>> BIDEN'S BALANCING ACT ON UKRAINE, BAIL REFORM AND THE SPIKE IN CRIME, AND WAKE UP--THE SENATE FINDS SOMETHING TO AGREE ON.

STAY TUNED FOR IVORY TOWER.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM CAZENOVIA COLLEGE, AND ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE.

SHORTLY AFTER UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S EMOTIONAL VIDEO APPEAL TO CONGRESS ASKING FOR HELP TO CLOSE THE SKY, PRESIDENT BIDEN SIGNED ANOTHER LARGE PACKAGE OF MILITARY AID.

IT INCLUDES MORE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS, BUT BIDEN SAYS THE U.S. WILL NOT ENFORCE A NO-FLY ZONE OR SEND FIGHTER PLANES FOR UKRAINE'S AIR FORCE.

IS BIDEN HE TOO RETICENT TO PROVIDE THESE MORE SOPHISTICATED WEAPONS?

IS HE RIGHT TO RESIST THE EMOTIONAL URGE TO PUSH BACK MORE STRONGLY, GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FOR A WIDER CONFLICT?

>> YOU KNOW, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

I AGREE THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF EMOTIONAL URGE TO DO GOOD THINGS FOR UKRAINE AND PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING THERE.

BUT YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF EMOTION HAS TO BE TEMPERED WITH THE REALITIES OF GLOBAL POLITICS.

SO I DO THINK THAT BIDEN IS NOT RECEIPT-- IS NOT DOING THE WRONG THING IN PUSHING AGAINST THE NO-FLY ZONE.

AND LET ME BREAK THIS UP A LITTLE BIT.

THE PUSH FOR CREATING A NO-FLY ZONE, I BELIEVE, IS RECKLESS AND WISHFUL THINKING.

LET'S START WITH THE WISHFUL THINKING.

NO-FLY ZONE DOES NOT APPEAR AS A SIGH FIELD FORCE FIELD.

IT REQUIRES TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MILITARY ENGAGEMENT.

FIRST OF ALL, ONE MUST ESTABLISH AIR SUPERIORITY OVER THE COUNTRY, WHICH MEANS DIRECTLY ATTACKING AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS OFF RUSSIA, ESPECIALLY AS 400 SYSTEMS, WHICH HAVE A MASSIVE RANGE OF 400 KILOMETERS.

AND THEN ALSO IT INVOLVES 24 HOUR SURVEILLANCE, YOU KNOW, AND BECAUSE OF THE 24 HOUR SURVEILLANCE WE NEED CONSTANT REFUELING IN THE SKIES AND WITHOUT THAT, NATO PILOTS ARE OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, ATTACK BY RUSSIANS.

NOW ALSO THERE NEEDS TO BE-- THEY NEED TO SET UP A JOINT COMMAND SOMEWHERE IN THE NATO COUNTRY AND SO ON.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE WISHFUL THINKING?

>> THIS IS THE WISHFUL THINKING.

NO-FLY ZONE IS NOT GOING TO SIMPLY APPEAR.

YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH AN UP FRONT AIR SUPERIORITY, WHICH MEANS DIRECTLY ATTACKING RUSSIAN HARDWARE, PROBABLY ON RUSSIAN SOIL.

NOW THE RECKLESS PART IS THAT THAT WOULD LEAD TO MASSIVE ESCALATION BECAUSE IT WILL SEEM THAT NOW NATO AND RUSSIA ARE IN A FIGHT AND THESE ARE TWO MASSIVE NUCLEAR POWERS THAT WILL BE IN A HEAD TO HEAD CONFRONTATION.

JUST A SMALL HISTORY LESSON AND I'LL STOP AND HAVE OTHERS SPEAK ABOUT IT IS THAT DURING IN KOREA, THERE WAS DIRECT AIR CONFRONTATION BETWEEN U.S. AND RUSSIA.

BUT BOTH SIDES KEPT IT SECRET FOR YEARS SO THAT IT DOESN'T ESCALATE INTO A GLOBAL WAR.

I DO THINK SENDING MILITARY HARDWARE THAT IS DEFENSIVE IN NATURE IS FINE, BOTH POWERS HAVE DONE IT.

BUT ENFORCING A NO-FLY ZONE WOULDY ESCALATE AND CREATE MASSIVE RISK FOR THE WORLD.

>> WOULD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORT IT IF AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS, PILOTS WERE IN HARM'S WAY, TARA?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD.

I THINK PART OF AMERICAN SUPPORT , AND I THINK ANIRBAN ABSOLUTELY HIT IT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, YOU KNOW, EMOTIONALLY, MORALLY WE WANT TO SUPPORT THE UKRAINIANS BUT WE WANT TO SUPPORT THEM IN A SENSE FROM AFAR.

WE ARE NOT READY FOR U.S. SERVICE PERSONNEL TO BE KILLED IN LARGE NUMBERS OVER A COUNTRY THAT, YOU KNOW, IS NOT PART OF NATO, OVER A COUNTRY, THAT WHILE WE MAY BE EMPATHETIC, REALLY IS NOT STRATEGIC FOR AMERICA AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SO NO, I DON'T THINK AMERICANS WOULD SUPPORT IT.

>> DO YOU AGREEY WITH THAT?

IT'S NOT STRATEGIC FOR AMERICA?

>> NO, I DON'T.

I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE DIVISIVE TO OUR SOCIETY; THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME STRONG OPINIONS BOTH SIDES.

THAT THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE SIGNING UP AND GOING AND ENLISTING AND GOING TO FIGHT THE WAR AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE MORE PROTESTS AGAINST THE WAR.

I THINK IT WOULD DIVIDE THE COUNTRY MORE.

BUT I THINK REALLY WAS WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON IS WE KNOW WE ARE IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY NOW AND THAT'S HOW WE NEED TO RESPOND.

AND THAT'S HOW BIDEN HAS BEEN RESPONDING LARGELY, IS A GLOBAL RESPONSE, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT.

SO IF THAT GLOBAL RESPONSE, WITH THE INTELLIGENCE THAT WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO, THE TOP SECRET LEVEL INTELLIGENCE, GIVES US A STRATEGIC EDGE TO STRIKE OR HELP OUT UKRAINE PRIOR TO CHINA SUPPORTING RUSSIA EITHER FINANCIALLY AND/OR WITH MILITARY, THEN THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

>> MY QUESTION IS DO YOU THINK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT ACTUALLY PULLING CHINA INTO THIS IN A MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL WAY?

>> NO, I THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT CHINA WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE.

BUT IF IT IS DONE STRATEGICALLY, RAPIDLY, AND SWIFTLY, PRIOR TO CHINA PROVIDING ADDITIONAL WEAPONS AND FUNDING AND OFFSETTING THE SANCTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE, THEN THAT MAY OFFSET THE CHANCE OF CHINA JUMPING IN PHYSICALLY.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, WHEN YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, THEY'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE ARE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS.

>> DONALD RUMSFELD HAS JOINED US ON THE PACKAGE I THINK.

>> ANIRBAN.

YOU MENTIONED THE KOREAN WAR AND THAT BOTH SIDES WANTED TO HUSH UP DIRECT CONFRONTATION SO IT DIDN'T ESCALATE.

SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE NOW?

DO YOU THINK THAT BOTH SIDES NECESSARILY WANT TO KEEP SOME OF THIS QUIET OR DOES THIS WORK TO ONE SIDE'S ADVANTAGE OR ANOTHER IF THERE IS THIS FEAR OF ESCALATION?

>> I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

NOW WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THIS IS THAT NOBODY HAS TRIED TO ENFORCE A NO-FLY ZONE ON A GREAT POWER.

THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED IN HUMAN HISTORY YET.

AND TO JUST THINK ABOUT THAT MAKES ME SHUDDER; THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR U.S. MILITARY WOULD GO AND DIRECTLY ATTACK RUSSIAN HARDWARE WITHIN ITS SOIL AND PUTIN WOULD BACK OFF AND-- IT AND THAT HE WOULD NOT TAKE IT AS AN ESCALATION AND DIRECT CONFRONTATION WITH NATO.

THAT'S THE UNIQUE ASPECT HERE.

>> THE RUSSIAN MILITARY DOCTRINE IS TO ESCALATE TO DEESCALATE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THEN THE WORST PART IS WHAT IF NATO IS CALLED ON ITS BLUFF?

WHAT IF THE RUSSIANS ENGAGE NATO ALLIED AIRCRAFT WITH THE SURFACE TO AIR?

AND NATO BACKS OFF THEN NATO'S CREDIBILITY IS GONE.

THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SAY WE CAN PROTECT THE BALTIC COUNTRIES.

IT'S A TERRIBLE HAND TO PLAY.

THERE IS A LOT OF CHATTER GOING ON ABOUT HOW 75% AMERICANS SUPPORT THIS NO-FLY ZONE.

THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT DATA.

WHEN YOU GUYS BROKE IT UP AND SAID DO YOU THINK THAT AMERICAN AIRPLANES SHOULD SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN AIRPLANES, THE POLL FALLS APART.

>> THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.

WHEN BOTH HOUSES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE WENT DEMOCRATIC IN 20-18, ELIMINATING CASH BAIL WAS ONE OF THEIR TOP PRIORITIES.

NOW WITH CRIME RATES RISING IN NEW YORK BAIL REFORM IS AGAIN A MAJOR ELECTORAL ISSUE.

REPUBLICANS BLAME IT FOR CONTRIBUTING IF NOT CAUSING THE SPIKE IN CRIME.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER ANDREA STEWART-COUSINS SAYS THE PUSH FOR RE-REFORM IS A FEAR CAMPAIGN FOR REPUBLICANS TO WIN BACK OFFICE.

LATE YESTERDAY WORD CAME THAT GOVERNOUR HOCHUL MAY INCLUDE ROLLING BACK BAIL REFORM IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

DOES THIS LAW NEED TO BE REVISITED?

SHOULD CASH BAIL BE REINSTITUTED IN NEW YORK?

>> I THINK SHE IS RIGHT TO BE LOOKING AT THAT.

THAT'S THE GUY THAT GOINGS TO BE RUNNING AGAINST HER FOR GOVERNOR HAD THAT IN HIS 15-POINT PLAN.

AND REALLY, IT COMES DOWN TO THREE THINGS THAT BAIL SHOULD BE BASED ON.

THE FIRST ONE IS THE THREAT TO SOCIETY.

IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THEIR CRIMINAL ARRESTS, AND ALSO THEIR CONVICTIONS, NOT JUST WHAT THEY WERE CURRENTLY ARRESTED FOR.

AND THE REASON THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE BEST PREDICTOR OF FUTURE BEHAVIOR IS PAST BEHAVIOR.

AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW CASH BAIL WORKS IS THEY'LL LOOK AT, OKAY, THEY GOT PICKED UP AND ARRESTED FOR DRIVING WHILE REVOKED.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE BEING HELD ON.

BUT YET THEY HAVE THREE PREVIOUS ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS OF ROBBERIES.

THAT PERSON IS NOT SAFE TO BE RELEASED PRIOR TO TRIAL.

>> SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE DISCRETION THEN.

IF THE JUDGE-- IF SOMEONE COMES BEFORE THE JUDGE, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MORE LEEWAY IN DECIDING WHETHER YOU STAY OR GO?

>> I THINK IT HAS TO BE THEIR PAST HAS TO BE LOOKED AT, WHETHER THEY'RE A FLIGHT RISK OF COURSE HAS TO BE LOOKED AT.

AND THEIR ABILITY TO PAY HAS TO BE LOOKED AT.

AND IT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN AN OBJECTIVE WAY.

THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AN EASY BUTTON BUT THERE ARE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS THAT WILL TAKE THESE THINGS INTO ACCOUNT LIKE A CRIMINAL HISTORY AND SUCH.

>> ABILITY TO PAY.

ANIRBAN, IF SOMEONE IS PICKED UP , ARRESTED FOR SOMETHING AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY BUT OTHERWISE THE PERSON, FOR THE SAME EXACT CRIME OR SAME EXACT CRIMINAL HISTORY DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY... >> YEAH, I MEAN IT IS-- THE EVIDENCE IS QUITE CLEAR THAT CASH BAIL HURTS ECONOMICALLILY DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE, POOR PEOPLE AND MANY OF THEM ARE OVERWHELMINGLY BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE.

THAT'S DATA.

IT AMOUNTS TO A DATA PRISON IN THE PRESENT CENTURY.

I DO BELIEVE THAT I AGREE WITH BEN THAT THERE IS A NEED TO OPTIMIZE, RIGHT, TO BALANCE SAFETY AND EQUITY AT THE SAME TIME.

SO I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE REFORMS.

AND REGARDING MISDEMEANORS AND OTHER THINGS, I THINK THE CASH BAIL SHOULD BE REPEALED BECAUSE IT HAS REALLY, REALLY HURT A LOT OF PEOPLE.

>> BUT WHAT IF THEY'VE GOT THAT HISTORY THAT BEN IS TALKING ABOUT?

>> AGAIN, THAT NEEDS TO BE KIND OF JUDGED BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE SAFETY AND EQUITY ASPECT.

LIKE THE REPUBLICANS KEEP SCARE MONGERING ABOUT SHOWING SOME CRAZY CRIMINALS OUT THERE BUT LET'S LOOK AT CA CHIEF, THE 14-YEAR-OLD KID WRONGLY CONVICTED OF STEALING A BACKPACK, PUT IN RIKERS FOR THREE YEARS, CAME OUT AND COMMITTED SUICIDE AND FOR EVERY INCIDENT THAT THE REPUBLICANS PUT FORWARD, WE CAN PUT FORWARD 10 MORE WHERE THIS HORRIBLE THINGS ARE HAPPENING TO POOR PEOPLE, RIGHT?

>> SO HE WAS IN SOLITARY IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IS IT UNDENIABLE THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE RELEASE HAVE HAD GONE ON TO COMMIT CRIMES AND TERRIBLE CRIMES?

>> CERTAINLY THEY HAVE.

BUT AT LEAST SINCE YOU'VE HAD THIS REFORM BY THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE, BASICALLY, IT'S BEEN 1% SOME SOURCES SAY 1.5, SOME SAY 2%.

SO THE NUMBER WHO HAVE RECOMMITTED CRIMES IS VERY, VERY SMALL.

AND, IN FACT, WHAT THEY HAVE FOUND IS THAT OF 11,000 PEOPLE RELEASED, ABOUT HALF OF THEM ACTUALLY WERE VICTIMS ORBY STANDERS OF THE CRIME, THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE CRIMES.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT PART OF THE ISSUE HERE THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT IS THIS THE REAL ISSUE?

BECAUSE CRIME IS UP ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND CRIME IS UP WHERE THERE IS BAIL REFORM.

CRIME IS UP WHERE THERE IS NO BAIL REFORM.

SO TO SAY THAT THE PROBLEM IS THIS NO CASH BAIL REFORM, REALLY IS NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT CRIME IS UP.

PERIOD.

AND FOCUSING ON WHY CRIME HAS GONE UP, INCLUDING WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF COVID.

>> SO IS THERE ANY ASPECT OF THE LAW THAT YOU WOULD CHANGE?

IF YOU WERE THE GOVERNOR, WHAT WOULD BE IN YOUR BUDGET ON THIS, RIGHT?

>> I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ALLOW MORE REVIEW OF WOULD BE-- AND I'M CAREFUL ABOUT USING THE TERM DANGEROUSNESS BECAUSE I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED.

AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC WHERE THAT CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

AND WHAT CONSTITUTES DANGEROUSNESS.

>> AND THERE ARE TWO POINTS THAT THE GOVERNOR SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, WHICH IS THE SUSPECT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY NEEDS TO BE TANK ENINTO ACCOUNT SETTING BAIL FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS.

SPECIFICALLY WHAT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON ARE THESE REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDERS THAT COMMIT MOST OF THE CRIMES.

MOST OF THE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED BY A VERY SMALL PERCENT OF SOCIETY.

AND THAT'S THE PEOPLE THAT WE NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON, KEEPING AWAY FROM SOCIETY UNTIL THEY CAN BE HEARD AND THEY CAN HAVE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN COURT, WHICH IS SO SMALL.

THE ATTRITION LEADING TO COURT IS RIDICULOUS.

4% OF FELONY CASES ACTUALLY MAKE IT TO TRIAL.

AND OUT OF THE 4% THAT MAKE IT TO TRIAL, 75% OF THEM ARE FOUND GUILTY AND 25% NOT GUILTY.

SO FOR THINGS TO ACTUALLY GET TO TRIAL IS VERY LIMITED.

>> SO THERE IS A BIGGER ISSUE THEN INVOLVED HERE, PERHAPS WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, AT LARGE, IF THERE IS ONLY 4% LEAD TO TRIAL, THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF PRESSURE FOR PLEA BARGAINS AND PEOPLE MAKING DEALS BECAUSE MAYBE THEY CAN'T AFFORD, YOU KNOW, A ROBUST DEFENSE OR FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS.

>> THAT'S ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST CASH BAIL IS THAT SOMEBODY UNDER A CASH BAIL IS MORE LIKELY TO PLEAD GUILTY, MORE LIKELY TO BE FOUND GUILTY.

THOSE ARE ARGUMENTS GLENS IT AND HAS TO BE DONE WITH A SUPPORT SYSTEM THAT IS TESTED AND WORKS IN OTHER AREAS.

>> YOU SAID SOMEONE UNDER CASH BAIL, YOU MEAN SOMEONE IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE CASH TO POST THE BAIL.

>> QUESTION.

>> IT MAY BE HARD TO BELIEVE IN THESE DAYSED OF PARTISAN GRIDLOCK BUT THE UNITED STATES SENATE HAS AGREED ABOUT SOMETHING.

SENATORS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED MAKING DAYLIGHT SAVINGS THE PERMANENT.

THAT'S IF THE HOUSE AGREES, OF COURSE AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE BILL, TOO.

SO THERE WOULD BE NO MORE CHANGING CLOCKS TWICE A YEAR BUT WHY NOT STANDARD TIME, FAR TARA?

SHOULD WE HAVE DAYLIGHT SAVINGS?

>> FIRST OF ALL, NO, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE DAYLIGHT SAVINGS MAINLY BECAUSE I WANT MY HOUR OF SLEEP BACK.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS SHOULD WE HAVE DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME AND THE SENATE MADE THE DECISION TO, YOU KNOW, SENATOR RUBIO MADE THE DECISION, HE ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER SENATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES, DECIDED TO PUSH THIS LEGISLATION FORWARD.

AND BASICALLY, IT WAS VOTED ON IN WHAT THEY CALL A NO CONFLICT VOTE BASICALLY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SENATORS WHO ACTUALLY HAVE SOME OPPOSITION TO THIS WHO LEARNED ABOUT IT SORT OF LAST MINUTE AND WERE JUST LIKE, OKAY, WELL, I'LL TALK TO PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE AND THEY CAN VOTE AGAINST IT.

SO THAT'S PART OF MY PROBLEM IS THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY REALLY DEBATE ABOUT THIS.

AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS, SHOULD-- OKAY, IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A NATIONAL STANDARD, SHOULD IT BE STANDARD TIME OR DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME AND THE MOVE FOR DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME SEEMS TO BE VERY MUCH A PRO-BUSINESS ISSUE.

THERE ARE SOME CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS, YOU KNOW, POLICE CHIEFS, ET CETERA, WHO SUPPORT IT AS WELL BECAUSE THEY SAY IT WILL REDUCE CRIME, ET CETERA.

>> BEN, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THINGS ARE GETTING PASSED WITHOUT SENATORS EITHER READING IT OR EVEN KNOWING ABOUT IT.

>> AS IN THIS CASE.

>> WHICH IS SCARY TO-- I MEAN THIS IS ONE KIND OF BENIGN ISSUE, REALLY.

WHAT IF IT'S SOMETHING ELSE?

AND SO I'M CURIOUS AND I'M ASSUMING OUR VIEWERS ARE CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS THAT MADE THIS POSSIBLE FOR-- BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY VOTED FOR IT, DIDN'T THEY?

>> UNANIMOUS.

>> SO HOW MANY OF THE SENATORS THAT WERE-- THAT WE ARE SENDING TO LEGISLATE ON OUR BEHALF ARE NOT READING THE BILLS?

>> I THINK THAT PROBABLY HAPPENS IN A LOT OF BILLS.

THEY'RE SO DETAILED THEY MAY NOT GET INTO THE DETAIL.

BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS UP FOR A VOTE AND THEY AGREED WITH IT ANYWAY.

ANIRBAN... >> I AGREEY WITH YOU.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> TAKE IT AWAY.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU, RIGHT?

WHAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND THIS?

AND HISTORICALLY IT HAS BEEN-- MAYBE THIS IS MY FAILURE.

I WAS IN GOOGLE SCHOLAR TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE ANY ARTICLES ABOUT.

THIS I DIDN'T FIND ANY.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE REASONING IS.

AND I THINK YOUR IDEA, IT'S NON-TRIVIAL.

I WANT TO GET MY ONE HOUR SLEEP BACK THAT I LOST, RIGHT?

AND AFTER THAT, THEY CAN CHANGE IT TO STANDARD TIME.

THAT WOULD BE MY VOTE.

AND ARIZONA APPARENTLY DOESN'T CHANGE ITS CLOCKS.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

WE WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE REASONING ABOUT WHY THIS IS THE CASE.

>> WELL, WHAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST IT OTHER THAN YOU GET YOUR SLEEP?

I MEAN YOU SAY IT'S NOT TRIVIAL BUT WE ARE GOING TO GET OUR HOUR'S SLEEP BACK THE NEXT DAY.

TAKE A NAP.

>> SURE, SURE.

>> BUT I MEAN THIS IS ACTUALLY A MORE SERIOUS ISSUE THAN THAT.

>> YEAH, SO SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT ACTUALLY STANDARD TIME IS BETTER FOR YOUR SLEEP AND HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE, RIGHT?

I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST AND I FOUND A LOT OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE DURING THE OIL EMBARGO OF THE 70s, THERE WAS SIMILAR, YOU KNOW, MOVE TOWARDS SAVINGS TIME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO MY HONEST ANSWER WOULD BE I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS ARE OF ONE OTHER THE OTHER.

>> THERE ARE SLEEP STUDIES OF SWING SHIFTS AND SOMEBODY SOMEBODY WHO WORKED SWING SHIFTS FOR 15 YEARS AND SEEING WHAT IT DOES TO YOU PHYSICALLY WITH HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE AND OTHER PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON THE BODY, IT HAS SHOWN TO BE AN ISSUE WHEN YOU KEEP CHANGING YOUR SLEEP CYCLE.

NOW THAT'S A LOT MORE THAN JUST TWICE A YEAR BUT IT DOES IMPACT AND CAN IMPACT PEOPLE'S HEALTH BY NOT STAYING ON THE SAME SCHEDULE OF SLEEP.

NOW WHAT YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT, SOME NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES, IS OUR KIDS GOING TO SCHOOL IN THE DARK FOR A BIG PART OF THE SCHOOL YEAR TRYING TO WALK TO A BUS OR WALK ALL THE WAY TO SCHOOL IN COMPLETE DARKNESS.

>> IT'S NOT ESCAPED MY NOTICE THAT THE SENATOR BEHIND THIS, MARK OWE RUBIO IS FROM THE SOUTHERN MOST POINT OF THE CONTINENTAL OF THE U.S. WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE LIGHTEST THE LONGEST, RIGHT?

SO YOU ARE RIGHT.

UP HERE IN CENTRAL NEW YORK, YOU KNOW, AROUND THE SOLSTICE, IT'S DARK.

AND THE BUSES ARE COMING AND KIDS ARE STANDING OUT ON THE STREET.

I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.

>> I THINK THAT'S LIKE WALKING IN THE DARK AT NIGHT AND SO ON.

AND ON A MORE PERSONAL NOTE, MY MOTHER LIVES IN CALCUTTA INDIA AND TO BASICALLY TELL HER HOW TO CHANGE THE TIMES EVERY TIME IN SPRING AND FALL TO TALK TO ME, I HAVE A LITTLE NOTE BARAK OBAMA FOR HER WHICH SHE GOES AND LOOKS AT.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING OF A PERSONAL GAIN FOR ME.

I WOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL MY MOTHER HAVE YOU TO CHANGE YOUR CLOCK TWICE TO TALK TO ME.

>> THE ISSUE THAT BEN RAISED AT THE TOP ABOUT CONGRESS.

I MEAN WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE SENATE AS THE WORLD'S MOST DELIBERATIVE BODY.

THEY USED TO SAY THAT WITH SOME VALIDITY.

MAYBE THE HOUSE IS THE MORE DELIBERATIVE BODY.

IS THERE ANY ASPECT OF THE WAY THIS GOT THROUGH THAT IS NOTABLE TO YOU, TARA?

>> EL-- WELL, ONE OF THE ISSUES FOR ME IS THAT THE FACT THAT APPARENTLY SOME SENATORS AIDES LITERALLY DIDN'T EVEN TELL THEIR SENATORS THAT THIS WAS COMING UP FOR A VOTE AND SO, YOU KNOW, PART OF MY QUESTION IS, WHO ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION?

DID THE SENATOR OR DID YOU JUST PUSH THE BUTTON FOR THE SENATOR?

SO THAT'S ONE CONCERN.

BUT THE OTHER CONCERN IS THAT, AND IT'S A TWO FOLD CONCERN.

ON THE ONE HAND, WE WOULD LIKE TO THINK OUR SENATORS ARE AT LEAST GETTING A DECENT SYNOPSIS WITH PROs AND CONS FOR ANY PIECE OF LEGISLATION BEFORE THEY VOTE ON IT.

BUT THE FLIP SIDE OF IT IS, OKAY, IF YOU CAN GET THIS QUICK OF A NO CONTHRICT CONSENSUS ON THIS-- NO CONFLICT ON THIS, WHY CAN'T YOU DO IT ON OTHER THINGS?

SO MY CONCERN IS, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

>> I SEE.

ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT HERE IS IT'S NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES SENATE THAT HAS JUMPED ON THIS BANDWAGON.

I MOO ENTHERE ARE A NUMBER MUCH STATES, INCLUDING NEW YORK, WHERE THIS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, PROPOSED AND SO THERE SEEMS TO BE A REAL GROUND SWELL FOR IT FOR REALLY, IT SEEMS LIKE UNEXPLICABLE REASONS FOR ME.

WE DO NEED TO GO TO THE As AND Fs.

TARA YOUR F. >> MY F IS PROBABLY MORE OF A C. >> YOU CAN'T GIVE A C. YOU HAVE TO GIVE AN F. >> WELL RILE GIVE THEM AN F BUT IT'S AN F WITH SHORT OF A STRESS.

IT GOES TO FORDHAM UNIVERSITY'S THEATER GROUP CALLED AND THIS IS A QUOTE "THE WHITE ANTI-RACIST WORKING GROUP."

AND THIS IS ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE AWE SAFE SPACE FOR WHITE ALLIES TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES AND FIGHT RACISM WITHIN THEMSELVES, THEIR PEERS AND THEIR COMMUNITY.

ALL GOOD SO FAR, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA BEHIND IT.

THIS GROUP HOWEVER, MAKES THE MISTAKE THAT MANY OF THESE GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED OVER THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS HAVE MADE.

IT FOCUSES ON READING THE RIGHT BOOKS, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T USE CERTAIN WORDS.

BUT IT DOESN'T FOCUS ON THE REAL ISSUE, WHICH IS SYSTEMIC RACISM AND HOW WE GET AT RECOGNIZING IT AND RESOLVING IT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES.

>> BEN, YOUR F. >> MY F IS GOING TO MIKE TYSON FOR MAKING MONEY FOR BITING A PIECE OF A MAN'S EAR OFF IN 1997.

HE HAS MADE SOME WEED BRAND GUMMIES CALLED MIKE BITES AND THIS BITE IN 1997, HE WAS FINED $3 MILLION.

LOST HIS BOXING LICENSED AND DISQUALIFIED FROM THE FIGHT.

>> ANIRBAN?

>> F -US TO THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TO SEIZE ASSETS-OF-THE-CENTRAL BANK OF AFGHANISTAN DEPOSITED IN THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK.

CONSIDERED TO BE DUBIOUS IN LEGALITY.

IN TERMS OF MORALITY, THIS IS A REAL LOW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION.

>> TO OUR As.

>> TO PROFESSOR DAVID A. BERKOWITZ OF CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SUING A STUDENT FOR POSTING PARTS OF HIS MID TERM AND FINAL EXAMS ON COURSE HERO, WHICH IS AN EDUCATION SHARING WEBSITE.

THE SHARING OF EXAM MATERIALS ONLINE IS BECOMING A BIGGER PROBLEM AND THIS LAWSUIT IS DEFINITELY OVERDUE.

>> BEN, YOUR A.

>> MY A IS GOING TO A NEWS EDITOR IN RUSSIA WHO HELD UP A SIGN NO WAR.

IS TO STOP WAR.

LET HER VIEWERS KNOW THAT THE STATION WAS MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH PROPAGANDA.

THAT HER FATHER WAS RUSSIAN AND HER MOTHER-- SORRY, FATHER WAS UKRAINIAN AND MOTHER WAS RUSSIAN AND THEY NEVER FOUGHT.

>> MY A IMS TO THE 16-YEAR-OLD PRACTICING WHO PULLED OFFED A STUNNING WIN ON A RAPID CHESS TOURNAMENT AGAINST THE WORLD CHAMPION OF NORWAY.

>> EXCELLENT.

SO QUEENS GAMBIT, KING'S GAMBIT.

>> HE GOT IT IN 39 MOVES.

>> EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

YOU CAN WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ON WCNY.ORG.

YOU CAN WRITE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪