Republican at Calardis is one reason why the left keeps winning at the social battles, despite the fact that the population is not all in on everything that the social left wishes. Now, the polls show that there is widespread public support for same-sex marriage. What there is not widespread support for is the idea that you as a religious person ought to be forced in your life to accept same-sex marriage in the way that you do business, in the way that you send your kids to school, and the idea that society has a duty to force individuals to acknowledge things they don't believe to be moral. That is not something the vast majority of Americans are willing to go along with, and that is the biggest problem with the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. It essentially says that only bigots and fools based on their silly religion would object to the idea that a man, woman, and child is the basic fundamental building block of society. And then further, it says, well, here are a few religious exemptions that we'll put out there. We'll sort of suggest that in your own church, we're not going to take away your tax-exempt status. But it doesn't actually enshrine those protections strongly at all for religious people outside of their church.  There are no protections in this bill. What did Republicans win in this bill precisely? What did Republicans get in this bill precisely? The answer is they got pretty much nothing, and went along with it anyway because there are a lot of weak-need Republicans who are unwilling to have a headline that says that they oppose same-sex marriage. Well, if that's the case, if you don't have an affirmative case for why you are either in favor of same-sex marriage or why you believe that the protections of religious people here are sufficient, then I'm not sure why you're voting for the thing or why you should be in the Senate, as I've said before. You just watched Ben Shapiro see the over-the-Senate's passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which passed 61 to 36 with 12 Republicans supporting it, including Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley Moore Capito, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, Cynthia Loomis, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Dan Sullivan, Tom Tillis, and Todd Young. And he claims that these Republicans are cowards because deep down they probably know that marriage equality is bad, but they're just too afraid to do what's right and see the negative headlines about them. No, they probably just don't care, because most people have moved on from your antiquated way of thinking, Ben Shapiro, and not only is he ignorant in that video, but what he says a lot, I believe, is actually projection, because he claims that this bill forces people to acknowledge that things that they don't believe to be moral is good. Except, no it doesn't, he also says, essentially the bill says that only bigots and fools based on their silly religion would object to the idea that a man, woman, and child is the basic fundamental building block of society. No, the bill doesn't say that actually, you can still believe those things, the difference is you don't get to impose your will, you don't get to enforce all of us to live in the way that you deem moral, in the way that you feel is fit. See, this is about freedom fundamentally, Ben Shapiro is anti-freedom and I am pro-freedom in this instance, as much as I actually do personally not like religion and I do think that religion is silly, I would not support legislation banning religion and stopping people like Ben Shapiro from practicing his religion, but conversely he would stop me from living my life in the way that I want to live it. I've been married to my husband now for five years, we've been together for more than ten years, it's not just about symbolism, having marriage is something that grants you a lot of tangible material benefits, for example when I got married to my husband I was able to finally get healthcare after years because he had healthcare through his employer. So this is something that is important because in order to live in a pluralistic society we have to allow people the freedom to live the way that they want to live, but Ben Shapiro is saying, No, I don't like it so I don't think that you should be able to live that way because I think that it's bad, but yet I wouldn't say the same thing about him, I would fight anyone who tried to ban religion as much as I personally don't like religion, we are not the same. And he clearly hasn't read the bill because even the Mormon Church endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act because it literally permits discrimination for religious people, it essentially gives special rights to religious institutions. So if a church says we don't want to marry an interracial or a gay couple, they are allowed to do that specifically because of this bill, that's why the Mormon Church supported it. Religions have special rights here and Ben Shapiro is effectively claiming that by passing this law you're giving queer people special rights when the opposite is true. He didn't say that there directly, but this is an argument that religious people make. So if theoretically a queer couple or an interracial couple walked into a Walmart, Walmart could not turn them away, however a church does have the legal autonomy to do that because of this law. And I do think that that's wrong, but I'm admitting this is what the law entails. Now Ben Shapiro admits that well, yeah, I guess you outside of your religious institution don't have freedom, which implies that within that religious institution you do have the freedom to discriminate. But what he's saying is effectively a baker who doesn't want to bake cakes for queer couples, they should also have the ability to discriminate outside of the church. So in other words, if you work with the public, you get to be discriminatory if you're religious, you have a blank check to discriminate based on your religion. But again, that is an anti-freedom argument. Imagine if a queer baker didn't want to bake a cake for a Christian couple or turned away Christians or Muslims or Jewish people, that would be disgusting. So once again, Ben Shapiro is saying, I want to be able to discriminate because of my religion, but people on the opposite side of the aisle, people like myself are saying, we don't want to discriminate. As a society, we should not be tolerating intolerance because fundamentally that doesn't lead to more freedom, it leads to less freedom. But that's not enough for Ben Shapiro. If he's not able to impose his theocratic views on all of us, then to him, that isn't freedom. Freedom is only one way for Ben Shapiro. It's asymmetric. See, if he can tell you what to do, that's freedom. But if we all get to live our lives in the way that we want to, then that's not freedom according to individuals like Ben Shapiro.  That is a bigoted position by definition. So he can cope and see, but thankfully society is moving on and even if individuals like him are very loud, they are the minority. Now let's talk about the respect for marriage act and what it actually does. First and foremost, it repeals the defense of marriage act. So it is forcing the federal government to recognize all same sex and interracial marriages, even if Loving v. Virginia or Obergefell v. Hodges is shot down. But it doesn't force states to issue marriage licenses in that instance to same sex couples or interracial couples. So in the event, let's say, hypothetically speaking, the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges. Well, Alabama could ban same sex marriages at that point and not offer marriage licenses to same sex couples. However, because of this law, a couple who lives in Alabama can go to Kansas and get married and then come back to Alabama. And they would have to recognize that marriage because of this law. So that's why I tell you it literally permits discrimination because in the event Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia were overturned by the Supreme Court, states can deny marriage licenses on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race. But they still have to recognize the marriages from other states. So it's a bit of a loophole in a way. And I don't think that states should be allowed to discriminate. But this was the compromise that got even the Mormon Church on board. So I think that it's a compromise that is worthwhile, even if I disagree with it. Now, we've had marriage equality in this country for quite some time. So this doesn't feel that significant on its face. And there are other issues that more immediately impact the lives of the LGBTQ plus community. But I do want people to understand that this does signal that we've come a really long way and I don't want you to take that for granted. And this was highlighted in an article published in the Washington Post. 26 years ago, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly for the Defense of Marriage Act, a law broadly supported by the American public that defined marriages as the union between a man and a woman. Republicans had found a wedge issue they would use for more than a decade to divide Democrats between their liberal base and swing voters. Eight years later, then President George W. Bush embraced protection of marriage as a central focus of his successful 2004 reelection effort. The voice of the people must be heard, he said upon proposing a constitutional amendment to keep marriage between opposite sex couples. But the people's voice, as it turned out, was always moving. A bipartisan group of 61 senators spoke loudly on Tuesday signaling a near total upending of one's dominant political dynamics when they voted to effectively nullify the 1996 law. The Respect for Marriage Act, once repassed by the House and signed by President Biden, will help protect recognition of same-sex marriages and forced by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell V. Hodges ruling against future legal challenges. So obviously we have a long way to go, but we've come a really long way and the gratitude that I feel for older LGBTQ plus generations who fought for my rights today is just infinite. What they did was pave the way for all of us.  Because we don't think about being queer, it's just accepted as a part of society because these are human beings who deserve a life with dignity and freedom like everyone else. But, of course, bigots know that they lost on the issue of marriage equality, so they're trying to find new ways to divide Americans and attack LGBTQ plus people. This year we've seen how the groomer narrative has proliferated and led to harassment in queer spaces and whatnot, and trans people are especially under attack as the right has targeted them disproportionately. But understand that we've overcome a lot as a community. Before people thought that gays either didn't exist or they were possessed by the devil, there was a point where they were viewed as diseased during the AIDS crisis. There was the gays are pedophiles trope, and we overcame all of that. Some of these old tropes may bubble back up to the surface and new myths will be propagated about this community. But we are resilient and overall I do believe that we are going to win at the end of the day, but I don't necessarily believe that progress is linear. Sometimes you take a couple of steps forward, but a lot more steps back. But ultimately I do believe that we are headed in the right direction. But right now it's a really tumultuous and volatile time for queer people, especially trans individuals. So we have to just keep pushing ahead, and this should show us that what was once impossible is actually possible. And even if right now it feels as if the LGBTQ plus community is public enemy number one, who knows where we'll be 10 years from now. It may be worse for us, but it could be better if that's something to hold onto. And it's an indication that we shouldn't give up and we should keep on chugging ahead because we are right and the bigots are wrong. And they are losing and as they lose they're going to get louder and try to spew more hatred. But that's just more evidence that they're losing and we're winning. So hang on to that because it's worth something.


Aaron this is a multi-pronged question I know you were close with all three coaches but you were very very close with Phil Nevin he was one of your guys he always had your back he has been quoted as saying that he was not fired for anything on the field so number one is why was he let go or not brought back and number two getting a three-year contract obviously the Yankees wanted you back you had leverage was there ever a point where you said listen either Phil Nevin stays or I'm not coming back did you have that thought process and did you have that discussion I did not have a this or that you know Phil stays or I go you know or I wouldn't be here right now but honestly you know when when the coaches work that was one of the things I had to struggle through with for a couple of days and again had some difficult conversations with them again people that I respect from a baseball standpoint and their ability to coach and what they're capable of doing but also the love that I have for him as people you know and you say Phil but I would include Marcus and PJ and that as well so that was a tough couple days for me honestly that I did have to you know I guess do some soul-searching and and really speak to them and I've even talked to Phil about you know about you know coming back and things like that so those are tough conversations you work through and and tough conversations you have and you know but I in the end I also think that's sometimes the nature of the business and the difficulty of this business is that you you lose or have to say goodbye in certain aspects to some people in some inevitable turnover so that's probably one of the things that I struggled with the most but certainly at peace with certainly with them and and ultimately making my decision to come back but Aaron if Phil said that it wasn't an on-field thing what was the reason given to you why the organization did not bring back Phil Nevin specifically what was the problem you know I think is I think his cash touched on I think in those cases obviously in a lot of our coaching we have expiring contracts so it's it's not necessarily it is a little bit different than firing them right now it's it's wanting to move in a little bit of a new direction and you know trying to do things that hopefully you know allow us to move to another level and that sometimes comes with the pain of letting really good people walk


We are sitting down to get a breakfast. Are you going to sit down? Are you going to sit down? You don't think we ever played? I guess because I am a very good student. You have a chance to get back at us. I was going to say, if you had ever been the victim of the virus, I think what you would find is bleeding. I'll sit down. I don't want you to think we're going to delay breakfast. I'll just talk for 20 or 30 minutes. I just wanted to say welcome and look forward to these meetings. They've been going on for a long time. I'm very pleased to have you all here. I understand that we'll make one ground rule now, since it's going to be a kind of working meeting, that anybody can talk with their mouth full. No one has to miss breakfast. I'm glad to have you all here. I guess I'll turn it over to you because you're going to monitor it. Thank you, sir. We'll get started. I want to thank you for what has come to be, at least we hope, our yearly get together with you. We'd be willing to do it more often, of course. I'm also very happy to see that you've survived good hours. You might tell them why you were able to. Just to tell me why you survived these clips as well as you did. Godfrey was wondering about the fact that maybe some of them might have cut a little deep or something, and that didn't seem to bother me. And I said, anyone who has been schooled in Hollywood to the Friars Club roasts would find even the sharpest quip at the grid are still a little mild. So I think I've been conditioned. Well, again, we have a lot of people here, and it's going to be hard to get to everyone. So we're going to start right away. The Brown rules are as usual, and I'm the record. And the embargo as usual is until tomorrow morning, that's Tuesday morning, 6 a.m. Transcripts, I understand, will be ready this afternoon. And with that, we'll get to the question here. Mr. President, you seem confident. You seem that way at the press conference. And since then, confident that there will be a summit. What I'd like to ask you is, have there been some quiet messages or signals from the Soviets that you haven't told us about yet? And do I understand that you think a September date is very likely? Well, there have been no signals. As I say, we let them know that we're open to this and that there is an invitation under the kind of protocol going back over the schedules, as I pointed out in the night. It is their turn to come here, so we've made that very plain that they're welcome. And as to September, whether it's likely or not, that again depends on Mr. Gorbachev. It's only the fact that in times past, the head of state, the Soviet Union has come for the opening of the United Nations. If that is convenient for him, I certainly wouldn't see any reason why that wouldn't be for us. But with him just coming into the job, we think that it's only proper that we allow him to set the schedule as to when it could be convenient. Is there something, though, Mr. President, that we don't know about?  I mean, not just now, but over the last year or so, that have encouraged you to believe that a summit really is possible? I can't think of any specific thing, but then I don't believe that before, there was anything in the last few years other than the health of the individuals that held that post that kept us from having one before. I don't recall anything other than at least one of his predecessors in these last few years pointed out just what we have, that there must be an agenda and some legitimate reason, something to talk about. Well, Mr. President, you said that there were some issues being handled at the necessary level of being handled better or making more advanced. Some of these, you didn't say what they were. Can you say what issues? Oh, I didn't mean to imply it that way, that there are things that what I was trying to say is that just the fact that I have not met with a Soviet leader doesn't mean that we're in communicato, that there are things that normally should be talked about and that have been going forward, things like trees with regard to fishing rights and things of that kind, various commercial things. And these have gone on, we've been talking for a long time with regard to consular representation there and here. And what I thought was that these could be helped along, possibly by a summit. Walt Thompson, I think I saw your hand way back there a moment ago. I can't see anything now. Mr. President, you have now been here a little over four years and you've asked for the item veto and you've suggested that there are things about the presidency that you would like to possibly change other than getting rid of Congress possibly. How would you like to improve the presidency if you could do it? How would I like to improve the presidency? The office of the presidency. Power of the presidency. Well, I think there always has seemed to be a kind of a situation there of one branch of government trying to encroach on another and you wonder whether that's violating what the constitutional separations were. The thing of the line item veto, I think is only one of, it's just a plain matter of common sense and good management. The executive branch is the executive. It is supposed to execute the programs that have been adopted by the Congress and therefore as any executive should, you should be allowed to do that. And this whole is true with regard to the budgeting process. The fact that 43 of our states have had that for a great many years. I have the experience of using it because I had it in California and it doesn't take the power away from the Congress any power that they presently have. It can be overturned as any other veto can by a two-thirds vote. Now in our state, the legislature had to pass by a two-thirds vote the budget. Therefore they've already passed these items. And I found 943 times in eight years that by picking out some particular item that for political purposes or whatever had been added to the budget or into a spending bill and appropriations bill, tagged down, as is done so often here, that when it was vetoed and sent back and then that same legislature had to vote again by a two-thirds majority whether to override your veto, 943 times in eight years they wouldn't do it, which is sort of an indication that they themselves did not want to stand before the public and face up to the fact that they were willing to have this item in the budget. This sequence for the next few minutes, Bob, Andy, Jerry and Carl. And then we'll look around. Mr. President, at your news conference last Thursday, you downplayed the idea of direct American involvement in peace negotiations in the Middle East. At some point you said it wasn't our business to get involved in that. And yet I think history indicates that the agreements that have been reached over there from the Sinai Disengagement Accords in the 1970s to Camp David have been the result of direct American participation. Don't you think it's going to take direct American involvement since we are the one country that has good relations with countries on both sides over there, Israel and the Arab countries, to actually get an agreement? And would you be willing to take part in direct negotiations as well as if I would lead the peace? No, I don't believe that we should. The problems are between the Arab states and between the Israelis. We'll do anything we can to help. And we have, ever since my first proposal in September of 82, tried to convince the Arab states that we can be even-handed in this, that we're not in there to be on one faction's side or the other, and we'll do anything we can to help facilitate and bring these negotiations about. But I think this is a problem that just as the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel came about as a result of the negotiations and meetings between representatives of those two countries, this is what should happen. And I don't think there's anything untoward in this, or that we're ducking out in any way. I think it's only proper. Would you be willing to take the kind of role that President Carter took in the Camp David Accords, not directly negotiating but bringing the two sides together in that intimate way if it looks as if that's not going to be about negotiations? Well, this, we think, is what we are trying to do, and we're willing now. We've been talking on both sides, but it is, rather than being engaged in the negotiations, it is being, trying to be helpful to find a way that we can bring it about for them to come together. And I think that that's what Camp David did. All right, Andy, and then Jerry, and then Joe Creft, and back to Phil Jalen, and I saw, I think, George Hansen's hand up, and let me have a look at that. Oh, please. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about your views on the situation in Europe. Do you see the division of Europe and camps between East and West is currently, I think, through our lifestyles, we have to reconcile ourselves too. Do you see the possibility that Eastern Europe might move towards Western Europe and the Soviet influence there could diminish? I know I recall the Vice President spoke about this in Vienna some years ago, and I wonder what your views were on that issue. This is a very tough thing to comment without finding sticking your foot into it or something, but I don't think that any of us can, in our own hearts and minds, believe that forever after those countries should be subjected, as they are, to dominance by the Soviet Union, it was never a part of the Yalta agreement. They were supposed to have right self-determination and so forth. I think that we should continue, and this would be one of the things to talk to the Soviets about, but what would it require? What is the most practical way to bring about such a change? I think it actually comes down to trying to eliminate the suspicions of the Soviets with regard to us and our intentions and so forth, to deal with them. Jerry? George, you remember what we said we'd tell you. No, and George understands this also. I think there's too much on the plate of great importance right now for us to join the speculation about 1988 and what we're going to do, and we're going to continue to try to get those things done. Now, lest someone reads anything less than friendship into that, let me say I have said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think there's ever been a vice president that has been as much involved at the highest level in our policy making and our decisions than George Bush or that has been a better vice president than he has. He's been the best. There isn't that much difference between the two jobs. Now, the way he's doing it. Yeah, Carl and then Gil and then Bill. Are you willing to accept a defense at a level somewhere lower than what we've had so far in order to be the budgetary compromise with the Senate? I think I'm completely in line with what Don Regan said yesterday and that is if this can be done without endangering national security, without reducing our ability to take care of ourselves in that way, but yes, in a matter of fact, the cuts that we ourselves have made and when I say we ourselves, I mean that Cap Weinberger from Defense has come in with it. He himself has volunteered. They totaled more than $150 billion in just these last four years. So that door is always open. The one thing, as I say, we will not do is compromise national security. Do you think that's possible to be done to lower the security? Well, I have to say when you use the word possible, I have to say the possibility is there because it's been going on for four years that we ourselves have found these. The cuts right now are in the budget for $85 or $16 billion less than we ourselves had projected it would have to be two years ago and those cuts were made voluntarily by the Defense Department. Well, Mr. President, this is a question about the Star Wars or I think it's more frequently known around here the Strategic Defense Initiative. Ambassador Paul Metzer has set forward two fairly stringent conditions for moving from research to deployment. Are those his conditions or do you share his views on that? I can't say that I actually recall what he has said about this but I can tell you what... I should say the conditions are survivability and cost effectiveness. Those are two of the things that will be part of the research. Yes, that you have to find out whether this is practical or not. Remember, we start from scratch. As I said, to research and find if there is such a defense that is practical and workable. And I believe very much that we should go forward with that. This could be the greatest hope for ridding the world of nuclear weapons. My challenge to the term Star Wars is I think it creates a false image. I'd go along with the star part if they change wars and change it to shield. I'm going to get over this table here. Mr. President, do you feel that cost effectiveness is an absolute requirement before moving to deployment? I think it's one of the things that has to be considered. Obviously, if somebody was dreaming up something that was absolutely impossible for you to envision creating because of a cost factor I don't really anticipate anything of that kind being a block to this. I'm going to go over this table a little bit. Mr. President, I feel like I missed out on how probably at Jimmy Hart you two were going alright. I had to figure out what his name was. I'm calling on the ones that have names I remember. Mr. President, connection with the line-up and the speech I'll express that I think some reservations about the War Powers Act. Consider that a congressional invasion of Europe that's presidential abiding. Do you think they were either appealing or amending it? I don't think that that's a thing for me to comment on here. I think that that's a subject that should be between me and the Congress or any future president. How are you going to get your message through? Directly. Mr. President, someone asked about tax simplification. Do you expect to get tax simplification more specifically? Will you support the Treasury's proposal to repeal tax allowance and two major tax allowances for the oil and gas industry? You make or break their day today, Mr. President. The only thing that's making somebody's day is that I want to break mine. The whole matter of the tax thing, and I'm not stalling now on this, we're going to do and follow the same process we did with the budget which requires long hours around the cabinet table while we settle on specific issues. Overall, the Treasury proposal was probably the finest proposal for tax reform that has ever been handed down. But there are a number of options in there. There are things to be considered. And what we'll do in those long hours around the cabinet table is take them up one by one and decide whether they will be a proposal in a plan submitted by us. And then when we're agreed on what we think should be the final proposal, submit that to the Congress, not in the form of legislation, but simply as a plan and turn it over to them to put into legislative form. Vendan, I'm Jimmie. Mr. President, there have been questions many times about Central America. There isn't support on the Hill for your plan in the past to continue to aid the financial support and let them reach the conquerors who are opposed to the current Japanese government. There's also a good deal of opposition to your desire to do that. And as the situation now stands, we're sort of in the dark as to exactly what you would like the Congress to do and you think that if you do submit a plan to the Congress for direct aid to the Sandinistas, whether it's covert or overt, that the Congress will accept it. I'm hoping they will because what we're talking about with aid to the Contras is what I said the other night. We're talking about whether this country is going to follow a tradition it has before of helping people who are trying to bring about democracy and human rights in their own land. And all that we're seeing here is the fact that the so-called Contras are basically, or at least the biggest share of them, many of them are former Sandinistas who recognize that the original revolution has been betrayed. And with regard to our help to all of Central America, we look back over the years and find that one of the great problems that has opened so many countries there to subversion, the things of the same kind we're seeing now in Nicaragua, is the inability of those countries to have the open kind of society where people have an opportunity to rise from poverty, to build their own economic strength in their countries. And that's why to date our aid in the last four years to all of Central America has been about 78% economic and social and 22% security because obviously, such as in Sandinista, they've made it very plain with three elections in two years that they are on the road to democracy, are striving for democracy and is being made more difficult by reason of there, the guerrillas that are fighting for another cause and another way of governing. And they shouldn't have that handicap. That's why there is some security aid so they can have peace in their country and go forward with the democratic experiment. Yes, well, whether we can or can't, in a time when this country's tradition of private giving has not been recognized, you think back in other kinds of aid, whether it's this or whether it's disasters from earthquake and flood that were right now famine, and we found that the American people have a way of not waiting to be ordered or told. They go to work to try and come to the aid of these distressed peoples and I think that's so much a part. Right in this room if I could just tell you, I won't name the country because I don't want to embarrass anyone, but my dinner partner one night was the wife of an ambassador at one of the dinners we were giving here. And I can't remember the exact specifically we were talking about, but it was something about having to do with private aid and contributions and this lady said to me, yes, in your country. And I said, well, what do you mean? She said you are unique. She said in the rest of the world in our other countries, we don't have the tradition that you do. We don't do this as you do it. And I was quite touched by the fact that she was talking about her own country too, but also the fact that she recognized this unique thing that we have here. Can I break in just a second? A sequence and a comment. You know, we're doing pretty well. It's half past seven and a half hours. It's hard to do. Everyone I look at is so anxious. But I think we're going to make a good many of them here. You can just be a little patient. I'm trying to be fair. I'm going to be trying to move ahead. You've had this problem too much, Mr. Cannon. It is going to be all the time. I would appreciate it anyway. This sequence really will be next far on. And I know George answers. I mentioned his name earlier. He's involved and Rick Smith. And then I'll catch some more here people. I'm going to run your job. The way it really was. Are you sure that he says. This, of course, is why we keep stressing verifiability. Now, granted verifiability can never be an iron curtain without some cracks in it. But, and then you have to keep watching. But this comes back again to something I said in the first press conference ever held here. And that has many times since been quoted is that I was accusing them of all sorts of things when actually, as I recall that first press conference, I was quoting them as that in their society they believe in the right to take advantages if the other fellow doesn't keep watch on them. And I think we have to understand that. We have to go into these meetings with that knowledge that they have a different view than we do. But the other thing in talks that we're in right now, we must always recognize that they're never going to give in on something because we have looked so nice that they decide to be nice fellas too. It has to be to their interest as well as ours. And I think that this is the difference in these talks that are going on now and any talks that I can remember, and there have been what, 19 attempts to talk with them about arms since World War II, usually brought about by us and never getting a successful response from them. But the difference is now that they can see a practical good for them with regard particularly to nuclear arms. And I think that's why they're at the table. And if we keep it on that kind of a practical sense that it is to their benefit also, in other words the choice between do they want to get into a hostile arms race confrontation with us on down through history, or do they want to go a more practical and sensible way in which we both maintain our own security but at a lower level. Mr. President, you've said that a strong dollar is a sign of our strong economy and confidence in our economy. Nonetheless, there are many people here and abroad among our friends and allies who fear that the dollar might fall sharply, which would do great damage to our economy and the world economy. Secretary Baker has indicated that he might be interested in another look at the international monetary system. Is this a concern of yours, sir, and is it something that you might bring up at some of the international meetings, including the summit, to which you'll be going shortly? Well, this has come up before in international meetings. There are others that look back at Bretton Woods and all and wonder if we shouldn't take another look and see if there have been distortions or whether something better can be worked out. We're always willing to listen and look at this. And I agree that if there was a sudden, you might say, collapse of the dollar way down, I think it could be very harmful and it would lead the world to believe that we're all in greater economic trouble than we are. I think the strength of the dollar right now is in comparison with those other currencies in countries where the recovery has not been as great as ours or is not proceeding at the same pace as ours. And as they improve their economies, their currency is going to come up. And I think that would be beneficial to all of us because our country has the ability to export economic trouble as well as economic recovery. And I think so far our recovery has begun to stimulate improvements among our trading partners in the world. Do I take it then that a new look at the international monetary system is not a top priority on your agenda? No, you're right. Well, yes, no it isn't. All right. Rick, George, and Anson, Jody and Paul West. Mr. President, two questions. One, do you have any comment on the shooting of the American officer in East Germany today? And secondly, Senator Rudman and others have suggested that one way to save money and the Pentagon budget is to reduce some of the personnel costs, the large numbers of support people put off and pay raise, that kind of stuff that this will not endanger national security. Do you agree with that approach? First of all, the comment on the shooting, the tragedy that's occurred over there, I'm still waiting for more information as I'm sure we all are. I was awakened early in the morning when I hear the phone ring in those early morning hours. I know that all I have to do is pick it up and say hi, bud. And he's there on the other end. We don't know the details. It's being investigated by our embassy there. And I'm sure as the morning goes on, we'll get more details. Obviously, we're resentful and feel that it is an unwarranted tragedy. Now, the other part of your question had to do with whether or not it was possible to reduce the personnel costs without endangering national security, putting off the pay raise and so forth. I think the things we look at are in areas, I don't particularly see that one as a problem right now. I think if I understand correctly what you're talking about in support forces, probably civilian employees in contrast to the uniformed. And there has been an increase in that. But where we've been reducing the number of employees in other areas of government, we recognize that that change in the defense department to a large extent has been getting civilians, such as privately contracting out and so forth, getting civilians to do things instead of having uniformed personnel doing them. Strangely enough, it is actually more costly to have to take a uniformed personnel out of the ranks of the fighting men and women and turn them loose or put them into jobs that can be done by civilians. So this is not an extravagance the other way around. The other thing is, I think that we have, we've been spoiled back through the years by the draft. You force someone into the military and then because he's forced in there for a given period of time, you don't think that you have to compete with the job market for him. And military pay was therefore much less than the normal scale. And I think the fact that we have been able to bring military pay up closer has resulted in having the highest level on basis of intelligence, the highest level on the percentage of high school graduates in the military, the highest level of retention and morale that we've ever had in the history of our military. We have today, and I think part of that is because we're trying to reward them with what is comparable to what they could do on the outside. So you're against then any reduction in personnel costs, is that right? Except for where we can find things that are unnecessarily being done or maybe there are more places where we can still contract out for civilians doing things that presently are being done by the military. We're continuing to look at those kind of management things. And those are the type of things that you would look first to see whether if more savings are needed, whether you can obtain them in areas of that kind. Okay, we'll have this sequence. Now, George, you're next. Paul said he passes, so we'll go to Jody. I'll wave back to Lars and Bill Ringo and then to Mary McGraw. Mr. President, the Agriculture Department now says that a total of 93,000 family-sized commercial farms are either technically insolvent or soon will be. And Mr. Block now says that the administration's debt adjustment program is going to help probably no more than 6,000 of these family-sized commercial farmers. In view of this, is there any additional federal aid or program that you can support or approve of that will help some of these farm families stay in business? I don't know about that figure of 6,000 or whether he's referring to some of the limitations that have been imposed by the banks, and we've been working with them on this. This is with regard to the $650 million that was put up quite some time ago to help, and only a few million was used, not because the farmers couldn't use it, but because banks did not want to go along with what we were proposing. Maybe in part because they kept watching Congress and listening and thinking that they could get a better deal if they waited for some legislation from Congress. But it is true about the 93,000. What we have are about 43,000 that are technically insolvent. We have another 50,000 that within the coming year could be unless there is some reorganization of their debts. There's another 126,000 that have financial problems of that kind, but they've got from two to five years before they would face the emergency situation. Now, we have been making available and will by the end of April, made available in the regular CCC programs some $12 billion or more than that, I think about $14 billion that is available, and then we'd be going forward with the 86 funds, but we also have made some changes in this $650 million to encourage the use of that, and have some other areas where we can be of help. But to Natalie in regard to the argument that came up in the media recently about it, does 93,000 are only 4% of the total number of farms in the United States? Mr. President, the 93,000 or 14% of the family size commercial farms in the United States. But beyond that, Mr. Block has said that the $615 million is not a limit. Is that true? He has said there's no limit. We're finding, and they're finding, wherever they get other sources for this, yes. But just recently, there were only a few million dollars, like eight million or something that had been used out of this, and as I say, it wasn't because the farmers weren't trying, it was because the banks were not taking advantage of it. All right, Jody, Lars, Bill, Mary, and I miss you all the way here, you're beneath. Mr. President, could you tell us whether the line about exporting farmers is a contribution from Mr. Cannon? Whether it was or not, is that one in retrospect you just assumed you hadn't told? Yep, because I didn't get a laugh. But I thought that the gridiron was supposed to be off the record, that there were no reporters present. I think if that isn't true any longer, why it's kind of going to curb the humor at the forthcoming grid irons? A lot of things. Mr. President, some of your trade negotiators are beginning to voice frustration with the pan over their unwillingness to admit American products, particularly high-technology communication products. And it seems to me some move at the time is not to get tough with the pan. Have you focused on this issue? Do you have anything planned on the trade negotiations with the pan? Well, we've been working with Prime Minister Nakasone, and I have to say he's been most cooperative. He has a very forward-looking view with regard to our commercial relationship between the two economic top powers today, ourselves and Japan. He has political problems. There's no question about that. I can understand him very well, and I have some of the same problems. But we continue to work with him, whether there will come a point of no response at all on some, and it certainly won't be his fault for lack of trying. Then we'll have to look at what other actions we can take. But we have made some pretty sizable progress in these last couple of years with regard to opening up markets in Japan. Bill and Mary. Mr. President, Richard Pearl told the Senate Armed Services Committee that if the Soviet Union violates a provision of an arms control treaty, as you have said they have in some cases, the United States is entitled also to violate a provision of that treaty, not necessarily the same provision. Is that the policy of this government? I would think what he was probably saying, I don't think we would ever do it surreptitiously or simply without saying. I think that our attitude would be to say to them, this is what we see that you are doing that we believe is in violation of the treaty, and if we were going to do it, then say to them, henceforth, this is how we're going to view the treaty, so that they understand that there is a price for this. Sometimes in looking at violations, we have found that the language problems between our two countries have contributed an ambiguity to some terms, where they can stand and look you in the eye and say, we interpret this clause in the treaty to mean the following. And so they claim that it is not a violation. It is their understanding the treaty. Well, in that sense, we would either have to say no and try to persuade them that that isn't the meaning of the treaty or we would have to say to them, all right, if that's the way you interpret it, then that's the way we're going to. But haven't we come to the end of the road on those kinds of contentions? Aren't they adamant that they have not violated the treaty and that we have to do something about it now? Well, we're, as I say, this is a part of the negotiations that are going on. I think this would be a subject that would very definitely come up in a summit meeting because I think we have to recognize one thing with the Soviet Union, that they themselves, just like us, they've got suspicions that they think are legitimate with regard to our intent. And maybe sitting face-to-face, we can work on the thing of convincing them that we are as untrusting of them as they claim they are of us and find ways where we can, by deed, prove what our intentions are. I've got several in this table. Mary and I saw David Broder. You're going to be next here. I saw John. And anyway, I'm going to hit this table for a little while here. Mary, please. This is a live conversation versus partisan politics. Specifically, Congressman Van der Jack's campaign to soften up Democrats in our views. Last Thursday, the Congressman Neil of North Carolina asked you to have this campaign with Mr. Van der Jack's stock. He said that you promised that you would. How long did it take you to tell us what would happen and what would you do? Yes, we have, I can understand the enthusiasm of our own people and it is basically a two-party system here and we compete with each other. And the other side has been already, and some of their fundraising letters have been pretty partisan too. And I expressed to him my desire that we stop this and go forward with those areas where partisanship should stop, particularly at the edge of the water. No, I haven't personally, but I've given the orders that we are to, but yes. You're next. And then David Boder, then Pat Ferguson, and then Charlotte here. Mr. President. I left John out. Excuse me, John. Mr. President, in your February press conference, you said you felt Mexico was cooperating fully in the search for a missing U.S. drug agent. Since then, the drug agent has been found where administration officials of your administration are all levels have said that the Mexican government is not cooperating. You today, you really believe the Mexican government that all it could to keep that agent alive, would you assess the strain this has caused on U.S.-Mexico relations? I just, here's one that is very difficult to comment on. I believe the President of Mexico and there are others in that government that are trying to get at the bottom of things of this kind, but I also believe that they have great problems. And we know that there is corruption and we know that it must go into governmental circles, various levels. But I do not challenge the sincerity of the President de la Madrid and others who are trying to deal with this problem. Who planned to meet with the President there? For the moment, there is not either one of our schedules, any meeting that kind planned, but we have kept in touch. And as I said four years ago or more, that I believe that there should be regular contact between certainly the three countries of North America. And this was part of why there was a summit there recently with Canada. And I might say Prime Minister Mulroney shares my view that we should, more and more all three of us, become closer together. David, Pat, John, Charlotte. Mr. President, as a result of the Supreme Court decision last week, there are now limits in effect on how much an individual can contribute to a candidate or to a political party, but there are no limits on what a person can spend on behalf of his own candidacy or a group of people can spend promoting somebody's candidacy. Does that seem reasonable to you and do you have anything in mind as to how to straighten out this campaign finance level? Yes, Dave, I think that if we look at the Constitution and the right of individuals, there should be no limitation on what anyone wants to give or any group wants to give, except that what we do have a right to do, the government has a right to do, is to say that whoever gives, they and the size of their gift must be revealed publicly. Then let the voters make up their mind as to whether they believe a candidate might be unduly influenced by the size of a gift or not. But I, to me, this is a part of free speech. In a day when in the country this size, you've got to reach 220 million, 250 million people in campaigning. And at the cost of doing that, there is no reason why as long as it is reported, as long as it is out in the open. Will the administration be recommending legislation embodying the principles you just stated? Well, with all that's on our plate right now, I don't know that we've dealt with that problem as yet. But I just, right now, we have a situation where there are some groups that can spend limitless amounts as long as they claim that they're spending it for educational purposes or something and not actually contributing it directly to the candidate. And yet it is a contribution, in fact, in the manner in which it is done. Mr. President, over weekend, former President Carter issued a lot of criticism about your administration and to a specific word that you had not made any progress in international agreements or arms talks, any kind of solid progress that I keep on this point of view, and that during your administration the College of Human Rights came in and let down. Would you give us a comment on that in general? And specifically, do you see any virtue in trying to reach short, limited steps, agreements in arms talks as a symbolic show of progress toward either a summit or more something in the previous slide? As to the last part of that question, no. Agreements just to have your name on a piece of paper and say you've got an agreement don't mean anything. The purpose of these negotiations is to start reducing on both sides the number of nuclear weapons hopefully to arrive at what Grimiko himself in Shurnenko before he died said, and that is the total elimination of such weapons. A practical reduction of arms should be our goal. As to the other, and with regard to 60 minutes and the comments there, I'd prefer that anybody ask the questions about what we've done with regard to civil rights or what we've done with regard to international relations be asked directly on that basis. I'm not going to comment on what President Carter said. Mr. President, you have more than 100 vacancies for federal district judgeships to fill. What will be your main criteria for filling those judgeships and will a potential nominee stand on abortion if you want them? My criteria is going to be what it was when I was governor of California and as a governor had the appointment of judges as one of the facets of the job and that is that it would certainly be non-political and to be based on qualifications and quality and as to ideology or principle it would be that I would want judges that would think that their job was to interpret the law and the Constitution and not write it. Charlotte and Elio. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the PLO. You have said that the United States will not talk to the PLO unless the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist. What is the rationale for that policy? Shouldn't the United States be willing and able to talk to anybody at any time, at any place if that opens up the possibilities for peace? Haven't we boxed ourselves in the middle of this? I don't think we really have. This, to me, is one of the most important facets of this agreement. Remember that the very basis of the Israeli-Arab wars down through the years has been a refusal in the part of one side to recognize that Israel has a right to exist as a nation. In fact, they used such terms back in when the hostilities were more open than driving them into the sea. And this thing of the resistance to the PLO does not include Palestinians. This is why, right now, we would encourage Hussain to have representatives of the Palestinians because we have said that the Palestinian problem must be one of the things that is settled in any negotiations if there's to be peace in the Middle East. But as long as the PLO, as an organization, says that number one, they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a nation. Number two, they refuse to recognize 242 of the UN. Then, I don't think there's any way that we can talk to them. And it's a very simple thing, I think, for them is to make the decision that, for example, Hussain has made to recognize that we're talking about nations that mutually have a right to exist and that this would mean, then, that that other group has given up its terrorist activities and so forth. So I don't think there's anything wrong with us saying that we can't negotiate with the PLO as long as they have that feeling. Mr. President, the Israelis have said that they will look very carefully at the credentials of a joint Palestinian Jordanian delegation which suggests that their position is somewhat more flexible than yours. Couldn't you accept a delegation on the same basis? I don't believe that we are saying anything different. I think they use the word Palestinian. We use the word Palestinian also. And I don't think that I've ever heard anything. I certainly have never heard anything from them as accepting the PLO as the representative of Palestinian interests because of this position that the PLO still adheres to. Richard? Mr. President, you said at your press conference the other evening that you did not want to continue the federal supplemental unemployment program that expired at the end of this month because you thought that job training was the way to go. But at the same time, you had your budget proposal that suggested cutting that job training program by almost a half, maybe even a little more. How do you reconcile these two views? Our program, the partnership job training program that we've had, the one in which we, in that program, it is administered at the local entity with a partnership there of local and private to make sure that people are being trained for the jobs that are available in that area has had a success record of almost 70% placement of the people that have been trained in that program. This we're continuing. Some of the other job programs of the government back over the years have averaged a cost of about $15,000 a year per trainee. And we haven't seen very much of an effort made at placement after they've gone through those training programs. And there certainly has not been a great effort made to see are they training them for jobs that are lacking. For example, when you go into a major city in this country and right now pick up their Sunday paper and see 60 odd pages of help wanted ads and yet that particular city is in an area that has a pretty sizable unemployment rate say above the national average. You have to ask if the efforts of the past have been directed properly. We're going to continue with our program as to the supplemental unemployment insurance. There has to be a limit in how far you can go with that particularly now that we're averaging 300,000 people a month finding jobs, new jobs being created for those people. We seem to be running out of questions and that's very good, Mr. President because this is the end of the hour. You've seen that at a press conference, have you? No more hands. Anyway, that's where we are. I have a little note here from Pete Rossell saying that the transcripts will be ready at 4 p.m. And again, Mr. President, I want to thank you very much for having us drop by. I'm comfortable, I think, with the decor and the lighting, the food. We really like it and just want you to know we'll be over here in a moment's notice any time at your call. But thank you. I mean, this is three years in a row and it's been very nice. Well, I've got to thank you very much and as I say, enjoy it. I may at 4 o'clock this afternoon read the transcript and say, why did I say that? I doubt that. No, but I'll tell you, I have to say this and please don't get the idea that the press conference has ought to be an hour long in order to eliminate all the hands that have been raised, but it does bother me. Now, a few people could ever get together on something and figure out some process whereby I wouldn't have to turn my back on so many hands that are still raised. Well, here's the process and of course I think, I don't ever heard you say it, but I've heard that some presidents have a rowdy bunch, so look at this. Is this a rowdy bunch? No, and I haven't thought that. No, Mary just asked if I would hold more press conferences and the number of questions were limited. No, what I worry about is that there are some people there, there's no way to avoid this, that with a great number of people in a press conference that there are some that maybe you never do get to and they never get a question. We have a suggestion, sir, and that is if you just... You don't mind that? All right. If that's the difference between having more of a press conference and having more of a press conference being one doubt, I don't think all of us should be in a press conference. We wear red threats. I've got to suggest to Mr. President with all this, I know I can speak for this group. We don't call on television.


Wow, first time for every single one. How often do you get asked if your eyelashes are real? All the time, all the time. I came from a family full of women so maybe I just got like an extra bit of estrogen or something like that. Yeah, they are fantastic. Thank you very much. Yours are fantastic. Thanks, they're completely 100% real. Definitely. We thought maybe we could just prove to people that these are your real eyelashes by giving you some fake ones. Okay. And then we can show the difference, yeah? Fake eyelashes.  Well, we'll just rest them on if you're down. And then we'll just see if we can see what the difference is. Wow, pretty. These are great. Okay, so close. Okay. Yes, they're going, oh my goodness. That's good. Yeah, okay. Just this one. And then... Oh, we're doing both. We're gonna do both. I would clean up with these eyelashes already. Oh my gosh. I know. Well, the ladies are going mad already. Yeah. Just give us a little flatter to the... What's up? Yes! I love it. Yeah. How does that look good on you? Is it working for me? Are they on fleek? Do you want to see? I don't know how to show you, but is there a camera on this? I know. Wow. Nice. Photo. I'm rocking these. Photo, together. But you've outlashed me and that's not cool, huh? I'm not throwing from down flat.  Let's take them off.


Mages sure are fun to play, but waiting for your ultimate is such a chore. Why even use it when it's going to be on cooldown for ages?  Cast your ultimate faster than an ADC uses their basics and it works on any mage. Try it on the fade to keep your enemies scared shitless of some vines. Make your enemies watch their mana bar more than their health bar with bellica. Use it on Gideon to spam black holes so many times that you'll never leave the sky. Here's how it works.  Return to base and click on the picture four or five times before actually buying it and you're good.  But wait, there's more. Act now and we'll throw in assists for free. Just write every kill and assist you get will lower the cooldown of your most powerful ability. Gone are the days of using boring old basic abilities. Why use those when you can just recast, recast, and recast that ultimate. You'll wear your R key out faster than a Greystone's W key.  Offer not bellicle and Agnes of Light. Mangoo!


Good morning from the side of the road next to some hot springs just been playing on the computer a bit and organizing But I just got invited down in the springs by these two knuckleheads in there And they're banana hammocks So, you know, I can't pass up a good time. So I'm gonna jump down there and join them start off my day with the right way Well the jacks is backs from Dippin in the hot springs. It was quite nice. There was some nudity, so couldn't show you show you guys that It's not the kind of a channel, but I just noticed my Scruff is probably ready and do for a little trim. So I think I'll do that and then I'll edit some videos and I'll check in with you guys shortly Just want to let you guys know it is hours later the Creek keeps on rising and Right now it's fully breached over there Now I guess that it's lukewarm maximum as you can see the water has Gone up. I would say six to ten inches. So This thing is going to be washed out probably by tonight or tomorrow Also, I say goodbye to Tweety and Eric those guys those guys are whoo. They were so much fun and hopefully they send me a direct message on Instagram so we can keep in touch and Maybe link up in the future It was a pretty eventful afternoon Although I Did edit edit three videos. So what I'm going to try and do is try and schedule them in advance. So It appears That I am uploading every single day, but in fact I am producing content every day, but Whenever I find Wi-Fi that's That's when I you know Upload in bulk other than that met a really nice dude who Told me about a hot springs book So I'm going to invest in one of those it's probably going to be worth it since I Seem to be pretty fond of it so far so quickly Also Proposition me which I declined I told him thank you, but no, thank you Obviously, oh he signed the bus to I'm not going to call him out because This isn't about embarrassing anybody, but personal preference So the clouds are coming in I Think it's going to rain tonight or tomorrow and since There really is no reason to be here any longer I think we're going to hit the road. Oh ladies and gentlemen It is time now to fill up my water because I ran out. I didn't have any after midday and As you guys know I love hot springs, but I also love cold springs, so We're just going to let nature Feed my soul and water my Metacondria, I think it's been a long time since science class chopped off. Let's give it a try Delicious, we know this water just going to waste. It's gone right in that drain. All right. I'm at a crossroads Looking at the map trying to decide what to do Also for the shower install I need to get my hands on a A Fresh water tank of sorts and it looks like I'm gonna have to Probably order one unless like camping world has it So there's that Also I might end up doing some slight construction on the back Bed part to modify to fit this to fit this water tank. I just don't know how large the tank is going to be so just kind of hard to make a decision because I'm probably a days drive away from Portland and I am in Idaho. I do want to travel Idaho, but the thing is I'd like to get this thing installed No later than the end of May So then I can head back through some states towards VidCon in June By the way, if anybody is near VidCon or going to VidCon, please come say hi So I'm just trying to figure out what to do Let's continue driving maybe I'll figure it out All right guys brief update for the first time I got frozen food. I just got some vegetable mixes That's an Asian vegetable mix. I really don't know why they consider Asian. They look like vegetables to me Um, this one is a classic, you know, I don't know. Maybe it's American mixed vegetables. I have no idea and then I got Some other I got some asparagus and basically what I'm thinking is to do like rice and Vegetables in the pressure cooker along with I scored all these organic Beans and things like that. These were two bucks a can I feel like that's like a pretty solid price for organic. These ones were a little bit more These are no salt added. These are pretty healthy. But what I think I'm gonna do is I'm gonna stay away from can to stuff because I feel like Organic stuff that is not in a can. It's probably healthier and cheaper I just have to soak it in advance or Get myself some lentils because those things will cook up in the pressure cooker with just a few whistles. So I'm in a town called McCall. I Was here the other day on accident I have no idea Still where I'm going. I'm just gonna make my way north a little bit and Maybe cross into Washington tomorrow. I really don't have a clue. So but further ado, let's hit the road I know it's incredibly hard to to tell where I am but Just for reference, I'm on the side of the road on a forest road. Maybe it's easier if you see so There's a road.  There's multiple cars that way And actually I think some guys that I met yesterday at the hot springs Funny enough and a Volkswagen bug or a bus Anyways, let's go make some dinner. All right. We were gonna do some spring vegetables I'm not really sure what spring means, but I know it is currently spring. So it sounds like a good idea to me next up is a Edzuki beans no salt added. This brand seems to be pretty easy to find in regular grocery stores regular meaning like non-whole foods kinds of places Edzuki beans by the way are very delicious. They're kind of like black beans, but a bit more mild All right, and to make the beans a complete protein I'm adding some rice There we go a little bit goes a long ways We go and some of that fresh mountain spring water There we go. That should do the trick. It was a very good youtuber today. I made three videos I know I'm a little late on the uploads and I apologize for that it will happen from time to time But this one is vlog number 212 I'm gonna work on 213 while dinner is cooking and if you guys have never used a pressure cooker a highly highly recommend You'd give it a try. This is a stainless steel one made by presto. I got it at Bed Bath and Beyond rice Just let it whistle once whistle meaning like When that thing comes up and then just let it sit let the pressure come down as it cools You got yourself a meal. I just want to show you guys. Oh, there we go. Look at that magical unicorn juice That looks like a pretty balanced diet to me and possibly the cheapest and healthiest Meal I've made so far that has been essentially everything's pre-made except for the rice So it's a little bit wetter than I wanted but you know still Still pretty satisfied with this.


Joining us from Hollywood, California is the founder and treasurer of the Blue America pack, which raises money for progressive candidates all around the country. And he writes the down with tyranny blog Howie Klein. Howie Klein, Paul Ryan is making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows defending the Republican health care plan. How does he sleep at night? He may be a zombie and doesn't sleep. I don't know. But before we get into Paul Ryan and his hideous appearance yesterday with George Stephanopoulos, I mean on Sunday, I just wanted to mention to you that I've never lived in Hollywood in my entire life. Do you live in North Hollywood? No, I don't. I live in Los Feliz. Right. But to most people, that's Hollywood. Why is that? Because Hollywood is Hollywood. This is not Hollywood. You know, that's where Madonna lived and that's where all the young hip, I think John Ham lives there. It's a very hippie. People who don't want to live in Hollywood basically. But Hollywood isn't a geographic space. It's a state of mind. Oh, okay.  It also, you know, West Hollywood is a separate city from Los Angeles, part of Los Angeles County, but its own city with its own mayor and legislative body and police force, et cetera, kind of police force. And then East Hollywood is what it is. And then Los Feliz is separate and really not even contiguous. I guess you're right. I'm sorry. That's all right. You know, I just want to say that so in the future, when you introduce me, you can say, and now we have how we client from Los Feliz, or you could say Los Angeles. Right. By the way, I know we want to talk about Paul Ryan. One of the stories that is not getting covered that you really have been staying on top of, and I noticed by looking at the Los Angeles Times it's being covered, is the oppression of Mexican Americans, the breaking up of families, especially in Los Angeles. ICE is working overtime destroying lives in Los Angeles. That's right. And is Los Angeles cooperating with ICE? The city of Los Feliz is not cooperating with ICE. The city of Los Angeles or Los Feliz? Sorry? Did you say Los Feliz or Los Angeles? Los Feliz is a neighborhood. It doesn't have its own police force. And they're not cooperating with ICE? I can guarantee you that Los Feliz is not cooperating with ICE, but Los Angeles is not breaking the law, but they're not doing anything more than what the law requires, and that's it. Right. I was on the subway in New York yesterday, and I saw a sign that says, if one of your loved ones is missing, call this number, and it's from Governor Cuomo, the state of New York. A lot of people are reporting their loved ones missing because they've been rounded up by ICE, and they can't find them. It's pretty incredible, isn't it? It is amazing, and there was a big story about a bunch of Trump voters who suddenly saw that someone who was a pillar of their community was just gone, and he didn't commit any crimes. He was not what Trump calls a bad ombre. Exactly, described him as a good ombre, and he was just summarily rounded up and deported, and these are Trump supporters who are aghast. My guess is that they are completely turned off and lost to Trumpism completely now. They're being rounded up, put on planes, sent to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, where they're rounded up and forced into gangs. It's a mess. It is just an absolute mess. It is a mess, and if Trump was serious and he wanted to do a good thing, that people, at least in Los Angeles, would appreciate, he would really go after not people that they have been rounding up, easy target to, because they can just follow school buses home and grab, but they would round up the really bad gangs, many of whom are from El Salvador, as a matter of fact, and there's that one really, really bad gang that everybody hates and everyone would like to see them gone, but that's hard. I just do that instead, but they don't want to do that, because that's dangerous. They could get shot back at. If you go after some poor, struggling parents by following their child's school bus home, if chances are, no one's going to shoot at you. If you go after one of these really terrible gangs, you get into a firefight. They're not doing that. They talk about it. They say they're going to. Sessions was on Long Island the other day claiming he's going after this gang, but they haven't. I mean, maybe they have on Long Island, but they sure haven't in Los Angeles. MS13 is in Long Island, which I found that kind of really MS13 is in in Long Island. I found that a little bizarre. Okay, let's talk about Paul Ryan and the healthcare bill. Yeah, like I said, he was on this week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday, and he was just giving his litany of lies. Just one after the other. They've got their talking points. They focus group tested them to make sure they had all the right words. And the only problem is they're not true. It's just one fallacy after another about how great this is. And this Trump care bill is going to be better for everybody's health. And it's going to be cheaper and more wonderful. And it just lie after lie after lie. And then when you dispute it, you know, Trump or Ryan or whoever starts carrying on about fake news.  They're attacking the March of Dimes and the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society. I mean, they're the AARP. I mean, every professional medical group, every consumer group, all the groups that are interested and are nonpartisan that are interested in health care are disputing these lies that Ryan and Trump are spewing. And they just think if they can just repeat them over and over and over, Ryan and Trump think if they can repeat them enough times, there will be at least some people who will listen to them and believe them or at least question the evidence. I mean, there has been a concerted effort by the Republicans to discredit science and to discredit the media and to try the best they can to create a system where there is no alternative to what they say. Their alternative facts, they want to be accepted as facts. And they won't ever be accepted as facts unless you're on opioids and they're a Trump voter. That's interesting. You bring up opioids because we have Sam Kinyonez on the show today and he wrote Dreamland about the opioid epidemic. May I read something that a friend of mine wrote? It's Mary Ann Williamson. I think you know her, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. A Course in Miracles. That's right. And she wrote an essay over the weekend at HuffPo and it was about, she didn't mention Ryan per se, but it goes right to what we're talking about. So what I'm reading now is her words. Political propaganda seeks to affect the way people perceive the world in order to affect the way they behave. Political propaganda is the biggest tool in the extremists' arsenal. It's at an all-time high today in terms of sophistication and effectiveness as Madison Avenue Public Relations acumen has become insidiously and nefariously applied to the political sphere. Our problem is not just that some politicians flat out lie. Our bigger problem is the power of their propaganda to dismantle the ability within many people's minds to even realize they're being lied to. People are vulnerable to extremism not because they like extremism, but because in too many cases today extremism is usually successful at posing as something else. Whether or not a big lie has been proven to be false seems to have minimal bearing on whether or not it is believed. It is the conviction and consistency with which the big lie is stated, not the proven accuracy or inaccuracy of its claim that determines its effect on the voter's mind and thus the way they vote. And that goes a long way to explaining the persistence of the support that people like Trump and Ryan are still getting. And it's why a lot of these Republicans felt that it was worth taking the gamble of this vote. Remember, 217 Republicans voted for this bill, only 20 voted against it. And those 217 Republicans, many of whom hadn't read the bill, many of whom felt the bill actually was a bad bill. I mean, I was just doing a story when you called just now about a guy in Florida or a Congressman, Mario Diaz Ballart down in the Miami area, who voted, who said he was wavering, wasn't sure if he wanted to vote for it or not, got his arm twisted, voted for it, and then was asked afterwards if he felt he voted for a bad bill or a good bill. He said he voted for a bad bill, but thinks maybe the Senate will make it better. I mean, that's a Congressman? Yes, that is a Congressman. That's a Republican Congressman. That's what they are today. That. Were they kicking the can down the road, hoping that the Republicans in the Senate would save them from this bill? Does Paul Ryan really want this bill passed? Paul Ryan doesn't want this bill. Paul Ryan, unlike what many people think, is a dangerous ideologue and always has been. People don't realize, you know, he's been painted so benignly by the media as a, what are they, like a wank or something like that, a policy wank. He's never been that. He's never, I've watched this guy's career from the very beginning from the first time he ran for Congress.  And they, they, they just thought, oh, we could put anything in his head and get him to repeat it. And that's what they got with him.  He already, you know, he started off well enough for them because the only book he's ever admitted to reading is, is The Fountainhead by Anne Rand. He's a big Anne Rand supporter and he, and his intellectual growth was stunted in high school after reading some Anne Rand books. And he, yes, he very much believes in this. This is his dream. Paul Ryan, who, who only was able to go to college because of benefits from Social Security after his father passed away, right. And decided once he got up to the top to pull the ladder up after him, typical of many Republicans like him who come from your Republicans who come from working-class families, I've got mine, screw you. Right. That's him. And he very much wants to turn the clock back and destroy everything that came out of the new deal. That's Paul Ryan. Getting into his head should be pretty easy because it's empty. What is he thinking? You know that he doesn't believe he's a hateful human being. I would assume that he believes Obamacare is a disaster because the premiums have gone up. It has been pretty tough. Premium gone up on Obamacare because it's been sabotaged. The Republicans, the governors of Republican states like Wisconsin, his state have refused to do the Medicaid expansion without the Medicaid expansion, which, which the government has put huge subsidies behind thinking that they would get Republican governors to back it. And, and many did. They did get a lot of Republican governors backing it because it was the best thing for this state guy who I do not respect like John Kasich. I don't, I don't like John Kasich.  But, but he had the good sense to do the right thing in this case for the people of Ohio, even though he's a Republican, even though he had a Republican, completely Republican dominated legislature, he still passed Medicaid expansion. And several other, and Christie did as well. Several other Republican governors did it in their states, but in a state like Wisconsin, where you've got another crackpot ideologue, Scott Walker, they didn't pass it. So yes, that's the reason why the premiums have gone up, because of that. And that's the only reason why. You're saying that if all 50 states accepted the Medicaid, then premiums would not go up because why? Well, first of all, I want to correct a misapprehension about premiums going up. Premiums may go up because the cost of healthcare goes up. That's why premiums have gone up. But they've gone up at a much, much slower rate. Even under what I'm, even under, even with Republican sabotage, they've gone up at a much slower rate than they had been going up. So that's one thing to remember. The other thing is the way insurance can be explained is that you take the people who have the biggest risk. So in other words, people with preexisting conditions, people older people who are likely to get sick, you take them and you put them in as big a pool as possible with people who are healthy and people who are young and people who are likely not to get sick. And you put them all together and then the cost goes down for the people who have to use healthcare. That's the whole idea of spreading out the risk and that's what insurance is all about. And with the Republicans, what they're going to do is take the people with preexisting conditions, remove them from the pool and create a separate pool and lead it up to the states as to whether they're going to be funding that pool, right? Well, the federal government, no, they're going to have to fund the pool. In order to, in order, in other words, in order to get the waiver to create the pool, they have to agree to fund it. And the federal government has some money to do that as well. However, it only covers the plan that the Republicans have in Trumpcare, only covers about 20% of the people who will be thrown into those pools. So whenever those pools have been tried in the past, first of all, it takes between six months and a year or a year and a half sometimes to even get into them. So then you're stuck, you know, say for an average of about a year with no insurance, you can't get anything. And then, and then once you get in, there are still very, very high costs, which the subsidies are not going to cover. So, so the Republicans like to talk about where you have access, you have, everyone's going to have access. Okay, well, you have access to buy a jet plane. Did you know that? Yeah, sure. Yeah. If you want, you can buy a jet plane. If you can't afford it, it might be hard. You still have access. That's when they say that everybody is going to have access to healthcare. That's true. If you have $150,000 to pay an annual premium, if you have a preexisting condition like breast cancer, that's what it's going to cost.  How about that? That's access? Yeah. When they talk about access, that's what they're talking about. Well, they're saying that people with preexisting conditions didn't take care of themselves properly. That's right. Or bad people, and you know, the implication being that God is punishing them. So, you know, that's why they were so freaked out by what Jimmy Kimmel had to say about his newborn son being born with a congenital heart disease. Wow. I read something in the Washington Times the day after Jimmy gave that speech about his son. And there's this well-respected conservative, I'm not going to even mention his name, I don't want to give him any publicity.  And as I'm reading it, I'm thinking, this is a death cult. The Republicans, the conservatives just want to see people die. I mean, they're that hateful. It doesn't seem that way, doesn't it? I might say, though, in defense of some Republicans, although this one was an ex-democrat who's a Republican senator from Louisiana now, he said he's not voting for anything when it comes in front of the healthcare bill when it comes to the Senate. He's not voting for it unless it passes what he dug the Jimmy Kimmel test. How much do you blame Obama for not doing the public option? Wouldn't a public option have put these insurance companies out of business? And isn't that the big issue? We have to put these insurance companies out of business. That's right. And the public option would have eventually done that. It would have led to that. And I suspect that the Democrats, the Democratic establishment, had lots and lots of reasons, green ones with large denominations, to not do that. And they didn't do it. And it's not like they passed Obamacare with any Republican support anyway. So in other words, who are they negotiating with? Who are the Democrats negotiating with? By killing the public option, it didn't give them any Republican support. So what was the purpose of it? Of course, they were negotiating with their own donors. That's what it came down to. My contempt for Pelosi and the Democrats has been born out of conversations with you. And when I heard them singing, hey, good-bye after they voted to pass that in the House. And Pelosi saying you will forever have this mark on your forehead. And it will be lit up. Yeah. As though good luck being reelected in two years. And so many people who are immune to this stuff say to me, well, this is good for the Democrats. And I said, how come the Democrats never say this is good for the American people? It's not a game. Who cares if it's good for the Democrats in two years? The American, well, they care because the main thing they care about are their careers. That comes way before any kind of policies. But the problem is the majority of House Democrats, 108 now, have cosponsored John Conyers' legislation for Medicare for All. So the Medicare for All bill is in committee. There are 108 Democratic cosponsors. But when you look at who's not a cosponsor, you find Pelosi. Unbelievable. You find Steny Hoyer. You find the number three Democrat who is, you know, their pick to succeed them, Joe Crowley. You find basically the whole Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And by Republican wing of the Democratic Party, I mean the blue dogs and the new Dems. Almost all of them are opposed to this. So here we're talking about a policy, Medicare for All, which something like 75% of Democrats, grassroots Democrats love a majority of independent voters love and even a plurality of Republicans like and accept. Even Hillary had nibbled around the edges of that. Kind of. She was forced into it. But that end of the party, that establishment end of the party that gets so much money from the insurance companies, they're very leery of this and they don't want to see it happen. My point is, can't the Democrats offer something to get people enthusiastic? No. They just want to campaign on Trump as a boogeyman. Ryan is evil. Both of which are true. But why not offer something to get enthusiasm up, to make people want to vote for Democrats instead of saying, well, you know, Trump is so bad, you know, even if the Democrats are bad, there's a lesser of two evils. That's all that that's all that the triple C ever does. The Democratic campaign, Congressional Campaign Committee, triple C, DCCC, they're all about lesser of two evils politics. And that's a shame because there are things that they could offer that would be inspiring, that would make people believe and make people want to vote for Democrats. And perfect would be Medicare for all. Everybody wants Medicare for all. Why won't they do it? Because they're more concerned about their own power, which is paid for by insurance companies. They're more concerned about their own career trajectories. That's what they care about, not about the American people. So don't ask that question again. They don't care. This country has turned into Manhattan, where there are no rules. It's every human being for themselves. Corruption is the norm. Trump has pretty much sealed the deal that America now is Manhattan, where there are laws but only fools obey those laws. Dishonesty, I have never seen the country. LA soon? Huh? Are you coming back to LA soon? I miss it. I obviously from what you just said, one can sort of glean a little something there. I think that Donald Trump has brought Manhattan to America. I think Ronald Reagan brought the worst parts of California to America. I think Trump has brought the Manhattan mindset to the country.  Just sell, you know, build something. And then if you get caught, bribe the building inspector. You need the mafia, get the mafia. That's what this country kind of sort of was under the Bush administration and, yeah, during Obama. But now it's just accepted. It's out in the open. Right? It's just out in the open. It does seem that way. I think there's going to be reaction to it. I'm hoping there is. But you certainly have a situation. I mean, that you probably saw this weekend where Kushner's sister was in Beijing selling visas, basically saying, invest at least $500,000 in the Kushner company, and you will get a visa to come live in America. And, you know, and there are slides with Kushner on the slide. There was one slide that I ran on my blog with Trump and then Chinese under his picture said, this is the guy that decides. And everybody knows that Kushner is his son-in-law and they're selling visas. I have gone to Canada on numerous occasions. And while I'm going through customs, my shoulders drop. I'm happy. I'm suddenly in Canada. I don't have to worry about getting shot.  And I always ask, what does it take for me to be allowed to live here? And that's the number. They say, if you put $500,000 into a bank account in Canada, they will let you stay there. So when I read that number, I said, I remember being told, you can't come here unless you give us $500,000. Why is that so wrong for Kushner to say that? I don't think that that's the case. I don't think that Canada does anything about that. I mean, it seems weird to me. Maybe you need that to stop the process of becoming a citizen. I don't know. But I mean, I taught at McGill and no one ever said that to me. And American friends of mine who taught at McGill, who lived there full time, never got any kind of hassle about that. I mean, they didn't put any $500,000 in any bank account. Why is it wrong? Because Trump is chasing immigrants out of the country and not allowing people who need sanctuary to come to the country. And then they're allowing rich people, many of them, mostly Chinese rich people, but also rich people from Arab countries and from India and a few other places, Russia, who, you know, I hate to say this, but a lot of these people have gotten their money by being crooked.  Whereas if you're poor, you're not welcome. So they're saying if you invest in the Kushner family, that's what they were doing. They were there. They advertised. They got a room full of millionaires. They grabbed this woman who was reporting for the Washington Post and dragged her out of the room because she was taking pictures of these slides, which are now circulating on the internet. And yes, that's what it was. It was not like, you know, invest in America. It was no, it was invest in Kushner. But is that legal? No. That was that's the point of what we're talking about. I'm saying that there's going to be a backlash that this can't go on. All right. I'd be curious. And this is what I'm talking about. Down with tyranny.com. I got a story. Got the slides up. You'll find it. All right. The Kushners will say, no, no, it's perfectly legal. If you invest $500,000 in an American company, you can get a visa. Yes. There is a program to do that. Is it legal for them to do it the way they're doing it? They didn't think so, which is why they kicked the media out of their little, their little meeting. It's unsamely. Give me marching orders. What do we need to do? What do we do? Tell us what to do. We need to, there's only one way to go about this. I mean, we have to, you know, keep up our vigilance, do what we can as individuals. And eventually it all is going to lead to the 2018 congressional midterm elections, where we have to defeat every Republican we can and replace them with good Democrats. That's not good enough. That's what it is. Tell, we need call Nancy Pelosi and say Medicare for all. You can do that too. Yes. Call Nancy Pelosi and say Medicare for all. I like that idea. But waiting till 2018 seems kind of passive, Howie. Not waiting. You know, we've got to keep up the excitement level in the grassroots. There are special elections. There's one coming up in Montana in two weeks. There's, and then there's, of course, the really important one in Georgia. You know, these kinds of things are, you know, all going to hopefully lead to the Democrats taking back the Senate. I'm sorry, taking back the House, maybe the Senate too, but not likely, but certainly the House. Howie Klein is the founder and treasurer of the Blue America Pack. Go to Down with Tyranny. I'm going to go there right now and read that story about the half a million dollar bribe to the Kushner family. Thank you, Howie. Thank you. We'll talk to you soon.