IS THE U.S.

DOING?

IT'S TRYING TO SELL THAT IT'S NOT A BINDING RESOLUTION WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

WHY DO WE HAVE THE U.N. ACTUALLY FOR?

I THINK, YES, THAT WE SPEND SO MUCH MONEY GIVING ISRAEL 500-POUND BOMBS TO DROP ON CIVILIANS ON A REGULAR BASIS, GIVEN THAT THEIR FINANCE MINISTER HAS SAID THAT WE WANT TO ACTUALLY ELIMINATE PALESTINIANS FROM THAT LAND, WE SHOULD TAKE A VERY STRONG STANCE SAYING THAT KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS IS NOT OKAY AND CRITICIZING THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IS NOT ANTI-SEMITIC.

THIS IS A NO BRAINER.

WE PAY MONEY-- OUR TAXPAYER MONEY GO IN FUNDING THIS WAR SO U.S. SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY STOP THIS WAR OR WE WILL NOT GIVE YOU EQUIPMENT AND WEAPONS AND AT LEAST FOLLOW THE UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION.

IT'S A UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL... >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY STOP THE WAR.

>> THIS IS NOT A NO BRAINER.

THIS IS NOT A PALESTINE OR ISRAEL THING.

YOU HAVE HAMAS.

YOU HAVE HUTIS, HEZBOLLAH, ALL OF THESE GROUPS ARE BEING FUNDED BY PEOPLE AROUND THAT REGION AND SPECIFICALLY IRAN BACKED GROUPS.

AND THEY ARE FIRING ON ISRAEL FROM LEBANON, FROM GAZA, FROM IRAQ, FROM SYRIA AND FROM YEMEN.

>> I WANT TO SAY THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS GOING ON FIRST.

URBAN WARFARE ALWAYS LEADS TO MANY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.

SECOND, HAMAS IS TRYING TO MAXIMIZE NUMBER OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT'S GOING TO PUT PRESSURE ON ISRAEL TO BACK OFF AND THAT'S WHAT IS HAPPENING.

THE OTHER THING IS WE ALSO KNOW THAT ISRAEL'S GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY THOSE FROM THE VERY RIGHT THAT CARE VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS.

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION, I THINK COMES DOWN TO DOES HAMAS, AS A STRUCTURED ORGANIZATION NEED TO BE ELIMINATED?

IF THE ANSWER IS YES, THEN EVEN A CEASE FIRE HAS TO BE A TEMPORARY SOLUTION.

IF NO, THEN MAYBE WE ARE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE AND CARRY ON.

BUT MY GUESS IS THAT MOST IN ISRAEL STILL BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED.

ISRAEL HAS NOT DONE A GOOD JOB OF HUMANITARIAN AID AND DOESN'T CARE, MANY OF THEM DON'T CARE ABOUT PALESTINIANS BUT IT'S NOT QUITE SO SIMPLE AS TELLING THE U.S. TO PUT ITS FOOT DOWN... >> YOU DO NEED TWO PARTIES TO HAVE A CEASE FIRE.

AND HAMAS HAS NOT AGREED TO A CEASE FIRE EITHER, RIGHT?

>> GO AHEAD, LUKE.

>> YEAH, I WOULD SAY TO THAT POINT, THE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYERS IN THIS DON'T WANT IT TO END.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU IS GOING TO LOSE HIS JOB, RIGHT, IF HE DOESN'T PLEASE HIS RIGHT WING FACTION.

HE IS RIGHT WING HIMSELF BUT THERE ARE MORE EXTREME IN HIS COALITION.

IF HE DOESN'T DO WHAT THEY WANT, HE LOSES THE NEXT ELECTION, RIGHT?

AND HE FACES CORRUPTION CHARGES.

SO HE IS GOING TO TRY TO DRAG THIS OUT SASS AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE HIS POLITICAL CAREER WOULD BE OVER.

THE RIGHT WING FACTIONS DON'T WANT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION SO THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO WORK TOWARDS THAT.

AND CONTINUING THE WAR IN THE MANNER THAT THEY'RE CONTINUING IT, ALMOST ENSURES THAT THAT TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS NO THE GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON, PROBABLY LONG INTO THE FUTURE.

SO HE IS IN NO HURRY AND NEITHER IS HAMAS.

TO RICK'S POINT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE USING-- THEY'RE COUNTING ON THE FACT AND THEY WERE RIGHT, THAT THE WORLD IS TURNING AGAINST ISRAEL, RIGHT?

AND SO THE ARAB WORLD IS SUDDENLY VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS, NOT THAT THEY REALLY WERE BEFORE.

AND SO THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THIS AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, TOO.

Y ALSO DON'T WANT TO LOSE POWER TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, WHICH WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY GROUP TO TAKE CHARGE OF GAZA IN THE EVENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ACTUALLY OVER SOME DAY, RIGHT?

IRAN DOESN'T WANT IT TO END.

SO I JUST THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE INCENTIVES ON THE PART OF THE MAIN PLAYERS, IT BECOMES DIFFICULT, RIGHT?

AND BIDEN, THOUGH, I THINK COULD DO MORE AND SHOULD DO MORE.

RIGHT NOW HE IS VERY DISAPPOINTED, HE IS VERY CONCERNED, BUT THERE IS NOT A LOT OF ACTION BEHIND THOSE WORDS.

>> AND I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE HE IS IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION.

FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE SURE THAT ISRAEL HAS A QUALITATIVE MILITARY EDGE, MEANING THAT THEY MUST BE ARMED BY US TO BE ABLE TO ELIMINATE ANY CREDIBLE THREAT.

SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL LEVERAGE THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS.

BUT PER FEDERAL LAW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO REDUCE THE $4 BILLION IN ANNUAL AID THAT WE GIVE TO ISRAEL, $3.6 BILLION IS MILITARY.

HE IS IN A DIFFICULT DECISION.

HE CAN SAY ALL HE WANTS BEHIND THE SCENES TO BENJAMIN NETANYAHU BUT I SUSPECT NETTIA MU KNOWS THE ARMS AND MONEY WILL KEEP COMING BECAUSE OF THE LAW.

>> THAT LAW CAN'T CHANGE WITH THE CURRENT MAKEUP OF CONGRESS.

THERE IS NO WAY THAT WILL CHANGE.

>> I WILL SAY THIS IS WHAT IS PUBLICLY KNOWN.

THIS IS OPEN SOURCE INFORMATION.

WE ARE SEIZING WEAPONS AND PUTTING THEM IN UKRAINE.

I DON'T TYPICALLY GIVE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CREDIT BUT THEY ARE DOING STUFF WHERE THEY CAN AND WHEN THEY CAN.

BUT THIS IS A GLOBAL ISSUE THAT NEEDS A GLOBAL RESPONSE.

>> SO BIDEN DOES HAVE-- IT HAS BEEN REPORTED ANYWAY, A PEACE PLAN WHICH WOULD INVOLVE A TEMPORARY CEASE FIRE AT LEAST, BUT BRINGING IN THE SAUDIS, THE PLAN HAS BEEN FLOATED AND THEN IT SEEMS LIKE IT FADES AND HAS BEEN RESURRECTED A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THE WHOLE THING HINGES ON THE TWO STATES AND A PLAN, A PATH FOR THE TWO STATES.

>> EVEN LAWYERS ARE SAYING THE WHAT IS THE U.N.

RESOLUTION FOR?

WHAT DOES THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION MEAN AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU VIOLATE IT?

WE DON'T HAVE OR NEED A U.N. ANYMORE WHEN WE HAVE AN ALLY.

U.N.

RESOLUTIONS DON'T APPLY TO THEM?

IT ONLY APPLIES TO DICTATORS IRAQ AND IRAN?

IS THAT HOW... >> WHAT WAS THE POINT YOU MADE AT THE VERY BEGINNING?

THE POST-WAR ORDER WAS... >> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND BIDEN IS WILLING TO UP END THAT VERY ORDER BY TAKING THE RISK AND DOWNPLAYING A VERY IMPORTANT UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT CAME DOWN.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

>> THERE WAS AN INTERESTING COLUMN IN THE TIMES THIS MORNING , NEW YORK TIMES FROM THOMAS FRIEDMAN, SUGGESTING THAT , AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE HE IS MAKING THE CASE THAT ISRAEL HAS COMPLETELY MISPLAYED THIS AND THE BEST SOLUTION AT THIS POINT MIGHT WELL BE TO LEAVE HAMAS IN PLACE BECAUSE GAZA, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE ISRAELI RESPONSES, HAS DESTROYED GAZA AND THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE HAMAS MADE THAT DECISION TO ATTACK.

>> I GLEA, THE WHOLE DECISION OF DESTROYING HAMAS, DESTROYING HAMAS.

I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE HAPPENING.

YOU CANNOT DESTROY HAMAS, ANYMORE THAN THE UNITED STATES WAS ABLE TO DESTROY AL-QUEDA.

IT IS A RESISTANCE THAT HAS HAPPENED FOR A VERY LONG TIME BECAUSE OF THE PAIN THE PALESTINIANS HAVE SUFFERED AND OUR JEWISH FRIENDS HAVE COME IN FAVOR OF THAT.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU WAS SEEN ROUNDING UP RABBIS IN JERUSALEM WHO ARE PROTESTING AGAINST THE WAR, RIGHT.

SO DESTROYING HAMAS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DAY DREAM.

>> BUT ANIRBAN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND ONE THAT HAS CONTROL OVER AND IS DE FACTO GOVERNMENT AND SO I THINK THOSE THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT DESTROYING HAMAS REALIZE THAT BEST CASE SCENARIO, THEY HAVE HAMAS BE A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION THAT IS UNDER, SPREAD OUT ALL OVER THE PLACE AND IT CAN DO MUCH LESS DAMAGE THAN HAMAS APPARENTLY DID ON OCTOBER 7.

>> ISRAEL HAS TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ITS OWN HISTORY MENACHEM BEGIN FIGHTING FOR THEIR OWN INDEPENDENCE, WENT AND BOMBED THE KING DAVID HOTEL.

HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED.

WHAT HAPPENED?

WERE THEY ABLE TO DESTROY OR ELIMINATE?

BRITISH CALLED THEM TERRORISTS AT THAT TIME.

SO HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF IN VERY INTERESTING WAYS AND I'M SEEING THIS HAPPEN.

I CAN GUARANTEE THIS DESTROYING HAMAS STUFF IS JUST NOT GOING TO WORK.

>> OKAY.

A NEW LAW IN FLORIDA BANS CHILDREN UNDER 14 FROM HAVING SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS.

UNDER THE LAW, 14 AND 15 YEAR-OLDS WILL NEED PARENTAL CONSENT TO HAVE SOCIAL MEDIA.

OTHER STATES HAVE PASSED SIMILAR LAWS, AND HERE IN NEW YORK A BILL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED TO BAN ANYONE UNDER 18 FROM HAVING ALGORITHIM-BASED SOCIAL MEDIA FEEDS WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' PERMISSION.

MUCH OF THE CONCERN STEMS FROM WORK BY SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST JONATHAN HAIDT, WHO SAYS GIVING KIDS SMARTPHONES IS AN "UNCONTROLLED EXPERIMENT" CONDUCTED ON OUR CHILDREN.

BUT, SARAH, IS IT REALLY THAT DANGEROUS?

EF KID OUT IN THE AUDIENCE HAS A SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT.

THEY SEEM TO BE DOING OKAY.

IS IT REALLY THAT DANGEROUS?

>> WELL, I MEAN WHEN WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, IT'S SOMETIMES UNCLEAR WHAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT.

LIKE WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS?

WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL DANGERS AND SO PEOPLE ARE TALKING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

IS IT THE PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE ARE SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON IT, I GUESS YOUNG PEOPLE SPEND ABOUT FIVE HOURS A DAY ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND IS THAT PROBLEM RELATED TO THE FACT FAT THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING OTHER HEALTHY THINGS, YOU KNOW, LIKE SLEEPING OR PLAYING OUTSIDE OR STUDYING AND DOING HOME WORK.

IS THE PROBLEM THE CONTENT OF WHAT THEY'RE SEEING ON SOCIAL MEDIA?

THERE IS SOME RESEARCH THAT SHOWS THAT, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN SOCIAL MEDIA WILL RADICALIZE PEOPLE, RIGHT, IN A VERY PARTISAN WAY.

SOMETHING WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

IS IT THE DESIGN OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA SITES THAT'S THE PROBLEM?

DOES IT ENCOURAGE ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOR, THEY'RE HARD TO TURN AWAY FROM?

DISCOURAGES MAYBE DEEP THINKING AND CONCENTRATION BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS THE WAY THE INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO US IN SHORT SNIPPETS AND KIND OF ENDLESS SCROLLING.

WHEN WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATION, PEOPLE AREN'T REALLY EVEN AGREEING ON WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, RIGHT?

THE WAY I SEE IT OR SOME ECONOMISTS SEE IT ACTUALLY, IT'S A TRAP SOCIAL MEDIA, IN THE SENSE THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE, PROBABLY A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T REALLY WANT TO BE ON IT AS MUCH AS THEY ARE BUT THEY GET A BENEFIT FROM BEING ON IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE EVERYONE ELSE IS, RIGHT?

SO THE IDEAS THAT WE MIGHT BAN IT FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE MAYBE IS A BLESSING BECAUSE THEIR PEERS ARE THEN NOT ON IT AND THEY DON'T FEEL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MISS OUT ON I GO.

>> THAT WAS ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING POINTS, I THOUGHT IN THE BOOK WAS THAT ONCE-- AND I SAID KIDS-- I DON'T MEAN TO REFER TO MY STUDENTS AS KIDS-- BUT YOUNG PEOPLE, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO BE ON IT IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS OFF IT.

>> THERE WAS JUST QUICKLY AN ECONOMIC EXPERIMENT WHERE THEY, KIDS WERE WILLING, YOUNG PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO PAY $50 TO ENSURE THAT THEY AND THEIR COMMUNITY WERE NOT ON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR FOUR WEEKS.

BUT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN, HAD TO BE PAID $50 FOR THEM INDIVIDUALLY TO GET OFF.

IN OTHER WORDS, THAT KIND OF TO YOUR POINT, IF EVERYBODY GETS OFF, THEY WOULD LIKE THAT.

BUT IF IT'S JUST THEM, THEY WANT TO BE PART OF IT.

>> SO EVEN IF THE SORT OF THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, THE POINT JONATHAN HAYES IS MAKING, THE HORSE IS OUT OF THE BARN, SOCIAL MEDIA IS ALL OVER.

WOULDN'T WE BE BETTER OFF FINDING WAYS TO MODERATE IT OR TEMPER THE EXTREME SOCIAL MEDIA USE?

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE WISE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO LISTEN TO THE SURGEON GENERAL WHO MADE A WARNING NOT TOO LONG AGO THAT IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NECESSARY NOW TO PROTECT KIDS FROM SOCIAL MEDIA USE AND ONE OF THE MOST COMMON QUESTIONS THAT THE SURGEON GENERAL GETS IS SNEED SAFE?

I THINK SARAH DID A GREAT JOB HIGHLIGHTING THAT THAT IT IS STILL IN FLUX.

I THINK STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE AND IF YOU FOLLOWED ANY OF THE RELATED CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY AS WE WATCHED SOME IN MY CONGRESS CLASS, IT'S AN ISSUE THAT IS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

YOU SEE THE C.E.O.s OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES BEING HAULED BEFORE CONGRESS AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS LIKE WHY DID YOU HAVE AN ALGORITHM THAT EXPOSED MY SUEDAL ACCESS-A-RIDE SUICIDAL CHILD TO IMAGES.

THESE ARE PROBLEMS EMANATING FROM SOCIAL MEDIA.

NOT EVERYBODY WHO USES SOCIAL MEDIA BUT IT'S ENOUGH WHERE I THINK THE LACK OF CONTROL, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE LIVE IN THE WILD WEST OF INTERNET/SOCIAL MEDIA REGULATION, LACK OF CONTROL PARTICULARLY BY THE CORPORATIONS THAT RUN THESE ARE CONCERNING AND I THINK WE ARE GOING TO LOOK BACK 50 TO 100 YEARS FROM NOW AND SAY WHY DID WE LET THAT HAPPEN?

>> THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE WHAT ARE THE COURTS GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE ISSUE OF FREE SPEECH, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT EVEN YOUTH HAVE SOME RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH.

NOW ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE MOVIE RATINGS, WHICH RESTRICT ACCESS TO YOUTH FROM SEEING CERTAIN MOVIES BASED UPON THEIR AGE.

SO FOR ME, IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW SOCIAL MEDIA WOULDN'T FALL INTO THAT SAME SORT OF CATEGORY.

>> BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT RATING THOSE, I THINK IT SOUNDS VERY REASONABLE -- I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE HARDER TO DO THAN PEOPLE THINK BECAUSE MY KIDS KNOW MORE AND ARE MORE TEXT SAVVY THAN I AND TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THINGS LIKE AGE AUTHENTICATING SOFTWARE IS GOING TO BE PRETTY EASY, BUT I THINK AS LUKE SAID, I THINK WE HAVE TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING, GIVEN THE LEVEL OF PROBLEMS.

>> YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH THIS BECAUSE, YEAH, I MEAN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MINORS HERE.

THAT'S A VERY-- MINOR IS ALWAYS A PROTECTED GROUP IN MANY SOCIETIES AND THE IDEA THAT THEY NEED PARENTAL CONSENT TO OPEN SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT BELOW 14 YEARS OF AGE.

AND GUESS WHAT?

HERE IS SOMETHING THAT META ITSELF SAID IN ITS OWN PRESENTATION.

META SAID LOOK, THESE MINORS, THEY'RE PREDISPOSED TO IMPULSE, PEER PRESSURE AND POTENTIALLY HARMFUL RISKY BEHAVIOR SO WHY NOT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE VULNERABILITIES, RIGHT?

THIS IS FROM THEIR OWN 2020 PRESENTATION.

SO THEY KNOW THIS IS HARMFUL.

WE DON'T-- MANY STATES DON'T ALLOW YOU TO GET A TATTOO WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.

SO IF THERE IS PARENTAL CONSENT IN OPENING AN ACCOUNT, IT'S GOOD ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE SEEING THIS LEVEL OF HARM.

>> I HAVE SOME STUDENTS OUT THERE WHO ARE DOING A FINAL PROJECT ON FACEBOOK.

YOU MAY WANT TO QUOTE ANIRBAN.

>> SO, BEN.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I LOVE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE.

FULL CIRCLE.

WE ARE BACK.

THAT'S GREAT.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO KEEP THEM SAFE WITH MEDICAL PROCEDURES.

BUT WE DO WITH SOCIAL MEDIA.

>> WAIT, THAT WAS BAIRNTAL CONSENT-- PARENTAL CONSENT.

>> NO, THIS IS... (ALL TALKING AT ONCE).

>> THAT NEEDS TO HAVE THAT PROCEDURE.

IT'S UP TO THEM.

>> I THINK THIS IS WHERE FEDERALISM WOULD WORK REALLY WELL, RIGHT?

WHY DON'T WE HAVE A COUPLE OF STATES BAN IT FOR KIDS UNDER 15 DO REALLY GOOD STUDIES, SEE IF IT AFFECTS THEIR MENTAL HEALTH AND THEN REASSESS.

>> THAT'S GREAT BUT THEY'RE STILL GOING TO GET ON THERE.

>> FLORIDA AND TEXAS, I THINK, TRIED.

THAT CASE HAS GONE TO THE SUPREME COURT.

>> AND ALL THEY DO IS SAY MAKE A FAKE DATE OF BIRTH AND FAKE AN ACCOUNT.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM.

LIKE EVEN MY KIDS THAT ARE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, THEY HAVE COMPUTERS THEY BRING HOME AND THEY CAN'T GO TO ALL THESE SITES SO THEY JUST GOOGLE NOT BLOCKED GAMES AND THEY CAN PLAY WHATEVER GAMES THEY WANT.

THAT IS WHERE IT GOES.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FIX ANYTHING WITH THIS.

>> BUT I THINK DOING NOTHING ISN'T THE ANSWER EITHER AND I HEAR YOU.

I THINK WE ARE EVALUATING THESE ISSUES ISSUE BY ISSUE, CASE BY CASE AND ASKING OURSELVES WHAT DO WE THINK THE MOST APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY IS IN PURSUING THE PUBLIC GOOD.

I THINK RICK IS RIGHT.

THERE ARE GOING TO BE LEGAL CHALLENGES AND FREE SPEECH CONCERNS BUT FOR ME I FUNDAMENTALLY CAN'T GET MY HEAD AROUND HOW A COMPANY LIKE META CAN METAPHORICALLY CREATE, HAVE A BIG HOUSE PARTY, RIGHT, AND 200 MILLION PEOPLE ARE AT THAT HOUSE PARTY AND THEY'RE DOING ALL KINDS OF STUFF.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE DOING STUFF THAT'S NOT BAD BUT OTHERS ARE DOING REALLY BAD STUFF AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS WHAT IS GOING ON HERE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER WHAT IS GOING ON ON THIS PLATFORM.

IT'S YOUR HOUSE, YOU CREATED THIS MONSTER AND IF YOU CAN'T KEEP IT IN ORDER, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO.

>> EIGHTS WORSE THAN THAT.

THEY DESIGN IT IF WAYS THAT THEY KNOW... >> IT GETS ROWDIER AND ROWDIER.

>> ADDICTIVE DESIGN NOTIFICATIONS AND SO THAT KEEPS US GOING BACK AND THAT AFFECTS-- DOESN'T JUST AFFECT THE YOUNG PEOPLE, TOO.

IT AFFECTS ALL OF US.

AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO TOSS TO MY COLLEAGUE BARB FOUGHT WHO WILL TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.

>> WE HAVE A GREAT AUDIENCE HERE, LOTS OF STUDENTS AND "THE IVORY TOWER" FAITHFULS SO I WOULD LOVE TO GET YOUR QUESTIONS AND PLACE FLAG ME WITH YOUR HAND, BUT FIRST IF YOU'LL STAND UP.

I KNOW YOU HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YES, WELL, I HAVE TWO.

BUT I ONLY WROTE ONE DOWN.

WITH THE INCREASED POLARIZATION IN TODAY'S POLITICAL LANDSCAPE, WHERE IS THE TURNING POINT TOWARDS A MORE UNIFIED AMERICA?

>> THAT'S A TOUGH ONE WHICH ONE OF YOU BRILLIANT PROFESSORS WOULD LIKE TO TAKE.

>> IT A NEW GENERATION OF TOP POLITICAL LEADERS.

WE ARE IN ANED ON SITUATION OF HAVING A PRESIDENTIAL REMATCH AND WE DON'T NORMALLY DO THAT AND THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUNG.

FIVE TO 10 YEARS FROM NOW WE CAN BE POSITIONED FOR A RESET WHERE THE NEXT GENERATION OF POLITICAL LEADERS ON BOTH SIDES STEP UP AND MAKE THEIR PITCH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

>> IT'S UP TO US AS VOTERS.

AT THAT'S WHERE WE HIRE OR FIRE.

>> I'M SKEPTICAL-- GO AHEAD.

>> LET'S GET SARAH IN ON THIS.

>> WHEN WE SAY POLARIZATION, LET'S BE REALLY CLEAR.

IT'S HAPPENING MUCH MORE ON ONE SIDE THAN THE OTHER.

IT IS NOT HAPPENING ON THE LEFT NEARLY AS MUCH AS ON THE RIGHT.

CERTAINLY NOT HAPPENING AT THE ELITE LEVEL AMONG CONGRESS PEOPLE.

SO IT IS REALLY A PROBLEM WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEY'RE GOING TO WALK THIS BACK, RIGHT?

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A KIND OF NORMAL ROUTE TO TAKE IS THE EXTREME PART OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD FORM ITS OWN, BUT IN A TWO PARTY SYSTEM, THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE SUGGESTIBILITY OF THE ALGORITHMS THAT PUT PEOPLE IN THEIR TRIBAL SPACES THAT THEY CLICK ON THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.

AND IT JUST-- THAT CONFIRMATION BIAS CONTINUES OTHER AND OVER.

THAT'S WHY IT'S POLARIZED AND IT'S NOT JUST THE RIGHT.

>> OKAY.

WE HAVE-- >> CAN I JUST RESPOND ONE SECOND.

>> REAL QUICK.

>> AS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST, I'M SKEPTICAL.

WE SHOULD TALK MORE ABOUT THIS.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS UNIFIED MOMENT IN AMERICA EXISTED WHEN I LOOK BACK IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

AND POLITICS IS ABOUT ENDLESS CONFLICT.

SO WE MIGHT TALK ABOUT THIS IN A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A UNIFIED AMERICA WHENEVER I LOOK BACK.

>> BUT HAVE YOU TO ADMIT THERE WERE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT WOULD WORK TOGETHER, ALAN SIMPSON AND KENNEDY, PEOPLE WHO DISAGREED VEHEMENTLY ON POLICY ISSUES WOULD RESPECT ONE ANOTHER AND WORK ACROSS... >> WE HAVE HAD SOME OF THAT IN RECENT... WE HAVE THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL.

>> THERE'S ONE, OKAY.

>> BUT ONE OF THE PARTIES DOESN'T BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY AND WANTS TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY.

THAT IS NOT PARTISANSHIP.

THAT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT... >> LET'S LEAVE THAT RIGHT HERE AND GO TO BARB.

>> IT'S HARD TO GET THE PROFESSORS TO QUIT TALKING BUT YOU HAVE A QUESTION ALSO.

>> HELLO.

AS IT WAS DISCUSSED HERE, THE PRICE TAG OF A COLLEGE DEGREE IS GETTING STEEPER AND STEEPER AND IN STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA, THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR FAST FOOD EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN INCREASED TO $20, YET ALL OTHER JOBS REMAIN AT $16.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT LEGISLATION SUCH AS THESE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO DISCOURAGING STUDENTS FROM PURSUING HIGHER EDUCATION?

>> I'LL WEIGH IN ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S A GREAT POINT, PART OF THE BIGGEST CONTEXT IS THE RISING INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES, RIGHT?

SO WAGES ARE GOING UP NOW, BUT WAGES HAVE STAGNATED FOR DECADES, RIGHT IN SO THE BENEFITS OF AN INCREASINGLY PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY HAVE NOT BEEN EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED AND,000 WE ARE AT ONE OF THE MOST UNEQUAL PERIODS IN OUR HISTORY, RIGHT?

SO THAT'S THE SORT OF BACKDROP FOR THIS DEBATE OVER THE AFFORDABILITY OF COLLEGE IS LIKE YOU CAN'T IGNORE THAT FACT, RIGHT?

AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE FEED TO PUT MONEY INTO THINGS LIKE THE PELL GRANT PROGRAM WHICH HELPS LOWER INCOME PEOPLE.

IT USED TO COVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE COST OF TUITION AND LIVING EXPENSES AT A COLLEGE.

NOW IT COVERS A THIRD.

SO THAT'S A PLACE THAT WE CAN REALLY MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> AND THE STUDENT LOAN STUFF THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY IS HUGE.

SPECIFICALLY THE PRIVATE LOANS THAT ARE CRIPPLING AND THE PERCENTAGE IS WHATEVER THEY WANT TO MAKE IT.

IT'S FLUID.

SO YOU SEE IF YOU ARE GROWING UP AROUND THAT AND YOU SEE A FRIEND OR SOMEBODY CLOSE TO YOU THAT IS LIVING EVERY SECOND WITH THAT CRUSHED SOUL CRUSHING DEBT ON THEM, YOU WOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT GOING AND GETTING THE MOST IMPORTANT THING-- THERE IS NOTHING MORE POWERFUL THAN KNOWLEDGE.

BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT.

>> LET'S GO FOR ANOTHER QUESTION.

>> I GUESS LOOKING DOMESTICALLY, HOW BIG OF A ROLE DO YOU THINK THE WAR ON GAZA IS GOING TO PLAY ON THE 2024 ELECTION?

>> I THINK IT WILL PLAY AN INTERESTING ROLE.

I THINK IT WILL PLAY QUITE MORE SIGNIFICANT ROLE THAN BIDEN IS WILLING TO ADMIT AND IS TAKING THAT RISK RIGHT NOW.

I KNOW MANY, MANY COMMITTED BIDEN VOTERS IN SYRACUSE, MANY MEANS LIKE 15.

AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE.

THEY SAID WE ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR CORNEL WEST AND THEY'RE EDUCATED PEOPLE.

THEY KNOW THIS ISSUE.

THEY KNOW THE THING THEY'RE NOT AUTOMATICALLY IN FAVOR OF HAMAS OR ANYTHING LIKE PARTISAN LIKE THAT BUT IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT IN TERMS OF CONSCIOUS IN TERMS OF BEING A HUMAN BEING TO SAY I'M OKAY WITH THIS AND I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THAT PERSON WHO IS STANDING BY THIS MUCH SO I THINK SHE WILL FACE A VERY, VERY BIG BACKLASH IN NEW YORK, IN MICHIGAN, IN MINNEAPOLIS EVEN-- MINNESOTA, RIGHT.

BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, RFK MIGHT TAKE AWAY SOME VOTES FROM TRUMP, YOU KNOW UNDERSTAND THE ABORTION ISSUE SO IT'S MUDDLED.

IT'S A GREAT QUESTION BUT I THINK IT WILL BE SIGNIFICANT FOR HIM, NOT INSIGNIFICANT.

>> OKAY.

ONE MORE QUESTION.

>> RECENTLY THERE HAS BEEN A BIG DISCUSSION BETWEEN CIS AND TRANSGENDER WOMEN.

IT'S A TWO PARTER.

WHAT DO YOU AS EDUCATORS DEFINE AS A WOMAN AND HOW DO YOU BELIEVE WE AS STUDENTS SHOULD APPROACH THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN CIS AND TRANSGENDER WOMEN?

>> LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY IS JUMPING ON THAT QUESTION, SO I'LL START.

SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT CISGENDER MEANS SO I'LL START THERE.

THAT JUST MEANS THAT YOU IDENTIFY WITH THE WAY YOU WERE BIOLOGICALLY BORN.

TRANSGENDER MEANS THAT YOU ARE ARE BORN ONE BIOLOGICAL WAY BUT YOU PERCEIVE YOURSELF SOMEWHERE ELSE ON WHAT WE USED TO CALL BINARY MALE OR FEMALE.

SO THERE IS THAT ASPECT.

>> WE HAVE JUST A FEW SECONDS LEFT.

DID YOU WANT TO JUMP ON THAT?

>> I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS THE BEST WAY IS TO LISTEN TO MY STUDENTS AND TAKE THEM AS THEY SEE THEMSELVES AND HELP THEM PROGRESS INTELLECTUAL AND WITH RELATED SKILLS AND IN TERMS OF THE CHARACTER TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

I LISTEN TO WHO THEY ARE AND TREAT EVERYBODY AS AN INDIVIDUAL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

>> AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE ELSE IN OUR CLASSROOMS TO DO SO AS WELL.

>> WE HAVE TO GO TO THE As AND Fs.

SARAH, YOUR F. >> OKAY.

MY F GOES TO AMAZON FOR ITS CONTINUED USE OF ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF PLASTIC PACKAGING IN THE FORM OF THEIR BLUE AND WHITE MAILERS, PLASTIC CUSHIONING OTHER PLASTIC POUCHES AND BAGS.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT AMAZON CAN REDUCE IT'S PLASTIC PACKAGING.

IT'S DONE SO IN EUROPE AND INDIA.

IN COUNTRIES THAT HAVE ENACTED OR THREATENED TO ENACT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN KINDS OF PLASTIC PACKAGING.

BUT THEY HAVE NOT MADE MUCH OF AN EFFORT IN THE UNITED STATES, PROBABLY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT REGULATE PLASTIC PRODUCTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

I GUESS MY F GOES TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS WELL.

>> TO THE MISSOURI GOVERNOR MIKE PARSON AND SCOTUS DECISION TO DENY CLEMENCY TO DEATH ROW INMATE BRIAN DORSEY SUPPORTED BY MORE THAN 70 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO WROTE THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT FOR BRIAN.

THIS IS A SHAME ON OUR CONSCIENCE.

>> MY F GOES TO GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS.

THERE IS A WOMAN THERE THAT WENT TO GO GET HER DRIVER'S LICENSE AND SHE HAD A WARRANT FOR HER ARREST FOR NOT RETURNING TWO BOOKS.

NOW I'M A VINCENT VAN GOFF FAN MY FAVORITE PAINTER BUT HER $60 BOOKS THAT TURNED IN NOT REGISTERED IS NOW $600 AND SHE HAS AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR HER ARREST AND CANNOT RENEW HER LICENSE.

>> RICK,.

>> PUBLIC LIBRARY'S TRADE POLICIES INCLUDING HIS PLAN TO INCREASE TAKEOFFS AND OPPOSITION TO JAPAN'S STEEL PURCHASE OF THE U.S. STEEL.

WHILE HE MAY DESERVE AN A FOR POLITICS ON THE MOVE, HE DESERVES AN F ON THE ECONOMICS.

DOUBLING DOWN ON TRUMP'S PROTECTIONIST POLICIES LEAD TO LESS FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, RETALIATION BY ITS TRADING PARTNERS, HIGHER PRICES FOR CONSUMERS AND ULTIMATELY A LESS ROBUST ECONOMY.

>> AND LUKE.

>> MY F GOES TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO HAVE BEEN RESTATING RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA EVEN ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

MULTIPLE HOUSE COMMITTEE CHAIRS WHO WERE BRIEFED ON NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE RECENTLY EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THIS IN THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

>> AND TO OUR AS, SARAH.

>> MY A GOES TO THE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE STUDENTS WHO FORMED A UNION AND WHO VOTED TO RATIFY THEIR INAUGURAL CONTRACT A FEW WEEKS A.

THESE STUDENTS WERE IN DISCUSSION WITH THE UNIVERSITY FOR OVER SEVEN MONTHS.

IT APPEARS THESE WERE VERY CONSTRUCTIVE AND CONDUCTED IN GOOD FAITH.

SIMILAR EFFORTS AROUND THE COUNTRY TO UNIONIZE GRADUATE STUDENTS HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL AND OFTEN MET WITH AK MOAN ACRIMONIOUS ADMINISTRATORS TRYING TO THWART UNIONIZATION AND I'M GRATEFUL SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY CHOSE A DIFFERENT PATH.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A GOES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S DECISION TO REGULATE MORE THAN 200 CHEMICAL PLANTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CURB EMISSION ON A SERIES OF CARCINOGENIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS RELEASED IN THE AIR CREATING CANCER FOR MARGINALIZED POOR COMMUNITIES.

A RECENT RULING THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY.

>> BEN, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO INDIA FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL CLEAN HIVE.

[LAUGHTER] I GOT A LAUGH OUT OF THAT.

TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLEAN ENERGY.

SO THEY HAVE PUT A PROPOSAL TOGETHER, $9 BILLION WORTH TO SUPPORT SOLAR PANELS ON TOP OF 10 MILLION HOUSES.

>> AND RICK, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO UTICA UNIVERSITY AND TO WCNY FOR BRINGING "THE IVORY TOWER" TO UTICA UNIVERSITY.

[ APPLAUSE ] I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK DOUG IMPORTANT ROW AND THE FANTASTIC CREW AT WCNY FOR ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT THEY PUT TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS WORK AND AN A + TO THE STUDENTS AND FANS OF "THE IVORY TOWER" THAT TURNED OUT TO SEE US TONIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[ APPLAUSE ] >> I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT LAST BECAUSE LUKE HAVE YOU TO FOLLOW THE APPLAUSE.

>> I WILL GIVE MY A TO UTICA UNIVERSITY FOR ITS LONG DEDICATION TO MILITARY VETERANS.

THIS DATES BACK TO THE FOUNDING OF THE UTICA COLLEGE IN 1946 WHICH WAS INTENDED TO SERVE WORLD WAR II VETERANS RETURNING HOME FROM A REGION.

I HAVE THE HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO SERVE SEVERAL STUDENTS WHO ARE VETERANS AND LEARN THEIR EXTRAORDINARY STORIES OF SACRIFICE ON BEHALF OF OUR COUNTRY.

>> NOW, YOU MENTIONED ONE OF YOU GUYS, I THINK RICK IT WAS YOU ON YOUR F OR MAYBE IT WAS LUKE, THE RUTIONZ INTELLIGENCE PROPAGANDA-- RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE PROPAGANDA GETTING INTO THE HALLS OF CONGRESS AND A STUDENT ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT POLARIZATION.

THAT SEEMS TO PEE LIKE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW WE ARE SEEING THAT SORT OF POLARIZATION.

THEY'RE QUICK TO JUMP ON THINGS LIKE MANSIONS.

>> THEY HEARD IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

I'M ONLY HALF KIDDING.

>> RIGHT.

THAT MAY WELL BE TRUE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORBING.

-- WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

FOR ALL OF US AT "THE IVORY TOWER" AND UTICA UNIVERSITY, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪