Ah, that music, Fox and Foxy trot on over when the music swings.  Band stands, easy bends, sits, stretches its first swing set, notes spilling around couples, loco with motion. Bases and sacks pick up the beat, toss it to couple 21. That's Lois and Clark on the low down from Terry town, who step on it, feel their feet absorb the heat. They fly the floor, not there anymore. Piano keys unlock wish boxes from which dancers spin and grin. Ah, those musicians from tonight's rubber band hitting highs all night, accordion to the blond, lanky lounge lizard who's saving her notes, usually bundled 20s for some goofy gag or gamey gig that pays big bucks, though Wiley Ginny Grinn runs this show out of cell 69. Bookings managed by Matilda, master of arts and potty mouth darts, who waltzes around on tiptoes, jockeying for lead inside position on every ballroom floor in Baltimore. Thanks for listening.


Team keep it clean. What's going on the same grave and hit with another video and in this video Pete Carroll? he was on a conference call today and He talked about his dealings with one Colin Kaepernick And he talked about how a team actually reached out to him today To ask about Colin Kaepernick. So before we get into my thoughts, let's see exactly what Pete Carroll said He said so I know somebody's interested and we'll see what happens with that I thought the irony of that was crazy because I knew I was coming on this press conference And you guys are going to ask me a million questions about this. I got a phone call today for the first time He said Kaep called me during the 2016 season before that off season And he called me he called out of the blue to ask me for some advice about where he would go next I was flattered that he would even think to call me because we never talked before other than just You know greetings and so from that point I was kind of rooting for him and hoping that things would work out And so I forgot about it when it came back around and we had a chance to visit with him and it came up I was thinking this is an incredible football player Let's find out if it can possibly fit football wise and all that and then also because he hadn't visited anywhere yet Maybe this would help him and open up doors for him if our thing didn't work out. We had great meetings I don't know that I've ever explained it in much in as much depth But we spent half a day together He spent time with all people throughout the building and he was awesome He just backed up even more of what we had seen in the character and in his smarts in his togetherness And his competitiveness to the point where it was so obvious that he's a starter in the NFL He was a dominant figure as a football player and that's how we saw him the fact that didn't work out I figured he was going to wind up starting somewhere for sure and it just didn't happen So the rest of the story is one that I regret that didn't happen in some fashion I wish we would have contributed to it because again he deserved to play I thought at that time and just in our situation as a backup man I didn't feel it like it was right at that time. So I had to make that football decision It was about our team in the situation We had our starting quarterback and all of that and it wasn't going to be the open competitive situation that I like to think All of our spots are because russell is such a dominant figure and all that that's what happened When you look back, I felt like we missed the opportunity. I wish we could have figured that out knowing what we know now I wish we had given him the chance because I would love to see him play for all these years so uh Pete Carroll Let it be known that he wishes that he would have given Collin Kaepernick the opportunity And it does make sense because again, I think Collin Kaepernick would have been a really good fit in that seahawks offense And russell wilson it would have just been nice to have somebody like Kaepernick as a backup He did mention that he didn't feel like Kaepernick was a backup and that Kaepernick was a starter Okay, understood. But at the same time, he did mention something that was very significant Which is also very true. He says he feels like uh, if he would have signed Kaepernick Even if Kaepernick didn't start then it could have opened up doors For carlin Kaepernick and opened up Possible opportunities for him Moving forward because we've all seen it plenty of times when A qb they may seem like their career is over it may seem like their career is a wrap It may seem like their career is done But then they just get a chance Even if they come on as a backup they get a shot And in a little bit of time even if they don't start the whole season Even if they just start for a little bit they show little flashes here and there They end up getting an opportunity Look at teddy bridge water last year for example A lot of people thought oh this dude former vikings. I think what second round pick Oh man, his legs are shot. He ain't gonna do nothing. Yeah, that's he going to the saints as a backup He ain't gonna do nothing So he went to the saints for one year as a backup and then stayed an additional year as a backup Drew breeze had his thumb injury teddy bridge water went in and then boom Started five games won five games and he was decent in those five games He got more comfortable and got better as each game passed And now he got like a 60 million dollar contract for three years and he's a starting quarterback with the panthers So all some people just need Is an opportunity And p carol says he regrets not having given carlin kapanik that opportunity um, and He also did mention That somebody called him today About carlin kapanik. He said he wasn't going to say who it was So they would remain anonymous Respect that okay cool But the fact that somebody called him About a workout that happened three years ago with carlin kapanik A question keeps coming up if if people think that carlin kapanik is going to get a chance in the nfl again Um, and i'm very torn on it. Um, the reason that i'm torn on it is because I just don't know Uh, if if teams would be willing to do that I don't know but because before um carlin kapanik, I mean either way Both before the time that we living in right now and even before Um, carlin kapanik would bring a lot of attention to your team so You would need to have a uh a strong pr Um, and just a strong locker room presence as well if you want to take on one carlin kapanik Uh, then you you best to be be ready for all the cameras Um and all the attention that would come with it and some people would be like, oh, he'll be a distraction We already got our starting quarterback. We don't need any uh any problems or anything like that I don't think it would be anything like that. Um, but at the same time there would be a media frenzy If carlin kapanik does get signed now It seems as if he does get signed This could actually help a team out. Um, it will still be a frenzy But it could actually help them uh PR wise and whatnot and you know again NFL is a business It is a business So they don't care about your personal feelings. They will do things to help them themselves out They will do things to help their businesses out. Um, so It is so a lot of times they don't got anything to do with you personally They will use people in order to uh help their companies out and their franchises their markets Happens all the time But I think that It also does show that uh The fact that this team called p carol and didn't actually bring in carlin kapanik themselves It shows that there is still some fear It shows that there is still uh Some a level of worry To where They had to remain anonymous Because they could have carlin kapanik's a free agent He's a free agent. He's not signed to any team. He's not signed to any other leagues like cfl anything No, he has no obligation to any team whatsoever none So that team could have brought in carlin kapanik for a workout But they didn't They didn't they asked The head coach of the team that worked him out three years ago how it was three years ago Things can change a lot in three years whether for better or for worse Things can change so much So and if you look at a lot of players around the league three years ago A lot of them are not the same player Again for better or for worse So the fact that whatever team it was whoever it may be The fact that they That they asked p carol about carlin kapanik And it may not have just been about on the on the field stuff. It could have been a bit been about personal stuff But I think the the best way for whatever team it was to have gone about that Would have been just to go straightforward carlin kapanik and if it was about just the personal stuff Just do a phone call You can still remain anonymous You could tell caps people a hold it down Don't don't put this out You could tell cap a hold it down. Don't put this out And you could tell your people hold it down. Don't put this out All it is is a phone call Make a phone call if it's about personal stuff make that a phone call Keep it anonymous. Don't let anybody know But if it's about football stuff and you're asking the head coach Of the seahawks. He asking p carol from a workout from three years ago. If it's about football stuff then To me, I think that's it doesn't make any sense If it's about football, you need to work them out yourself Might as well What's the worst that could happen? Well, they probably scared of the blowback They probably uh, they probably worried that people would be like, oh You work them out. Oh, but you don't sign them, especially Depending on your quarterback situation Oh, because it's so many different factors that that play a part in the possibility Of what uh could go on if they brought in carlin cap and it for a workout because again There would be a media frenzy And depending on your quarterback situation Because quarterbacks are sensitive You know quarterbacks are very sensitive So if a team was to bring in carlin cap and it for a workout and they let it be known Then they're starting quarterback. Whoever that may be Depending on his contract depending on his recent play. He could be like, hey What are y'all doing? Why y'all bringing him in? Especially somebody who started before If carlin cap and it had never started a game in the league before okay The the quarterback wouldn't be worried and not even to say that A quarterback who hasn't played in like three four years would cause a starting quarterback to worry But at the same time if that starting quarterback has been struggling If that starting quarterback has not been playing his best football He could think in the back of his mind.  And I I'm just uh So it's a lot of different scenarios that could uh that could come from this whole thing Um, but we'll see what happens We'll see what happens um Pete carol It there are some teams that could I mean a lot of teams especially now with everything going on could definitely take Cap and it going and and there would be I think there would be more support For uh for him on a team then there would be blowback, but at the same time there would still be Uh some blowback But anyway, we'll just continue to watch and wait and see what happens team keep it clean I love y'all. I appreciate y'all. I thank you all. Thank you for continuing. It's just stay positive Thank you for continuing to show so much support Um, and y'all just keep being great me y'all are the best seriously I'm out


Good evening and welcome back to Byline. This is a public affairs show here at Amherst Media and still working collaboratively with the Amherst League of Women Voters. Although we've changed our format, having gone into 2020, the new decade, last year we did a show every week, now we're doing them every other week, but we're still going to be bringing interesting people into the studio to talk about the work that they do, whether they're in the government or do things that can connect and touch our new local government and town council. So we're going to keep following the transition here in Amherst to our new form of government. Today we have two guests with us and these are people who have been working really hard in the community around homelessness and housing, and of course this community has made a priority over time of trying to live by this idea that we're all in this together and we have responsibility to help and care for each other, especially those who find themselves on hard times or have difficult situations that they have to deal with. And so Wayling is very well known here in town. How long have you been in town? Twenty-five years, exactly. Twenty-five years. I'm well known, but I am not on the most wanted list. Thank goodness for that. Well known because you've been active in the community. So tell us first how you got to Amherst, what brought you to town, and then we'll talk about what your passions are. Well, I came here with my husband and four children from Tennessee, and we moved up here because Amherst has excellent school system, and they have a wonderful orchestra program. So all my children had gone through the school system orchestra program, and they all received wonderful excellent education. For that I'm just so grateful. And so that, if I'm remembering correctly, four children. Yes, we have four children. They went through the Amherst school systems. They went off to college. Do I remember that two or three of them ended up in the big Ivy League school? Yes, I'm very proud to say. You should be. Three graduates from Harvard and the fourth? Oberlin College. Oberlin. Pretty good. Okay, absolutely, especially for music. And was that one of the children who was really good at music? He didn't play music. He ended up going to economics. Interesting. And now working as the chief economist for the state of Maryland. Wow. The chief economist for the state of Maryland. Wow. It's a nice title, but he said to me, I only have one person in the office, myself, and others who help me. So he's the chief of himself. He's the chief. Very good. And we also have Tom Fair with us today. Tom, tell us how you found your way to Amherst. I was farming in Montague. And the land that I was farming on was going to be used to build houses. And so I was asked to move. And I never quite successfully found another good piece of land. So after I moved that from that piece of land, I tried two or three other places in it. It was never as successful as it was. So I ended up coming to Amherst because I got a job working at All Things Local, which was a year-round indoor farmers market in downtown Amherst. And that promptly closed about after a year I was working there. And then that's when it really got difficult. And I found myself being without a home. And I just stayed in the Amherst area because it was, I had a car at the time. But the reason I stayed close to Amherst is because I think Amherst has solved the food poverty issue. I mean, if you're hungry and you're in Amherst, then you're just not paying attention because there's at least 20 places during the week where you can get food. So you can get meals. You can get meals. You can also get food products. Yeah. And so that was, I stayed in Amherst because of my basic needs. And then I went back to UMass in 2015, from 2015 to 2017, to get my bachelor's in agriculture. And that was quite expensive thing to do. And after I graduated, I just really found it difficult to find good work. And that compounded what was going on. So that was how I got to Amherst, yeah.  And that was because you first needed food. And Wei Ling, your first work in town as a volunteer and as a community activist, was around food. And remind us about that. Oh, that was back in 20, well, since 1996, I started working as an operator for a local soup kitchen called Not Bread Alone at the First Congregational Church. And for a dozen plus years, I cooked, cleaned, worked with volunteers, prepared gorgeous, nutritious, delicious meals, Wednesday, Thursday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. And it's always wonderful lentil soups with garlic bread and Italian, you know, cuisines not as good as yours. But we have a good crowd. But at the end of the day, I noticed all those wonderful guests, 60, 70 of them, would come and went. And when they left, I knew that they were still going to be on the street because they were homeless. They had no place to go. So after some thinking, I realized I could be of more service to them if I could help them get housing when they can make a nice meal for themselves if they have a place to call home. So instead of coming to the soup kitchen, they can cook for themselves, have friends over, and have a really normal life that we are all entitled to have. And so your work then progressed from food to shelter. Yes, food, shelter, and housing. And housing because ultimately the solution to homelessness is a place to live. Housing is the solution to homelessness. And so tell us what your observation and experience has been working in this community around homelessness and housing. Well, I have to say the town of Amherst and the people of Amherst have been very mindful and generous. I will talk about the town over the years when Amherst Community Connections apply for grant funding to provide temporary vouchers for the homeless. Every time when we ask, the town would give us money for housing vouchers. So that shows the town is really mindful of the homeless issues. And our agency is very small. We rely on 100 percent volunteers. So with such a small budget, the public over these 10-plus years has been donating generously every year to our agency, Amherst Community Connections, such that we can meet our repayment. We can pay for the internet connection that we can buy paper to print documents. So the support of the community and the town of Amherst not only support us financially, but there are organizations such as the Affordable Housing Trust, the town entity, and they really put their stamp on many issues, whether it's making it easier for people to access public housing by streamlining the process or coming up forums to really hear from the homeless community their plight and their solutions. So they are really a very on the ground workforce that we see. Do I recall that at one point the town had a homelessness task force or committee that you were a member of and one of the leaders of? Oh, yes. And that was an interim step between the work on food and the formation of Amherst Community Connections. Is that correct? Right. That's correct. That was back in 2010 when I was the chair of the Committee on Homelessness, which is a town committee. And working with the committee members, including Mr. Kevin Noonan, who used to run a shelter in Springfield. In Springfield, yes. Right. So through the work of the community members and the help of Mr. Noonan, he had become a committee member as well. So through all of us work, the town gave us the blessing as the committee that we went out looking for a site for shelter. And with all the churches that we went to, there were three of them say, yes, we want to be part of the solution. But at the end of the day, when analysis is done, the first Baptist church was the church with the best condition in terms of the sheltering space available. So then in 2010, the first Baptist church became a warming center that Mr. Noonan and other volunteers and myself, we were there making soups, making grilled cheese sandwiches. And that was the first winter when the shelter was started. In a typical year, how many people come through Amherst Community Connections looking for help with housing? Oh. For most recent statistics that in 2019, this past year, now we are hitting almost 800 unique individual households. Some of the households have two people, children. Some of the households has one person. So almost 800 unique individuals. Here in this little town?  But of those 800 people, 800 households who came to us, 90% of them, either they are homeless or they are facing eviction or they experience inability to pay rent, behind on rent, about to be evicted. So almost 90% of the 800 households who came to us have this issue. And we seem to be the only agency in town focused strictly just on housing. But anything touches on housing, we would try to help. So Tom, you connected with Wei Ling around your homelessness. You were homeless for a period of time. Yeah, a co-worker of mine told me to go to the Amherst Housing Authority and see what they had for housing. And then they sent me over to ACC one rainy morning and I just, I did it because I said I would. And then it was how I was welcomed that I knew I had come to the right place. So you were not hopeful at first, but you thought you got to do it. Indifferent. It's not that I wasn't hopeful. I was just, my co-worker said to go over there and I said I would so I did what I said and I didn't have any preconceptions of what would happen. And I was surprised by what did occur and I graduated very quickly through the programs and the paperwork, the mountains of paperwork.  But I think the biggest reason why it worked for me was that I cooperated. I didn't go in there with any preconceived notion of how it should work. And over the time you were connected with them, what were the things that they worked with you on? Organizing my debt, trying to find me more work, just supporting me with the very little things on a weekly basis, sometimes twice a week. And that makes all the difference in the world, you know. Sometimes you think you have to start with all the big, difficult things. But if you organize and all the small things like getting your Social Security Guard and having the right identification and then having all the paperwork that you need to verify other paperwork with. Those are the really important things that I think that go unseen. So they became a partner for you, a guide and a partner in helping you go through all of the little steps leading to the big steps. And where did it take you? I felt good being organized, you know, nothing was going to be as a prize. I wasn't going to get a phone call saying there's this emergency, you know, I have to come up with $500 for this or that, as there was no surprises after a certain time. And I was still in my car. I converted my car into like a camper, so it wasn't incredibly uncomfortable. It was uncomfortable, but it wasn't the worst thing that could have happened. And then I got into a transitional room, and that was two months of that, and then another two months in a different place. And I finally got my Section 8 voucher, and now I'm in a place that's mine. My name's on the lease, I'm not part of any program anymore. And you're employed? I have steady work right next door at the Jones Library, so I don't need transportation. But if I did need transportation, the bussing in Amherst is exceptional, you can get anywhere you want to go anytime of the day. So you feel a real part of the community, and this is your home now, and you might prefer to be farming, but you need to go in a new direction, and they helped you find that new direction. Yeah, it's like there's a confidence now that I'm not really looking over my shoulder anymore, and I have to get used to that, because when I finish work, and I go home, and I'm cooking dinner, I'm like, what's the catch, because I still have that feeling that something is amiss, but it's not.  I don't think anybody really knew, I didn't really broadcast it, that I had a full-time job, and I didn't have a home, so I think I was surviving pretty well, despite not having a place, I had all of what I need with me, so I'm grateful for the experience too, because of the change of perspective, and now my new situation just feels so good that I could be nothing other than grateful, so it's been quite a journey. When I was working in Boston on Thanksgiving for probably five or six years, I would go to Pine Street Inn, which is the biggest shelter in Boston, very well known there, and tremendous facility, huge number of people, and the stories, the people we would meet, and the stories we would hear were just so amazing, because many of these people were people who had very high training, they were engineers, they were lawyers, they were business owners, and they hit a rough patch in their life, and in most of those cases, a single incident led to a series of other incidents which led to them becoming homeless, and you meet these people and you think, wow, this can happen to anybody, a health situation, a family break up, a sudden unexpected employment, and you are in a new world, and you have to figure out how to navigate it, so congratulations that you are on a really great path. Well I don't think it would have been such a success story had it not been an amour, because I think that as Wayling said earlier, the people of amours are very generous and conscientious, and there is no food poverty, and that's one of the biggest things. There are a lot of hungry people, but they have a way to feed themselves, because of amours, but what's next on housing, because I'm assuming that we haven't fixed everything we need to fix in that realm. No, not at all. So Wayling, do you want to weigh in on what you see from the organization's perspective about what the next steps are, because I'm really excited to hear the conversation about how from the people who are working with these kinds of situations that we've got a great food system in town, and we have an improving system and situation around homelessness, but we're not done yet. What's next? Well, what's next? It's always producing more housing that people can't afford. Right now the amours housing market is so unaffordable, more than 50% of the people who are renters, they are paying more than 50% of their income on housing. So anytime, as you said, they have a little bit of incident, whether it's utility bill high due to the winter or loss of employment or sickness, they will fall behind on their rent. And when you have rent owed to the landlord, the next thing you will know is the infection. So in amours, we really need to produce more housing that's affordable to our residents here. And while we are struggling to come up with more housing for the people who are on the virtue of becoming homeless due to the high rent, I want to ask the public to be more supportive of the efforts. In particular, the Northampton Road 28 units of studio apartments has had a lot of oppositions from some of the public members. And if we all recognize housing is a basic human needs and basic human right. So when you speak against a development, you may not be so readily saying no. You want to think everyone should have housing. But if the idea is, oh, the housing is going to be for those who are homeless, then shouldn't be here. I want to ask all of us to go inside of each one of us, think if the person who experiences homelessness, if it's my brother, it's my father, it's my aunt, how will we handle that compassion, kindness, and being mindful of how our opposition can impact people who really don't have a voice in the community because they are homeless. They are struggling. They are being evicted. So that would be something. We've had on the show as a guest twice, I believe, Jack Horneck, I keep thinking of I know a Jack Horner. It's John Horneck, who's the chair of the Affordable Housing Trust in Amherst. Can you talk a little bit about your views on the work that they're doing? Because they're very much behind that Northampton Road property that you're talking about. And they recently came up with a plan, which has been reviewed by the town council. Give us some thoughts and reaction to what you know about the work that they're doing in terms of their long-range plan and the work that they're doing. Well, I must profess that I do not know enough to make comments on all their projects they do, but it is as a member of the nonprofit communities, we had to go to the Affordable Housing Trust to ask for support for the projects we do. And I'll use this example to show the breadth of the work that they have in mind. We provide social service to prevent homelessness. We provide social service to those who are homeless. And the homeless population, it's a fairly small population. And the population who are being rent-behind, being evicted, also a small population. So the Affordable Housing Trust, they have a lot on their table. So when we went to them a couple of months ago asking if they could lend their committee support for a grant proposal that we are writing, which is called the Housing-Based Homeless Services. After I made a presentation, I could see the members of the committee look at me, really gave me the encouragement I need. So in the 10 minutes presentation, they said, yes, this is the kind of things that we need. While we as a committee, Housing Trust Fund, working to build more affordable housing, for those who are homeless on the street, we must find a way for them to have some stability, some housing stability. Because of that realization, affordable housing takes time. But what do people need in the meantime? Because of their insight, they understand support service is also very much needed. So that's something I have to say that the committee trust members, they are made up with people who really have been there and really understand the needs for housing. And I want to do a shout out for their breadth of their work. Not only they tackle the most basic how to build more units, but they are in the forefront of working with legislatures to talk about the 40R zoning and how we can address the housing restrictions by looking at the zoning bylaws. So those are the big pictures. And Mr. Hornick, who has such a breadth of the policy landscape, he was able to work with his committee members and really come up with very concrete different various proposals to propose to the town of Amherst. And as you said earlier, helping people stay in their homes and not become homeless is job one. Job two is if they are homeless or become homeless, to give them the wraparound services as they say in the jargon, so that you're not just looking at the housing, you're looking at the wide range of things that are necessary as Tom experienced in order to be able to get through that tough time and get yourself back into a living situation that gives you stability and security so you can go on to work and doing other things that you need to do. Very true. Yeah, the stability. Maybe Tom, you have something to say, how the housing stability has made it easy for you maybe to carry on your job. Give us one minute on that because we're almost out of time, but that would be great to hear your thought on that.  I mean, it's still sinking in and I'm still in the gratitude phase, but I don't think there's any comparison.  You can become yourself, but you can't really do that if you're trying to not freeze to death. So it just makes all the difference in the world. I don't know what's ahead, but I think very good things are ahead. Great. Well, Weyland Greeny, thank you for the work you've done for these decades both in food and now in shelter and Tom, congratulations to you. It's really an inspiring story to see someone who's making it again. So that's great. And thank you for joining us. And you've heard it here. There's a lot going on in Amherst that you can help with in many different ways, be a cheerleader, be a funder, be a supporter. So thank you and we'll see you again another time.


My name is Ruth Gates. I'm the Apprentice Manager in Swansea Bay Health Board. Swansea Bay Health Board covers Neathport Albert and Swansea and provides healthcare to all its population. We've recruited apprentices for the past two and a half years. We're recruiting local people who've come up from local schools and colleges and they're all guaranteed interviews for bands to healthcare support worker posts. Over 90% of those healthcare apprentices go into permanent band through roles and in partnership with Neathport Albert College and Gower College Swansea we've created a model that we can sustain for the future so we're really pleased to be nominated and it's now quite exciting.


My name is Russell Fluelen. I am a current senior in construction engineering and management at Purdue University, and I am a black engineer. My experience at Purdue this far has been rewarding yet challenging. I would say that there have been many experiences that have shaped me in ways that I couldn't imagine when I came in, whether it be in the classroom or with peers around Purdue. There's been a lot of adversity. There's been a lot of challenges. But ultimately I think I've grown from this, although it hasn't been the best experience. And so for that, I'm forever grateful. There have been things that I've experienced that I would not want others to experience. And so for that, I've been working tirelessly and working with the NSB for Change Committee so that we can push for change, sustainable change at Purdue University for other black engineers and black students to come. I'm on the National Society of Black Engineers Purdue University Mother Chapter, NSB for Change Committee, and that committee is geared towards promoting sustainable change for the students, the black students at Purdue University. I joined this committee to live out the mission statement of NSB, which is to increase the number of culturally responsible black engineers who excel academically, succeed professionally, and positively impact the community. The positively impacted community part is the part that specifically speaks to me, and which is why the committee exists and which is why I'm on the committee. We as a committee drafted a call to action for the College of Engineering, and that call to action was sent out to the entire engineering leadership team as well as individuals within the school to address ongoing issues at Purdue University. These issues talk about just diversity in whole within faculty and staff and students, but also creating a more opening and welcoming space for students at Purdue University that study engineering. And so with that, we hope to allow current students to have a better experience on campus with faculty, with staff, and seeing more people that look like them and having the representation that matters, but also reaching out to students who have yet to come and those future students and getting more pipelines to help them get to Purdue University when they may not be able to get to Purdue University and just increasing those numbers coming in, but when they get here that they feel welcomed and that they have spaces that represent them and that they're able to be their true authentic self at Purdue University in whatever manner that may be. Being an engineer in general is solving problems that may plague any community or a workplace or a company or whatever, but being a black engineer in this day and age I would say is something that is crucial to help fix those same issues in the black community. A lot of times we don't have the representation that we need for our community in terms of project design or project representation, and so I think being able to do that and be that voice for those people who aren't there, specifically in my field as construction engineering, I can do construction projects that are meaningful for lower income communities or more sustainable housing for those who don't have that and can combat that we see a lot of gentrification these days and stuff like that and being a voice in those communities where those communities are being broken apart or torn apart is something that to me what being a black engineer will do for me but also do for my community. To the College of Engineering Administration, I would say one of the first things beyond trying to fix any issues in the college is to listen. It's very simple and the opportunity is there, listen. Listen to students, listen to their stories, listen to their experiences, but not only that, listen to the faculty, the black faculty, listen to their stories, listen to their experiences. Listen to the staff, their stories and their experiences. Put yourself in a place where you're not supposed to fix any issues because the issue oftentimes will fix itself when you come out of a problem-solving mode. Many people think, oh, I can just attack this and do it in this manner and it'll, oh, I'll have a great solution. It's something that engineers do and in this case it's not something to be solved, it's something to work for. It's a long-standing history that goes back many years and no one person or one group will ever be able to solve that problem without listening to the people who truly understand and go through it each and every day through their four, five, six years or less or more at Purdue University.  Many black students face great trauma at Purdue and Purdue calls it grit or they call it adversity. You're getting this or getting that and you gain these great traits that are looked at when you're, oh, you know, you can bounce back. You're at various or you can persevere. You can do this or you can do that. But is that worth the cost of students' mental health, their well-being, their education, their social life or anything like that? And the answer should be no, but it's not always looked at in that manner. So understand, sit back, understand, reflect.  And when you understand that there is, you do not have to be that person to be an ally. You do not have to be the superhero. Some people just want to just be themselves and take the mask off. And, you know, in advising and all these things, experiences are always going to be different. And so blanketing solutions for all students doesn't always work. And so sometimes you have to understand that as well. You know, there is also this stigma that there's not enough black engineers to fulfill this necessary need of having more black engineers at Purdue. I would say that's not true. I only say that because if there's one, there's enough. The stigma should be, why aren't they at Purdue University if there's only one? That one should be here, right? And so I think that's enough. One is enough. It's not enough numerically, but it's enough to have somebody at Purdue University that represents that population. And so where that one exists, that one should be sought out. That one should be appreciated because Purdue still graduates one in a lot of engineering disciplines or none in a lot of engineering disciplines. Are they as important as the rest of them? And so to that I just say, really sit back and not be a superhero. Nobody wants you to be a superhero because we just want to be ourselves. And that's all we ask for.


The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Michael Matheson on policing and security, and the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement so that there should be no interruptions until then. Michael Matheson, thank you. I would like to make a statement about Police Scotland's announcement of an increase in the number of armed police officers. Let me be clear at the outset that today's announcement is about the number of armed officers, not the circumstances in which they are deployed. Members will recall the controversy in summer 2014, when armed officers were deployed to instance, not involving firearms or a threat to life. Police Scotland then reverted to the policy of only deploying armed officers to instance, involving firearms or a threat to life. There is no change to that approach. The threat that we face from terrorism is real. The overall threat level in the UK from international terrorism is classified as severe and has been since August 2014. The events that we witnessed at Charlie Hebdo's offices in January 2015, again on the streets of Paris in November and the mass murderers in Brussels are scenes that we never want to see again. They brought home just how vulnerable major cities can be. Again, in the last few days in Orlando, we have seen carnage and terror caused by a lone gunman. There is no specific known threat to Scotland, but it is the duty of government to protect its citizens, so we must plan and prepare for any eventuality. Sadly, we know that Scotland and the UK are not immune from terrorism. Previously, we have seen attacks in both Glasgow and London. The criminal use of firearms also poses a threat. The Government will always ensure that Scotland is well protected, that plans are in place to respond to such threats and that the risks are mitigated. I can assure members that Scotland is playing its full part in the continuous planning and preparation that goes on across the UK to protect our communities. The Scottish Government and the emergency services continue to work alongside the UK Government in considering our preparedness against all threats. We are committed to ensuring that Scotland's law enforcement and other bodies have all the tools that they need to tackle terrorism and organise crime effectively. The tax in Paris and Brussels, as well as intelligence about organised crime, have informed the work undertaken by Police Scotland to review plans and has today announced an increase in the number of armed officers to help to maintain safety and security in our communities. The chief constable has briefed me and ministerial colleagues on the case for this increase. This is an operational decision for the chief constable to make and it is a decision that has the full backing of Scottish ministers and the Scottish Police Authority. Police Scotland constantly assess and review resources against the latest intelligence and have carried out a very detailed and robust assessment of capability and capacity to inform their decision to increase the number of armed officers. There are currently 275 police Scotland officers dedicated to armed response vehicles. The increase of an additional 124 officers announced today includes 90 officers dedicated to armed response vehicles, with a phase over a number of months as they are recruited internally and trained to the very high standards that are demanded for this specialist role. The vast majority of Scotland's officers are not routinely armed. We have made an unequivocal commitment that that position will not change. Over 17,317 police officers, only a small proportion have standing firearms authority to carry a weapon. That will now increase but will still represent a small percentage. It will be fewer than one in 40 officers. Police Scotland has written today to the Justice Committee to notify members of the planned increase, which will take the percentage of officers with a standing authority to over 2 per cent as officers are recruited. That fulfills a commitment that was made by my predecessor in August 2014. Police Scotland will continue to keep armed policing capacity and capability under review based on understanding of the evolving threat. This Scottish Government will fully support them in doing so. As part of Police Scotland's engagement with communities, local commanders in all parts of Scotland will be meeting with local authorities and chairs of scrutiny committees to ensure that they are briefed. Senior officers have briefed representatives from ASPs and the Scottish Police Federation, whose members include most armed officers. Police Scotland has made clear in its announcement today that there is no change to the current policy of only deploying armed officers to incidents involving firearms or a threat to life. Armed response officers will also continue to be able to use their professional judgment as police constables to deal with any situation that they come across during the course of their patrols. Armed police officers are first and foremost police officers, and they are expected to respond appropriately to keep people safe. However, let me be clear that armed officers will not be routine deployed to incidents other than those involving firearms or a threat to life. Members will recall that it was the fact of armed officers attending more routine calls and therefore giving the impression that our police service was becoming routinely armed that caused controversy back in 2014. There is no proposal to return to that. The model of deployment of armed officers will continue to be kept under regular review by Police Scotland's armed policing monitoring group. That group advises the chief constable. However, I am clear that any proposed change to the model of deployment would have to take into account the views of the public, stakeholders and Parliament. I want to recognise today my offer and my gratitude to the role that the men and women of Police Scotland play day in and day out in protecting our communities. Their commitment and dedication to the police service means often putting themselves in harm's way to protect others. That is especially true of the officers who undertake the firearms role. Officers volunteer to become armed officers. They are carefully selected for what is then a very highly specialised role. Training is long and hard to ready themselves for the responsibilities and risks that it entails. They then put themselves in the front line in many of the most perilous situations that police officers can face. They are among the most highly trained officers in the service, and they deserve our respect and support in the difficult and often dangerous work that they do across Scotland—the work that they do on behalf of all of us. All of that preparation goes in hand with our work to build cohesive communities so that extremist messages do not resonate. We do so by building strong and enduring relationships with all of Scotland's communities. We have a strong track record of working for an inclusive and cohesive Scotland, where diverse communities are valued for their contribution and a culture of respect and social justice is fostered. As a Government, we have always sought to build stronger and more resilient communities across Scotland, and we will continue to do so. Respecting diversity and challenging hate are key to that. This Government, Police Scotland and other agencies are strengthening protections of our communities, but the responsibility for our collective safety also lies with each one of us as citizens and neighbours. The attacks in mainland Europe and Orlando caused shock and grief around the world. As a Government, we are resolute in protecting the way of life that we enjoy and cherish in this country. The different threats that we face in our daily life and as a nation must ensure that we are prepared for any eventuality. That is precisely what today's announcement is about. There is no specific known threat to Scotland. People are safe to go about their daily business and should be further reassured by today's announcement by Police Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of his statement and also to Deputy Chief Constable Rory Nicholson and Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins for the briefing that he provided party spokespersons and leaders. The cabinet secretary is right to highlight that this is about preparing. The public should not be alarmed by this move and, in fact, I think that he can take some comfort from it. Over recent days, weeks and months, we have seen individuals and groups slaughtered by terrorists. The first duty of our brave men and women in the police force is to protect the public, and I think that today's announcement will allow for that greater protection. The UK Government has set aside significant funds to increase the armed response capability in England and Wales. Can I ask what financial support will be required by Police Scotland to specifically increase the number of highly trained and skilled armed officers and what provision will be made for that? I also welcome the guarantee given by the cabinet secretary that today's announcement does not indicate a change to the deployment procedures of our armed officers. This Parliament well remembers the concerns raised by the cabinet secretary about armed officers in the highlands going to fast food restaurants, for example. What can Police Scotland and the Scottish Government do to reiterate to the public that they will not see a change in the deployment of armed officers? Finally, Presiding Officer, can I take this opportunity to praise our police men and women for the work that they do each and every day? It is because of that work that today's announcement is a proactive one rather than a reactive one. We are preparing for the worst when, in fact, we should be highlighting the skills of everyone in the police force who ensure that we are always kept as safe as possible in Scotland. I thank Douglas Ross for his comment. I agree with him that the public can take reassurance from the announcement that has been made by Police Scotland today in order to ensure that we have the necessary preparations in place to deal with any eventualities that could come to Scotland. A key part of the work that Police Scotland has been taking forward in planning around that announcement has been to look at the nature of the threat that we face in Scotland and how it can best deploy its resources in order to meet that particular threat and also to mitigate it as well. The officers who are presently in Police Scotland will be recruited into the firearms teams. They will be recruited into that specific area, and over the opportunity to undertake that role. Part of that involves increasing the availability of equipment for those officers. Police Scotland has set out a range of costs that are associated with that, in the region of about £3 million. With the uplift in funding that was provided in England and Wales for armed officers, as the member will recognise, there has been a consequence of that, which has come across to the Scottish Government. That has been provided in the Police Scotland budget for this year to provide it with the resources that it requires in order to meet the additional costs that are associated with the type of increase in firearms officers. The extra £100 million that it will receive as a result of our decision on that over the next five years will assist on being able to meet some of those costs. Alongside that, we will continue to be in dialogue with Police Scotland on any other funding matters. The member is correct to point out that the announcement today does not result in any change in deployment, so deployment of firearms will continue to be, for instance, to involve a firearm or whether there is a threat to life. Equally, that is, as police officers, that they should also use their own skills to come across an incident that they respond to that in a professional manner, because ultimately the responsibility is the safety of the public. That is exactly the model of deployment that we have at the present moment, and it will continue with this uplift in armed officers in Scotland. For members' information, there will be around 20 minutes for these questions. I call Alex Rowley to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also thank the cabinet secretary for advanced sight of his statement and Police Scotland for the briefing earlier today. I am responding to his statement just moments after hearing the horrific news about my colleague Joe Cox, MP and Yorkshire. I am sure that our thoughts of everyone in this chamber this afternoon and our prayers are with Joe and anyone else who has been injured. Following the horrific events in France and in Orlando at the weekend, no risk can ever be fully assessed. We must always ensure that our police services can respond effectively and proportionately to protect the people of Scotland. The Scottish Labour Party supports this decision taken by Police Scotland working with ministers and the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that we can protect all our communities from severe and violent threats. I welcome the minister's recognition that the routine arming of police officers will not increase. That is clear and rightfully so. I ask that he keep Parliament regularly informed about any further increases in the numbers of armed officers in the future and where capacity is lacking. I ask the minister that Police Scotland is working to ensure that it can build the intelligence and track the risk that lead to incidents involving firearms or threat to life so that the use of firearms will always remain the last resort. I, too, learned of the very sad attack on Joe Cox, MP this afternoon. I am sure that all members in this chamber my thoughts and prayers are with her and her family, which is an extremely difficult time for them. Mr Rowley made an important point when he used the term proportionality. A key part of the approach that Police Scotland has taken forward in considering the uplift in firearms officers is to make sure that it is in proportion to where we believe the risk is in Scotland overall. I can give the member an assurance of my determination to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to consider any further increase in firearms officers in Police Scotland. The very reason that we are having the statement and the briefing that we provided earlier on was to afford MSPs that particular opportunity. It is certainly an approach that I would seek to take forward again in the future. Equally informing the Justice Committee as my predecessor, given her previous commitment to, should there be an increase above the 2 per cent level that Police Scotland had prior to that time. On the issue of Police Scotland developing their capability to be able to track and to make sure that they are able to mitigate those risks as well, one of the key aspects that we have with the national force is the ability to draw all that type of information and capability into one central point, which allows us to make sure that we are operating away within Scotland that ensures that, no matter where you are in the country, you receive the same level of service—reflective of the risk that that understanding informs. One of the things that Police Scotland does, of course, working with other agencies, is to ensure that they interrogate that intelligence and that information to consider whether there are any further measures that they then have to take forward here in Scotland. However, I can certainly give the member and assurance that, should there be any plans in the future to see a further increase in armed officers within Scotland that parliamentary process will be respected in the way in which it has on this occasion. I thank the cabinet secretary. The question and answer, the first two questions and answers, have taken quite a long time. It is a very important subject, so I recognise that. However, a lot of members want to speak, so if we could keep the questions and answers quite tight. Ben Macpherson, to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. To ask the cabinet secretary what level of engagement has taken place between the Scottish Government, the SPA, Police Scotland and other partners on today's announcement. As the member will recognise, that is an operational decision for the chief constable to make. It is a decision that has at the full backing of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Police Authority. As members would appreciate, since the attacks on Brussels and Paris took place, we have been lazing with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to consider what further capacity and capability may be required in Scotland in the form of firearms ability. That is a matter that has now been considered over several months and has resulted in the announcement that has been made by Police Scotland today. I can give the member an assurance that that is a matter that will be continually kept under review to consider any further information or any further incidents that do occur to ensure that the approach that we take in Scotland is one that is proportionate to the risk here but is also informed by experience in other parts of Europe and the wider world. Margaret Mitchell, to be followed by Rona Mackay. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. Clearly there is a balance between assessing any possible current threat and raising anxiety among the public, but it seems to me right and proper that, in the light of world events, Police Scotland should seek to reassess its response to any potential threat in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in session 4, the policing sub-committee was established to report on the functioning of the new Police Scotland. Given today's statement and the issues that arise on a regular basis, does he agree that that committee performed an invaluable function to ensure transparency, openness and accountability in all aspects of the activities of Police Scotland? Margaret Mitchell and her initial comments made reference to assessing the threat that we face as a result of incidents that have occurred in other parts of Europe. I emphasise that there is no known threat to Scotland. That is a course of action that has been taken by Police Scotland based on the nature of the incidents that have occurred in Europe to ensure that we have the capacity and capability and our response is proportionate to that to deal with any incident that should occur. With regard to the issue of the policing sub-committee, of course that is a matter for the Justice Committee and for the Parliament to decide on whether it chooses to have a policing sub-committee again in the future. However, I can assure the member that that is an issue that the Scottish Police Authority has been considerably engaged in scrutinising and involved in its discussions with Police Scotland as it has developed its thinking and its final response to the issues that have been raised with it. It is a matter that has been given further consideration by the SPA. Rona Mackayde, Mary Fee. To ask the cabinet secretary what engagement has taken place with local authorities and the public on the increase in armed officers. One of the key aspects that will now be taken forward by Police Scotland starting today is to engage with the chairs of the scrutiny committees and with individual local authorities. Local commanders will be undertaking that work to ensure that they understand the announcement that Police Scotland has made today and to be provided with further information on the nature of that decision as well. A key part of the work that Police Scotland is taking forward today is to ensure that local scrutiny committees are informed of the matter and that local authority chief executives are informed of the matter, and that will be pursued by local commanders in each area. Mary Fee, if you are followed by Stuart Stevenson. Can I thank the cabinet secretary for advance copy of his statement? Can I also put on record my support for the commitment and dedication of our police force? The breaking lunchtime news of my colleague Joe Cox casts a dark shadow over today's statement and highlights the need for safety and security in all of our communities. Can I ask the cabinet secretary given the ever-changing threat and nature of terrorism and the need for increased numbers of armed officers? Can the cabinet secretary tell the chamber what support and psychological services are available to those armed officers deployed to deal with terrorist incidents in order to ensure that their health and well-being is fully supported? The issue around the way in which armed officers are trained is the highest level within policing that I think officers can find themselves trained to because of the very nature of their extremely specialist role. If you consider them policing from a constable right through to all the various specialisms within policing, there is no doubt that the required skills for armed officers are at a very, very high level. In Police Scotland, we have training to the very highest level to ensure that our officers are equipped and trained to undertake that role professionally and effectively. In terms of the support and assistance that is provided to officers who deal with potentially traumatic incidents, there are standing arrangements within policing for officers to be able to be debriefed and to get support in dealing with those matters. That is a matter for the chief constable to ensure that the welfare of his staff is appropriately looked after. That would be the same for any constable involved in any incident as it would be for those who are fire-armed officers. That is a matter for the chief constable, but there is a standard process for many officers who are involved in serious incidents to be debriefed and to be provided with welfare and support following such an incident. Stewart Stevenson, to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Presiding Officer, I draw members' attention to the fact that a close family member is a police constable. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary in relation to the many incidents that could not reasonably be foreseen through intelligence but stem from the actions of a single individual and happen in local communities across Scotland. Is he satisfied that there are adequate ways in which local commanders can get access to the new resource that he has announced today? Part of the work that Police Scotland has undertaken over the past couple of months is to look at the changing nature of the threat. There is no doubt that the incidents that we have witnessed in Paris in particular have highlighted the changing nature of that and that there were several different incidents taking place simultaneously. That has led to a reassessment of how policing resource should be deployed in order to prepare for such an event should that occur. However, the resource that will be deployed by Police Scotland will be deployed on the basis of where it believes that the greatest risk is presented. It is a model that is constantly reviewed and reflects the information that it has. What I can give the member an insurance of is that the uplift in resource will provide a greater level of coverage across the whole of Scotland and will ensure that all communities have the necessary armed officer provision that is appropriate to the situation and the risk in that particular area. That is a matter that Police Scotland reviews on a regular basis based on information and intelligence that they receive. Gordon Lindhurst, to be followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I first of all say to the Cabinet Secretary that both I and the Scottish Conservatives welcome this announcement and Police Scotland's continuing commitment to our security, both across the country and here in Edinburgh, the capital city, with its many residents and visitors, particularly at the time of the Edinburgh festival? This commitment includes ensuring availability of sufficient armed officers in the event of any actual firearms incident. The Cabinet Secretary will appreciate that there is a difference and a distinction between having such officers available should such an incident arise and such officers who are available being visibly armed from a public point of view. Can the minister give a categorical assurance to this Parliament that we will not now be seeing visibly armed officers on the streets of Scotland, except where necessary in the event of such an incident or an immediate verifiable threat? As I have made clear my own statement and the Scotland that I have made clear is that the model of deployment will not change from the arrangements that we have in place at the present moment. That is that armed officers are only deployed to incidents that involve a firearm or whether there is a threat to life. With that, it would be for them to exercise their professional judgment and to come across an incident where they believe that there is an issue of public safety in order to respond to that. I am sure that all members would expect that to happen when officers witness such an incident taking place. There will be no change to the deployment model from what we have at the present time and, as I have also made clear in my statement, if there was to be any change to that, that is a matter that would require a level of public engagement, parliamentary engagement and a level of scrutiny to consider the issue in detail. I can give the member an assurance that the deployment model that we have at the present time with his uplift in officers will continue to be the same. I welcome the minister's statement in the earlier briefing from the chief officers. The Scottish Green Party accepts, in good faith, the information that we are given, which we are told in forums at this threat level, and therefore this change. I think that it is fair to repeat our earlier concerns about the Scottish recording system, centre at Bigaparton, the quality and quantity of information, its legitimacy of acquisition and the legitimacy of it being retained. That all said, we welcome that there is to be no change to the deployment policy. Does the cabinet secretary nonetheless accept that there will be concerns that however modest the increase is that it could be viewed as mission creep on more routine officers, and that, although many will be reassured by what they have heard, there is a sizable section in the community who are concerned about the presence of armed officers, whether within or outwith vehicles. Can he reassure me that this is not the point of no return on arming, and that when the threat level reduces—and we both know that there are groups who do not want that to happen—that the number of armed officers will reduce as well? I can give the member an assurance that the uplift in firearms officers within Police Scotland is reflective of the intelligence and consideration of the threat level within Scotland and the UK as a whole. I can give the member an assurance that this is not simply a matter of mission creep and a desire to have more firearms officers. It is an issue that has been considered in great detail and is reflective of the changing nature of the threat, given the incidents that have occurred over the past year and a half in Europe as a whole. I have no doubt that, when we get to a point when we see a change in the threat level—if it is a reduction in the threat level—that will allow for a further reflection on the existing level of resource that we have for firearms officers to then be revisited based on that change in threat. However, it is important that we reassure the public that the approach that is being taken by Police Scotland is one that is informed on the basis of its understanding of the threat and the change in nature of that threat and to ensure that we have a proportionate response to that here in Scotland in order to ensure that we have the necessary resources in place to deal with any incidents that should occur and to revisit the matter, should and when the threat level changes at any point in the future. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary to reaffirm the Government's commitment to protect the police resource budget in real terms for the lifetime of this Parliament, ensuring that our police forces have the funding that they require to keep Scotland communities safe. As I mentioned earlier on in my response, we have given Police Scotland the real terms protection in their police budget over the next term of this parliamentary session, which will allow them to invest an additional £100 million. In policing alongside that, we have provided an additional £55 million in the way of a reform budget within this financial year to assist them in undertaking reform within the organisation. We are determined to make sure that we continue to provide our law enforcement agencies and other partners with the necessary resources to ensure that they are able to meet and mitigate any particular threats or risks that we have here in Scotland. I would like to confirm to the chamber that the First Minister has asked me to be the parliamentary liaison officer for the justice secretary. I am looking forward to working with colleagues across the chamber over the coming time period. I now ask the cabinet secretary how it armed policing levels in Scotland compare with those in England. As a member will be aware, Police Scotland has considered the approach that they believe is best suited to ensure that we have a proportionate response to the risk here in Scotland. They have been engaged with their colleagues south of the border, including through the national police chiefs body to consider the matters. The approach that Police Scotland has set out by Police Scotland is proportionate to the approach that has been taken in other parts of the UK. I believe that the approach that Police Scotland has outlined today is very much in line with the approach that has been taken by forces in other parts of the UK. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I apologise to the two members that I was not able to call. When I move on to the next...


This is Stephan Kinsella, June 3rd, 2013. This is the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast. Today I wanted to talk briefly about one argument against modern patent copyright, trademark, and even trade secret or intellectual property, at least in the US. And that is the argument that all four of these laws are unconstitutional. Before I get into it, I have a long blog post about this, which I'll link to in the notes. But one reason to make this argument is that one argument for IP by proponents is that if you argue against IP, they'll say, well, it's in the Constitution. And there are several problems with that general argument. One, it's not all in the Constitution, as I'll get to in a minute. Trademark is not in there, for example. And second, it's just an appeal to authority. Even if it is in the Constitution, it doesn't make it legitimate or justified. And third, the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact patent and copyright law, arguably, but it doesn't require them to. Basically, every argument in favor of IP based upon the fact that there's some constitutional language about it is either an appeal to authority or is incomplete or fails to recognize that there's a grant but not a requirement. And I guess fourth, you could say that the Constitution does not regard, say, patent and copyright as rights, as property rights or as natural rights, but it's mere, like, temporary policy tools to advance some goal. So it's more like a regulation or intervention in the market. It shouldn't be viewed by the Constitution as a property right. But anyway, let's ask the question, is patent and copyright or are patent and copyright and trademark and trade secret laws that are federal laws in the U.S. are they constitutional? And I would say there's a few arguments for why they are not. First, let's take trademark and trade secret. There's a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to grant to authors and inventors for limited time and exclusive right to their inventions and writings. But there's no authorization for things like what trademark and trade secret cover. In fact, the Lanham Act, which covers trademark does not abolish state trademark laws, doesn't preempt them, doesn't purport to, and only covers trademarks that are in use in interstate commerce. So they're appealing to the interstate commerce clause and a dubious, very broad interpretation of that clause which the government has used over the years to, the federal government has used to enact laws that are not specifically authorized in the grant of powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I'm out for my morning walk, by the way, which is why I'm huffing and puffing a little bit. In any case, so they rely upon the interstate commerce clause. And even if it's broader than we would like, it's clearly not broad enough to authorize this. And the same thing for federal aspects of trade secret law, which doesn't purport to regulate the whole field, but only certain sets of trade secrets. So those are both unconstitutional because there's just no authorized power and the appeal to interstate commerce as a grant of power is kind of ridiculously overbroad. So that's one argument against those. Now for patent and copyright, which are authorized in the Constitution, first thing we have to recognize is that the preamble to the clause says that to promote the progress of science in the arts. And by the way, science refers to the copyright part because science means the knowledge, science is the arts basically is what we think of now, the liberal arts, the creations of the intellect of the mind, plays, novels, paintings, whatever. And the arts, the useful arts in that clause refers to what we think of as inventions now covered by patents because it was like artisans or useful artifacts that we make. We use those terms in sort of a reverse way now. But anyway, in any case, the clause says that the purpose of this grant of power is to promote the progress of science in the arts. And as a matter of fact, in the last 200 and so years since the Constitution was enacted, 1789, and the patent and copyright laws were quickly drafted right after that, there has been no evidence that these laws actually do promote the progress of science in the arts. In fact, there's tons of empirical studies and evidence and reasoning that indicate that these laws severely distort and even retard innovation and the culture. So that's another argument why the actual patent and copyright acts as written or unconstitutional because they do not fulfill the purpose of the power granted to Congress. So that's another argument. Yet another one some people argue is that these rights have to be for limited terms. And at least in the case of copyright, it was originally 14 years renewable by another 14 if you actively sought it. So that's up to 28 years max. And by the way, the 14 year term is a totally arbitrary number which came about because it was the term of two consecutive 7 year apprenticeships. So the idea was that these things are rooted in mercantilism and protectionism from England and Europe. The idea is that if you give someone a patent on their production process or their craft, as long as they have a monopoly for time to train two apprentices in it, that should be good enough to insulate them from competition or something like that. So the original 14 years came from that. But in any case, copyrights initially were 28 years max, but they'd been successively extended over the years at the behest of lobbying by companies like Disney and others to the point where copyrights last well over 100 years now in most cases. So you could argue that the propensity of Congress to keep extending these terms and even to put works back into copyright that were public domain at one point violates that limitation that the grant has to be for a limited term. I mean, it looks like it's basically infinite now, or certainly extending an existing term doesn't mean it was limited in the first place. So that's another argument you could make. But I think there's two or three stronger arguments which I rarely, in fact, never hear made. And that is this. There is a principle in a case called a canon, C-A-N-O-N, a canon of a statutory construction or constitutional construction, which is that if you have two statutes or two constitutional provisions that are in conflict, then if they're both valid, you have to try to balance them out or make them somehow compatible with each other if you can. That's what the judges have to do. But if one is drafted later than the other, then that one takes priority. That's why we can repeal statutes or pass new ones. That's why constitutional provisions can repeal others. So, for example, the U.S. Constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol during prohibition, and then years later another amendment was enacted to repeal prohibition. So why do we not have prohibition now? It's because the second, the later past amendment came after the first one, and therefore it's the one that now controls. So if you take that into account and recognize that the Constitution was enacted in 1789 with the copyright and patent clause, but that the Bill of Rights was added two years later in 1791, then if there's a conflict between a provision of the Bill of Rights, and the 1789 Constitution, then the Bill of Rights has to prevail. And I think there's a clear conflict. In fact, the courts have recognized that patent, that copyright law, or the Copyright Act passed in accordance with the copyright clause, does hinder free speech and freedom of the press, because it prevents you from publishing what you want in some cases and saying what you want, and forcing yourself in the way that you want. Which is, if it was, think of it this way, if there had been no patent clause or patent act, and there was a First Amendment and Congress just enacted a patent law, now it would, I mean, sorry, copyright law, now it would be unconstitutional because there's no authorized power for it, but it would also be unconstitutional because it would be an undue burden on free speech. There's almost no doubt about that. But because the copyright clause is in the Constitution, it doesn't feel like they have to try to balance these things.  Whereas, in almost every other context, they don't balance it because they regard the freedom of speech right as a fundamental right that's very important that can only be restricted by a compelling reason. So, instead of trying to balance these rights, it should be recognized that the First Amendment came after, and to the extent that there is an inconsistency between copyright and free speech, copyright and the First Amendment, the First Amendment has to prevail and the copyright law has to fall. And I actually think this is a very strong argument. I think the courts fudge it a little when they've looked at this issue in the past, and they sort of treat the Bill of Rights as being roughly contemporaneous with the Constitution because it was done just two years later, and also because the Constitution was ratified on sort of the implicit promise, or not implicit, but the sort of gentleman's agreement, the kind of handshake promise that there would be a Bill of Rights added soon. But this is, of course, not legally binding and not really the way that statutory construction works. In fact, two years is not the same as zero. 1791 is not the same as 1789. I mean, you know the Constitution was ratified in 1789, and it superseded the Articles of Profitivation, which had existed just in the previous decade. So there's no reason to believe that the two-year period makes no difference, that you should balance them, that you should treat the Bill of Rights as paramount to any earlier provision of the Constitution. And by the way, this argument extends also to trademark and patent and even trade secret, especially patent. There are clear cases where patent is used to censor free speech as well as trademark. Threatening letters are sent, large companies bully people into not using certain words in my blog post about this, I'll list some examples. And even trade secret to some extent. But I think you could easily argue that trademark, patent, and copyright, especially copyright, clearly come into conflict with the First Amendment and should be abolished on those grounds. And copyright also violates, I believe, the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment, which are also all in the Bill of Rights and all came two years later. And to the extent there's an incompatibility, then, of course, the earlier clause, which is the copyright clause, has to fall. And so the Fourth Amendment protects people's right to be secure in their papers and property homes. But of course, we see raids being done all the time, invasions of people's property rights and interests in the name of copyright, bills being proposed all the time that would ratchet this up, SISPA, TEPASOPA, et cetera. Think of just Chem.com, Chem.com's home being raided in New Zealand. Now that's not covered in the U.S., but still things like that happen here, too. Factories are raided for counterfeiting software, et cetera. I think that's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment has due process. And of course, you have tons of measures. You have automatic statutory penalties for copyright breach. You have three strikes in your out, or I guess the six strikes in your out laws or provisions being done by the ISPs, but sort of at the arm twisting of the government. And that's basically not the same type of due process that is required by the Fifth Amendment, et cetera. So you could argue that at least copyright violates due process rights as well. And I think it also clearly violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits unjust or excessive fines and too harsh punishment for crimes. And copyright has the statutory penalties, which are clearly, I mean, hundreds or thousands of times greater than any possible measure of real damages. You know, $150,000 per active infringement. There's been a study by a John Tehranian who says that the typical modern internet user who just engages in regular activities, not even a serious bit torrenting and piracy of movies, just emailing things to people, cutting and pasting, sharing things online, is potentially liable for up to $4.5 billion a year of copyright damages because of these statutory penalties. So the current Copyright Act has statutory penalties, and it also has criminal penalties, which implicates the cruel and unusual punishment part of the Eighth Amendment. So I think a really good case could be made that the penalties imposed by copyright law are clearly a violation of the Eighth Amendment in terms of excessive fines and also cruel and unusual punishment. So for all these reasons, I think that the current Copyright Act and the current Patent Act and the Lanham Act for trademark and federal laws regarding trade secrets are all unconstitutional. Any questions about this? Feel free to post them on the blog. Thanks.