MASS SHOOTINGS IN AMERICA, THE RISE IN ANTI-TRANSGENDER LAWS IN RED STATES, AND SHOULD RECIPIENTS OF MEDICAID AND FOOD STAMPS BE REQUIRED TO WORK?

STAY TUNED FOR IVORY TOWER.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND JOINING US VIA ZOOM, AND JOINING US VIA ZOOM OUR OLD FRIEND BOB SPITZER, FORMERLY OF SUNY CORTLAND.

WELCOME BACK, BOB.

>> LOVELY TO BE HERE.

>> MASS SHOOTINGS IN AMERICA HAVE BECOME SO COMMON THAT WHEN THEY OCCUR, AND AS AWFUL AS THEY ARE, WE ARE NO LONGER SHOCKED.

THE PAST TWO WEEKS HAVE SEEN TWO MORE HIGH PROFILE MASS SHOOTINGS, AT A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL IN NASHVILLE AND A BANK IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

NOW THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF CONSERVATIVE TENNESSEE HAS URGED THE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT RED FLAG LAWS, AND HE'S SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER STRENGTHENING BACKGROUND CHECKS.

71% OF AMERICANS WANT STRICTER GUN LAWS.

IS THERE MOVEMENT TOWARD SOME, EVEN MODEST REFORM?

>> THERE IS MOVEMENT.

IT'S OCCURRING VERY SLOWLY.

I WOULD GO BACK AT LEAST TO THIS PAST SUMMER, THE SUMMER OF 2022, WHEN A BIPARTISAN COALITION IN CONGRESS GOT THROUGH A NEW PACKAGE OF GUN LAWS.

THEY WERE VERY MODEST IN POLICY TERMS, BUT THE FACT THAT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY CAME TOGETHER TO ENACT A NEW GUN LAW OR SET OF FEDERAL GUN LAWS WAS POLITICALLY, I THINK, VERY SIGNIFICANT, ESPECIALLY SINCE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WORKED TOGETHER ON VIRTUALLY NOTHING.

AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW, I THINK, IS THAT PUBLIC CALLS FOR CHANGES IN GUN LAWS ARE LONGER, LOUDER AND YOUNGER.

YOUNG PEOPLE IN PARTICULAR ARE GETTING INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE.

THAT'S HOW THE BROUHAHA AT THE TENNESSEE STATE LEGISLATURE CAME ABOUT.

AND I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT EXPECT THERE TO BE ANY DRAMATIC MOVEMENT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL IN TERMS OF GUN POLICY.

AND AT THE STATE LEVEL, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF ACTIVITY AND CONTINUES TO BE A LOT HAPPENING IN THE STATES.

BUT THERE ARE MEASURES THAT OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, LIKE RED FLAG LAWS, LIKE RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A MAJORITY OF GUN OWNERS SUPPORT MOST OF THESE MEASURES AS WELL.

AND IN ADDITION, THERE IS A GROWING BODY OF RESEARCH THAT IS TELLING US MORE AND MORE, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT MASS SHOOTERS, ABOUT WHO THEY ARE, ABOUT THEIR PREDICTABLE BEHAVIORS AND ABOUT THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF MASS SHOOTERS, INCLUDING THE TWO MOST RECENT THAT WE'VE READ ABOUT IN THE NEWS, GAVE INDICATIONS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING BAD.

AND THAT, BY ITSELF, IS IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT IS GOING ON AND PERHAPS TO STOP SOME OF THESE TERRIBLY VENTS.

>> THE IDEA OF A RED FLAG LAW THEN POTENTIALLY COULD WORK.

ANIRBAN, ONE OF THE RATIONALES WE OFTEN HEAR IS WELL, IF THERE IS GUN REFORM OR GUN CONTROL, ONLY PEOPLE WHO WILL HAVE GUNS ARE THE CRIMINALS.

SO WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO UNILATERALLY DISARM IF YOU WILL.

>> THIS IS THE KIND OF ARGUMENT THAT UNFORTUNATELY OUR REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON WILLIAMS MADE IN HIS RECENT TOWN MEETING.

IF WE BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS LIKE AR-15, ONLY THE CRIMINALS WOULD HAVE IT, RIGHT?

AND THIS RESPONSE, COMING FROM A LAWMAKER, I MEAN JUST BOGGLES MY LOGICAL MIND IN DESPAIR.

BY THAT COUNT, WHY HAVE LAWS AT ALL BECAUSE ANY LAW CAN HAVE A POTENTIAL POSSIBILITY OF SOMEONE BREAKING IT.

IT MAKES NO LEGAL SENSE.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS.

SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO KIND OF HONOR THAT KIND OF AN ARGUMENT WITH MY ACADEMIC ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT IS JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LOGICAL.

AND THAT'S NOT HOW LAWS WORK.

SO I'M WORRIED THAT WE ARE REPRESENTED BY THIS PERSON.

>> IN FAIRNESS TO BRANDON WILLIAMS, HE IS NOT THE ONLY LAWMAKER WHO ADOPTS THAT POINT OF VIEW.

>> THAT IS RIGHT.

AND AGAIN, IT'S DELUSIONAL.

NOW THERE ARE 146 GUN VIOLENCE THIS YEAR.

AND I'LL TELL YOU A STORY AS AN IMMIGRANT WHO CAME HERE IN 2004.

THE FIRST GUN SHOOTING I NOW FORGET WHAT HAPPENED I WAS SO DISTRESSED, I TOLD ONE OF MY BEST FRIEND I WILL NEVER GET USED TO THIS.

THIS IS CRAZY.

HOW ARE YOU NOT EVEN WORRYING ABOUT THIS?

AND THE PERSON TOLD ME, DOABTS WORRY, YOU STAY HERE ENOUGH, YOU WILL GET USED TO IT AND HERE I AM, RIGHT, KIND OF GETTING USED TO IT LIKE A VIRUS THAT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH.

BUT I THINK INCREMENTAL CHANGES, AS BOB IS POINTING OUT, RED FLAG LAWS, WE JUST SAW, YOU KNOW, WE DISCUSSED ABOUT THE MANLIUS POTENTIAL, THE PERSON WHO WANTED TO SHOOT UP TOPS AND THAT WORKED.

SO I DON'T KNOW, A GOOD BEGINNING WOULD BE TO VERY AGGRESSIVELY GO AGAINST ASSAULT WEAPONS AR 15s AND TO MAKE MORE RED FLAG LAWS.

>> THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT MOST OF THE CRIMINALS WHO ARE GOING TO COMMIT CRIMES WITH A WEAPON ARE NOT USING AN AR-15.

WE ARE FINDING THEIR USE IN A NUMBER OF THESE MASS SHOOTINGS.

BUT YOUR AVERAGE CRIMINAL, IF THEY HAVE A GUN, THEY PROBABLY HOPE, YOU KNOW, UNLETS IT'S SPECIFIC I'M GOING TO KILL SOMEONE, IF THEY'RE ROBBING OR SOMETHING, THE GUN IS REALLY TO STOP THE OTHER PERSON FROM DOING ANYTHING.

AND YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS REALLY WEIRD, BUT PROBABLY IF YOU ASK THEM, ARE YOU GOING IN THERE PLANNING TO SHOOT SOMEONE, MOST WOULD TELL YOU NO, THEY'RE NOT.

THEY'RE USING THE GUN TO KEEP THE OWNER OR-- OF THE STORE OR THE HOME FROM DOING ANYTHING TO THEM AND THE GUN BECOMES A PART OF POOR PLANNING ON THEIR PART.

I KNOW THAT SOUNDS WEIRD BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH WHAT BRANDON WILLIAMS HAD TO SAY IS THAT THE AVERAGE CRIME COMMITTED WITH THE GUN IS NOT COMMITTED WITH AN AR-15.

>> NO, IT ISN'T COMMITTED WITH AN AR-15 AND I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY, TARA ABOUT LOOKING AT THIS IN A HOLISTIC FASHION.

HOWEVER, AR-15s DO MUCH MORE DAMAGE THAN ANY TYPE OF HANDGUN AND THERE ARE CURRENTLY 20 MILLION IN CIRCULATION NOW.

AND SO THAT'S WHY, ANIRBAN, YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THESE MASS SHOOTINGS EVERYWHERE.

I WANT TO OFFER, IF I CAN, DAVE, THIS QUOTE THAT REALLY HIT ME IN A HARD WAY FROM THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER IN LOUISVILLE.

HE SAID THAT RIFLE ROUNDS-- I'M SORRY, PULVERIZE AND LIQUIFY TISSUE.

THEY POWDER BONE, THEY TEAR LARGE GAPING WOUNDS IN TISSUE AND YOU DON'T SEE THAT SORT OF DAMAGE WITH A HAND GUN.

I THINK THAT'S WHY, AS BOB WAS POINTING OUT, 60% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT ACTUALLY BANNING ASSAULT RIFLES.

THE PROBLEM WE HAVE NOT HIT ON SO FAR BUT ALLUDED TO WITH BRANDON WILLIAMS, IS THAT 60% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT IT BUT WHEN YOU BREAK IT DOWN BY PARTY, ONLY 37% OF REPUBLICANS DO.

SO AS LONG AS WE HAVE 26 STATES CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THOSE STATES ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING COMMONSENSE GUN CONTROL, FOR EXAMPLE, BANNING WHAT MOST AMERICANS WANT, ARE SLIM TO NONE.

>> AND YOU POINT OUT ABOUT WHAT THE DAMAGE THAT THAT KIND OF WEAPON, AR-15 CAN DO, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES KICK ADD ROUND A LITTLE BIT NOW IS SHOULD THE IMAGES OF THAT, OF SOME OF THESE SHOOTINGS BE MADE PUBLIC, TO SEE-- SO THAT PEOPLE CAN PAIN GRASP IT.

YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT BUT SEEING IT IS DIFFERENT.

SHOULD WE MAKE THAT STEP?

SHOULD NEWSPAPERS PUBLISH SOME OF THE PHOTOS?

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY INCENTIVE FOR THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS TO HAVE THAT MEMORY SEARED ACROSS, YOU KNOW, MEDIA PLATFORMS.

HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT OUR NATIONAL CONVERSATION HAS TO PIVOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM HAND GUNS AND THAT COULD AT LEAST BE A STARTING PLACE.

>> SO IF QUICKLY IF CAN I SAY, WE HAD AN ASSAULT WEAPON BAN, RIGHT, BOB?

>> 10 YEARS.

>> SO I FORGET WHAT HAPPENED WHY CAN'T WE GO BACK TO THAT STATUS QUO?

>> THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS, A FEDERAL BAN IN 1994 AND THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT HAD A 10-YEAR SUNSET PROVISION SO THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY LAPSED IN 2004 AND CONGRESS NEVER RENEWED IT.

THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO DO SO.

BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT EVEN THOUGH THAT LAW WAS VERY LIMITED IN TERMS OF HOW IT WAS WRITTEN, IT KEPT THE NUMBERS OF ARS IN SOCIETY VERY LOW.

ONCE THAT LAW LAPSED IN 2004, THAT'S WHEN THE SALE OF THESE WEAPONS SKYROCKETED.

YOU ALL MADE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS, TARA IN PARTICULAR, THAT MOST GUN CRIMES INVOLVE HAND GUNS NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.

BUT ASSAULT WEAPONS CAUSE THREE SPECIFIC TYPES OF HARM: 1 IS THEY'RE FAVORED BY MASS SHOOTERS AND THEY HAVE THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS THAT NINA TALKED ABOUT.

SECONDLY, THEY'RE USED DISPROPORTIONATE AGAINST POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND THIRD, AR WEAPONS ARE THE FAVORITE OF POLITICAL EXTREMISTS AND CRIMINAL GANGS.

AND THOSE ARE THREE VERY STRONG REASONS TO RESTRICT THOSE WEAPONS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THOUSANDS OF TYPES OF WEAPONS, LONG GUNS, HANDGUNS, THAT ARE LEGALLY AVAILABLE TO AMERICA ALREADY.

>> OKAY.

THANK YOU, BOB.

NOW, MANY STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVE PASSED BANS ON TRANSGENDER ATHLETES COMPETING IN SPORTS OR EVEN BANS ON TRANSGENDER PEOPLE GETTING MEDICAL TREATMENTS THAT HELP THEM TRANSITION.

LAST WEEK KANSAS BECAME THE ONE OF THE LATEST, OVERRIDING THE GOVERNOR'S VETO TO BAN TRANSGENDER ATHLETES FROM COMPETING ON WOMEN'S TEAMS.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION MANAGED TO ANGER PROGRESSIVES AND CONSERVATIVES WITH A PROPOSED RULE OUTLAWING BLANKET BANS, BUT LEAVING ROOM FOR THEM AT HIGHER LEVELS OF COMPETITION.

WHAT'S DRIVING THIS ANTI-TRANSGENDER WAVE?

>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT'S POLITICAL.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT RATCHETS UP THE BASE OF REPUBLICAN PARTY, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE GETTING READY TO GO INTO THE 2024 ELECTIONS.

AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS OF CONCERN TO THE BASE OF A GOOD PORTION OF THE BASE, NOT ALL, OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

THAT'S FIRST AND FOREMOST.

THE SECOND THING IS THAT AS TRANSGENDER RIGHTS HAVE BECOME MORE AND MORE A PART OF OUR CONVERSATION, AS TRANSGENDER ATHLETES, ETC., HAVE PUSHED MORE FOR THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY TO ELIMINATE BULLYING AND THAT SORT OF THING.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU HAVE PARENTS INCREASINGLY WORRIED THAT THEIR RIGHT TO CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEIR CHILD,THEIR RIGHT TO SEE THEIR CHILD COMPETE ON A TEAM WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIKE LEVELS OF ATHLETIC ABILITY, THEY SEE THAT AS BEING TAKEN AWAY OR BEING USURPED.

AND IT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FEELS THAT IT CAN UTILIZE TO, YOU KNOW, STRENGTHEN ITS BASE AND PERHAPS GET SOME MODERATES TO JOIN IN THEIR SPACE.

PARTIALLY IT IS A REFLECTION OF REAL CONCERNS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

>> YOU KNOW, I WONDER WITH THINGS LIKE THE MEDICAL TREATMENTS, IS IT UNREASONABLE TO HAVE A BAN ON SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE UNDONE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN, LET'S SAY?

>> YEAH, WELL, I'M NOT SURE OF THE ANSWER TO THAT.

DEFINITELY PARENTAL RIGHTS AND THE CONCERN FOR CHILD SAFETY, AS YOU POINT OUT, IS ONE OF THE DRIVERS.

POLITICS, BIGOTRY ALSO IS PART OF THE UNDERLYING DRIVERS.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

I WOULD ADD SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T TALK ABOUT AND I HOPE-- I WILL PROBABLY GET A LOT OF FLAK FOR IT BUT I'LL DEAL WITH IT, AND THAT IS THE WAY IN WHICH THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED.

IF WE THINK ABOUT THE MODEL OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT DURING THE 1960s, THE GOAL OF THAT MOVEMENT WAS TO BUILD CONSENSUS, RAISE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS ABOUT IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A LAW MAKING MAJORITY, A LAW MAKING MAJORITY.

I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE TRANSGENDER MOVEMENT IS JUST SORT OF SKIPPING THE LAW MAKING PROCESS TO GO DIRECTLY TO IMPLEMENTATION WHEN THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY THERE TO BUILD, WHAT I THINK, IS A WILLING PUBLIC, CONSIDERING PUBLIC OPINION POLLS, THAT SHOW 70% OF AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED THAT A TRANSGENDERS ARE NOT GETTING THE COUNSELING THEY NEED IN SCHOOLS.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO BALANCING PARENTAL RIGHTS, THAT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC CONSENSUS BREAKS DOWN.

SO I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO DO MORE THAN SIMPLY INSIST, BUT INSTEAD, EDUCATE.

>> YEAH, I MEAN I WOULD AGREE WITH MOST OF THAT IN THE SENSE OF CREATING THE COALITION BUILDING ASPECT OF IT.

AND YOU KNOW, THE LGBTQ+ PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WORK WITH SPORTS, RIGHT IN SO THE OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE SAID THAT NO ATHLETE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THEIR GENDER ADVANTAGE.

AND THEY ACTUALLY CHANGED THEIR REGULATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, DEFERRING TO THE FEDERATIONS THAT CONTROL THE PARTICULAR SPORTS, AND THEIR MOVE IS INCLUSIONARY.

IT HAS HAPPENED BASE TRANSGENDER PEOPLE HAVE CREATED THAT KIND OF COALITION.

AMERICAN ACADEMIA OF PEDIATRICS AND PSYCHIATRY HAVE SAID WE FULLY ENDORSE GENDER AFFIRMING CARE.

THERE ARE SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT IT CANNOT BE REFERSED.

IT CAN BE REVERSED.

JOHN OLIVER HAD A TWO-PART SERIES WITHIN THE SPAN OF SEVEN YEARS ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS, RIGHT?

SO FOR ME IT IS PURELY AN ANTIHUMAN DEMAGOGUERY.

THERE IS NO MERIT TO THEIR ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER.

IT DOESN'T PAN OUT IN DATA, IT DOESN'T PAN OUT IN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

IT DOESN'T PAN OUT WITH SPORTS, YOU KNOW, 40 ATHLETES, RIGHT, WOMEN ATHLETES AND SUPPORTED, WROTE AN OPEN LETTER.

IT CAME OUT TWO OR THREE DAYS AGO.

I'M GOING TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT I'VE SAID MANY TIMES.

THIS IS THE RISE OF THE AMERICAN THRAN TALIBAN AND INCREASINGLY IT LOOKS LIKE THAT FOR ME AND MANY MANY OTHER OBSERVERS WHO COULD NOT MAKE ANY LOGICAL HUMAN ARGUMENT FOR SHUTTING OUT PEOPLE FROM WHO THEY WANT TO BE.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO END WITH ONE STATEMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE PEOPLE, THE WOMEN ATHLETES MADE.

WE THE UNDERSIGNED BELIEVE THAT EVERY CHILD DESERVES TO HAVE THEIR LIFE CHANGED FOR THE BETTER BY BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE THINGS THEY LOVE THIS IS SIMPLE.

REPUBLICANS WOULD MAKE A BIG ISSUE LIKE THIS, BUT, LIKE HISTORY, THIS IS A LOSING CAUSE.

THEY WILL LOSE THIS IN THE LONG RUN LIKE BIG TIME.

AND THERE IS NO REDEMPTION FOR THEM.

>> NINA.

>> YEAH, BUT I WILL SAY, ANIRBAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT I'M HESITANT TO SAY THAT 67% OF AMERICANS WHO ARE NOT YET ON BOARD ARE SIMPLY BIG ON THES BIGOTS AS I SAID BEFORE.

THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION HERE AND FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS TRANSITIONING, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SOCIAL ISOLATION AND BULLYING AND OTHER KINDS OF PROBLEMS THAT TRANSGENDERS FACE BECAUSE THOSE IN THE KNOW UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN THE KNOW DON'T.

>> AND I WANT TO GO TO BOB.

YOU ARE NOT SITTING AT THE TABLE AND I SORT OF FORGOT ABOUT YOU THERE.

SO I KNOW YOU WANTED TO GET IN ON THIS.

>> FOR SURE.

TO ME, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT BELONGS IN STATE LEGISLATURES.

AS YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY HALF OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES ARE CONSIDERING BILLS TO BAN TRANSITION CARE FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT IT'S REALLY PART OF A LARGER PACKAGE, TO ME, OF SORT OF SOCIAL PANIC AGENDA ISSUES, ISSUES THAT ARE BEING RAISED BY POLITICAL FIGURES PRECISELY TO PANIC PEOPLE.

THINK ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, C.R.T., WHICH MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS.

IT ISN'T IN SCHOOLS TO BEGIN WITH YET WE HAVE PEOPLE SCREAMING ABOUT C.R.T.

IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ABOUT BOOK CENSORSHIP, RESTRICTIONS ON DRAG SHOWS.

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

CANCEL MONTE PYTHON AND Mrs.

DOUBT FIRE?

THIS IS THE EXAMPLE OF THE WORST OF POLITICALIZATION OF ISSUES THAT ARE MUCH BETTER DEALT WITH BY FAMILIES, PHYSICIANS, LOCAL SCHOOLS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN THESE THINGS.

AND THE POLITICALIZATION INCREASES PRESSURES ON PEOPLE ON YOUNG PEOPLE IN PARTICULAR, WHO ARE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE.

>> NOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO QUICKLY GO TO OUR THIRD TOPIC AND WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THAT A LITTLE BLIT SHORT SHRIFT BECAUSE OF TIME.

IT'S A TOUGH TIME TO BE POOR AND SICK.

ABOUT 15 MILLION PEOPLE ON MEDICAID ARE EXPECTED TO LOSE COVERAGE AFTER TEMPORARY "COVID RULES" EXPIRED LAST WEEK.

NOW THE HOUSE GOP IS CONSIDERING ADDING WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAID AND SNAP--THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM.

THEY SAY IT WILL SAVE MONEY, INCREASE LABOR PARTICIPATION AND END A "CULTURE OF DEPENDENCY."

SHOULD WORK REQUIREMENTS BE ADDED?

>> I THINK WORK REQUIREMENTS, JUST SAYING SOMEBODY GO AHEAD AND GET A JOB, OTHERWISE I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU MONEY FOR FOOD, IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL FOR A COUNTRY THAT CHAMPIONS FREEDOM.

NOW LET'S GET TO THE POINT.

THE POINT IS HERE THAT THIS DELUSION THAT THERE ARE POOR PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST SIMPLY GOING TO TAKE MONEY AND NOT GOING TO WORK, THAT DOESN'T PAN OUT WITH DATA AT ALL.

ANYBODY WHO STUDIES POVERTY, ANYBODY WHO HAS-- ALL SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THESE ISSUES FOR AGES AND AGES WILL TELL US THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

THERE ARE WORKING POOR WHO WORK CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT DAYCARE AND THINKING ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS-- AND STILL THEY CAN'T.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CENTRAL FOR BUDGET POLICY AND PROMOTION, THEY DID A STUDY AND THEY SHOWED THE THING THAT WORKED OVER THE LONGER TERM, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS WERE THOSE THAT SUPPORTED EFFORTS TO BOOST THE EDUCATION, RIGHT, AND SKILLS OF THOSE SUBJECTS RATHER THAN JUST SAYING IF YOU DON'T WORK TOMORROW, YOU WILL BE... >> THANK YOU.

>> TWO QUICK THINGS.

THIS IS REMINISCENT OF THE 1980s WELFARE QUEENS SYMBOLISM THAT SUGGESTED WHEN THERE IS DEPENDENCY WHEN IN FACT THE 1996 REFORM GOT RID OF THAT AND ALREADY REQUIRES WORK TO GET WELFARE BENEFITS.

BUT HERE IS WHAT I WOULD LEAVE FOR US TO CONSIDER.

2.5%.

2.5% IS ALL THAT BOTH OF THESE PROGRAMS TANF AND MEDICAID TAKE OUT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND EVEN IF YOU CUT THAT IN HALF, YOU ARE TAKING SAVING 1.25% FROM THE POCKETS OF THE POOR.

>> TARA, QUICKLY.

>> BASICALLY I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT BASICALLY THERE ALREADY IS A WORK REQUIREMENT.

IT WAS SIMPLY ALLOWS THE EXEMPTIONS AND THE REQUIREMENTS WERE SIMPLY RELAXED DURING COVID SO IT ALREADY EXISTED.

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

BOB, SORRY TO LEAVE YOU OFF OF THE TOPIC BUT I'LL GO TO YOU RIGHT NOW FOR YOUR F. >> AN F TO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS FOR BEING THE MOST VEENAL AND CORRUPT JUSTICE TO SIT ON THE HIGH COURT IN MODERN TIMES BY ACCEPTING ANNUAL JUNKETS VALUED AT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS A THROW OVER 20 YEARS FROM A BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN AND CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTIVIST HAR LON CROW AND NOW WE HAVE LEARNED JUST IN THE NEWS YESTERDAY THAT CROW BOUGHT SEVERAL PROPERTIES FROM THOMAS.

THOMAS WAS REQUIRED TO REPORT THOSE AND HE DID NOT.

THEY WERE PROPERTIES THAT INCLUDE THE HOUSE WHERE THOMAS' MOTHER LIVED.

SHOULD HE BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED?

OF COURSE.

DOES CONGRESS HAVE THE STOMACH FOR IT?

NO.

HE SHOULD DO THE HONORABLE THUNK AND RESIGN BUT I'M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH.

>> NINA.

>> THE NAACP WAS RIGHT TO OPPOSE THE SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSAL TO PAY $5 MILLION TO EACH ELIGIBLE BLACK PERSON AS REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY.

NOW WE COULD DEBATE WHAT ARE REPARATIONS IN THEIR OWN RIGHTS MAKE SENSE BUT WHAT IS NOT DEBATABLE IS THAT SAN FRANCISCO CANNOT AFFORD TO CHASE DEAD END POLICIES WHEN HOMELESSNESS AND OPEN AIR DRUG MARKETS IN THE CITY ARE HITTING THE CITY'S POOR AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES MOST.

PLUS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THE $5 MILLION PER ELIGIBLE BLACK PERSON.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY F GOES TO THE NEW YORK TIMES RECENT ARTICLE WHEN I MAX FISHER HEADLINING 20 YEARS ON, A QUESTION LINGERS ABOUT IRAQ, WHY DID THE U.S.

INVADE?

NOT ONLY DID THE FIRST VERSION HAD ERRORS, BASED ON THE REPORTING FOUND IN THE NEW YORK TIMES OWN ARCHIVE.

THANKS TO THE FOLKS KEEPING ON WITH THE INQUIRIES FOR THIS REPORTING.

>> MY F GOES TO THE OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, ESPECIALLY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR ALLOWING A COMMUNITY AND HISTORICAL TREASURE, THE CENTRAL NEW YORK REGIONAL MARKET, TO DETERIORATE OVER THE LAST 80 PLUS YEARS WITHOUT A MAJOR REVITALIZATION.

THE MARKET DIRECTOR HAS BEGUN THE EFFORT TO GET THE MARKET RENOVATION INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S 2023-24 BUDGET.

ALL OF US WHO BENEFIT FROM THE MARKET MUST SHAKE OFF OUR COMPLACENCY AND LET THE GOVERNOR KNOW WE SUPPORT THE RENOVATION.

>> NOW TO THE As,BOB SPITZER?

>> THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY STUDENT ASSEMBLY RECENTLY PASSED A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT ALL FACULTY PROVIDE WARNINGS ABOUT "TRAUMATIC CONTENT SOY "THAT STUDENTS MIGHT ENCOUNTER IN THEIR COURSES.

LEAVING ASIDE THE SFACT THAT ONE STUDENT'S TRAUMATIC CONTENT MIGHT BE ANOTHER'S ENTERTAINMENT, THE RESOLUTION WENT TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT MARTHA POLLACK WHO BLOCKED THE RESOLUTION AND EXPLAINED CAREFULLY WHY.

I'M GIVING AN A TO PRESIDENT POLLACK OF CORNELL.

OF COURSE STUDENT CONCERNS ARE IMPORTANT, FACULTY NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO HOW THE SUBJECT MATTER THEY COVER IS RECEIVED BY THE STUDENTS AND IT'S SOMETHING I CAN SPEAK TO PERSONALLY HAVING TAUGHT A GUN POLICY COURSE FOR MANY YEARS.

FACULTY NEED TO BE SENSITIVE BUT PRESIDENT POLLACK DID THE RIGHT THING.

>> I SECOND THAT, BOB.

THE POST STANDARD RECENTLY FEATURED AN ONONDAGA COUNTY DEVELOPMENTER'S PLANS TO BUILD 84 HOMES IN MANILA, THE AREA'S FIRST BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITY.

IT WILL ALSO HELP WITH CENTRAL NEW YORK'S HOUSING SHORTAGE.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A TO THE JUSTINS, JUSTIN JONES AND PIERCE, THE YOUNGEST MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR SHOWING THE CONTEMPTUOUS CONDESCENDING REPUBLICANS LIKE ANDREW FARMER HOW DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.

SHALL WE NOW SAY NO JUSTINS, NO PEACE.

>> THAT'S A GOOD ONE.

AND TARA ARE YOUR A PLEASE.

>> TO TYLER PERRY FOR THE SUBJECT OF HIS NEXT FILM, THE SIX TRIPLE EIGHT KNOWN AS THE 6888 POSTAL DIRECTORY BATTALION, THE ONLY ALL AFRICAN-AMERICAN FEMALE UNIT IN WORLD WAR II.

THEY KEPT UP THE MORALE OF THE SOLDIERS BY CLEARING UP A THREE-YEAR BACKLOG OF MAIL IN THE EUROPEAN THEATER AND MAKING SURE IT GOT DELIVERED.

THIS WILL BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FILM TYLER PERRY HAS EVER DONE.

>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT FILM TO LOOK FORWARD TO.

AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

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

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.