Occupy w/ Russell Simmons, Citizens United & HIV Wrestler (The Point)

Uploaded by townsquare on 26.01.2012

Welcome to the Point. We’ve got a great show for you today. We got a point sent in
by Russell Simmons. He was the founder of Def Jam Records so it’s great to have him
on the show. He wants to talk about the future of Occupy Wall Street. Of course, it’s great
to have him on the panel. That’s going to be be a great discussion. We have a writer
from Nation Magazine Elise Hogue who makes an unexpected point about Citizen’s United.
Also, a discussion about an HIV positive former professional wrestler who has been convicted
and given a sentence for having sex without a condom. I’m not sure where that discussion’s
going to go, but it’s going to be fascinating. Let me introduce the panel to you guys. Robin
Kelly is a professor of history, an award winning author who teaches at UCLA. Robin,
great to have you here.
Thank-you for having me.
Manju Kulkarni is the Executive Director of the South Asian Network. Manju, great to have
you here.
Patrick Meighan is an activist who was part of Occupy LA. He’s a writer for a sit-com
some of you may have heard of—“Family Guy.”
First we’re going to start with Russell Simmons. He’s got a really interesting point
to make about the Occupy movement. Let’s watch.
Hi, my name’s Russell Simmons. My point is that we have to get the money out of politics.
The other point is we need to have a Constitutional Amendment in order to do so. I’m supportive
of Occupy Wall Street in so many ways. It’s given me an opportunity to—it’s given
the president the opportunity to talk about economic inequality. People were a bit oblivious
as to the intentions of Occupy Wall Street. When I looked out my window to Zucotti Park
they told me it’s called “Occupy Wall Street.” I saw that it was Wall Street because
Wall Street is in control of their future. That’s the demon. It’s not Wall Street
that’s the problem, it’s that Wall Street’s in control of their future. That’s the problem.
We’d like the power to come back to the people, not to the corporations. That makes
sense. We want the people to control this democracy. Occupy Wall Street’s allowed
us to have conversations in Congress that otherwise wouldn’t be discussed. There are
things being discussed everywhere about economic inequality. Things that are being discussed
and their implications that otherwise would not be discussed. We have to take that energy
now and put it into reforms. We created something called “Occupy the Dream.” Occupy the
Dream is an old Martin Luther King idea. We get the civil rights community together with
the unions and the young creative minds we call “Occupy Wall Street.” We get them
all together and we call it Occupy The Dream. And we get some celebrities, some rock stars,
some rap stars—this will be a great education process. So we get them all together and get
them to Washington on one day. We have a major march, like Dr. King talked about and dreamed
about. But they got people together we had a common understanding, who felt locked out,
who felt we needed a change in economic inequality. That’s what it’s about now. That’s what
Occupy the Dream represents. It represents a march, it represents a series of marches,
it represents an education process. We find out what it is at the core of economic inequality.
I think it’s pretty obvious to a lot of people and becoming more obvious throughout
the meeting. It’s because of the corporations’ and special interests’ control of our government.
That’s why the jobs are overseas in many cases. That’s why we have no healthcare.
That’s why the prison-industrial complex has all these people in prisons. The future
of Occupy Wall Street is to join the Occupy Dream movement. It is solely to get the money
out of politics, solely to promote a much greater democracy. That’s the point. I’m
Russell Simmons I’m out of breath. That’s my point.
Great to have Russell Simmons. Let’s start with you Patrick. You were part of the Occupy
LA movement, you actually got arrested. First, tell us that story because that’s interesting.
To boil it down: I was one of the folks around the tent, and we were linked arm in arm and
said we weren’t going to leave when the police said we had to leave. In other palces
the way they got people to unlink was to use batons or pepper spray. So they cleared the
press out. And the few press folks who were there were embedded and they promised not
to show it. They went to a guy two over from me and said, “Okay are you going to unlink.”
He said no so they took his leg and twisted it all the way around and they stepped on
his foot with their boots. So they grabbed his other foot and twisted it all the way
around the other way until he screamed in agony and let go. That’s when they put the
cuffs on him and he was arrested. Apparently, that’s supposed to better than being pepper
sprayed in the face. I was terrified. So they went to the guy two more over from me. Then
they came to me and I was like “Hey, I’m unlinking. I’m happy to go with you.”
So I put my hands behind my back and they yanked my arms so far up my back I sort of
leaned away. Then they yelled “He’s resisting!” So they threw me down and I landed on my face
as they came down with their knee. So, that was lots of fun. So they put me in jail, and
I stayed there for about 26 hours.
Manju, what’s going on. Any other crime if you post bail, you’re out, unless you’re
considered a danger etcetera, etcetera. Now we had William Bratton on the show—former
LA Police Chief on The Young Turks just yesterday on Current Television, and he said LA Police
have gotten wide acclaim for how well they handled Occupy LA. Do you think this is political
where the mayor, Democrat or Republican, is trying to send a message here saying we’re
not interested in this protest movement?
Absolutely. I think what we saw the last couple of years with the media complicit in it is
any kind of protest or revolt as something that should be demonized and not encouraged
even though we talk about free speech, we talk about active participation in our democracy.
We have to look at who those folks are. Because when we look at Tea Partiers that’s okay
because they’re the citizens, they’re the mainstream, they’re excersizing their
free speech. I think there’s actually another important point, which is that the media can’t
handle anything that’s not about specific objectives. In this particular case you just
had people who were trying to raise awareness as Russell Simmons said, but the media didn’t
understand what was going on. They thought these are homeless folks or drunk folks and
that’s why you had that demonization followed by Villarogosa saying this is LAPD’ finest
This hypocracy is so rife in our democracy. By the way we had someone say the other day,
Bradley Manning would have been better off committing a war crime than reporting on a
war crime. Because had he done a war crime he’d have been free to go—that’s been
done over and over again. But if you actually tell the American Public about it that’s
a danger. So it looks like, Robin, that everybody is trying to protect the establishment, right?
Villarogosa might not even realize he’s doing that, but it leads in that direction.
And Manju made a great point. Should they have a central point so that everybody knows
this is what the Occupy movement is about and hence I’m with it or against it but
probably most people would be with it.
Right. There’s been a debate every since the origin of the movement—should there
be a single issue, a set of issues. When you look at the initial declaration there were
about fifteen, sixteen issues that united people. What’s different about Occupy from
other movements is that it tries to make connections. Income inequality, race inequality, issues
about campaign financing, housing, foreclosures. One of my disagreements with Russell Simmons
is though I agree campaign financial reform is necessary and fundamental, I agree with
that. I think the issue of income inequality wasn’t meant to be a talking point. The
idea is that you’re supposed to do something about it. In addition, it hasn’t been talked
about enough. I mean, there’s a racial wealth gap. In 2009, median wealth for white families
was $113,000. For African American families it was about $5700, for Latino families about
$6300. So we have about 20 times more wealth based on race.
I totally agree. The recession hit minorities harder than anyone else. White families lost
about 13% of their wealth, but African-Americans lost over 50%, Latinos lost two thirds of
their wealth because of this recession. It’s amazing the devastation that has happened.
But I would argue that campaign finance reform is the overwhelming number one issue because
you’re not going to get any movement on income inequality, racial inequality, etcetera,
until you do campaign finance reform because money has swamped the system. What do you
guys think?
It’s a chicken and an egg thing, I think. For me I think I’m falling down on Robin’s
side truthfully. I think allegedly undemocratic electoral models where money plays such an
important part in the process—I don’t think they’re a cause of the sickness. I
think they’re a symptom of the sickness. The actual cause of the sickness is the wealth
inequality. The fact that the top 1% control about 33% of our nation’s wealth. The top
10% control 70% of our nation’s wealth. The bottom 50% control 2.5% of our nation’s
wealth. You can’t have a Republic that way. And if you do have a constitutional convention
and mandate fully financed public elections—that’s a great start, it’s better than blood in
the streets. And as a parent of two children I’d like to try that before we throw the
cards in the air and see what happens to them, but my fear is that the money will always
find a way in. When the income inequality is that pervasive there’s always going to
be congrespeople that got in fully financed elections. They want to know what their next
job is. Oh, Faiser’s hiring… I better go ahead ad vote Faiser’s way.
I hear what you’re saying but part of why I think income inequality is so prevalent
is that they fixed the tax system when they bought the politicians—that’s what led
to the income inequality.
I think in this case, would we ever get single payer healthcare. No, because the insurance
lobby is so tremendous. Just in 2011, 3.2 billion dollars was spent only on lobbying
of congressfolks and other federal officials. So I think it’s nearly impossible to get
that. The other problem which Robin points to—there was a January 11th pew poll that
found that even though there are 67% of Americans who believe there is conflict in the United
States between the rich and the poor, but a gallop poll found that only 45% of Americans
thik that income inequality needs to be fixed. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done
in that area, and I think that maybe if you fix one you can try to go ahead and fix the
other, but I think it’s a much more pervasive issue.
Are we allowed to ask questions?
No, absolutely not. Real quick.
What do you think would happen if 1% of the population owns 30% of the wealth and tomorrow
we fix all of the laws so that people are forced to run with public financing—what
are those people supposed to do, like, politely hand their money over?
No, I think two things. Number one, you have public financing of elections. Number two,
you turn off corporate personhood so that you turn off the faucet of unlimited corporate
money pouring into politics. Then you have an equal playing field where suddenly democracy
matters again. Here’s my proof of that. In the 1970s, that was the case. Progressives
were on an upshot—it was fantastic. Ralph Nader got OSHA, we got Nixon to pass the EPA.
If we actually had a democracy, the country is massively progressive and we’d be able
to address those issues. In the 1970s, the top 1% only controlled 9% of the wealth, right?
The question is how did that happen. I don’t disagree with the importance of campaign finance
reform. I thik part of what we have to do is look at the history. There’s two questions
to ask—one, how did the income gap shrink? In the 1890s it was a huge gap. By the 1950s
and 60s that gap shrunk. How? Strong trade unions. A New Deal that was a product of trade
union organizing as well as Federal government that was forced by union organizing to deal
with the working class. A strong safety net, we had a welfare state. So all of these things
in place—
And we forget. There were actual hardcore anarchists, communists and socialists who
were actually part of the political process, which forced Democrats ad liberal Republicans
to come over to that side. Those third parties have been so carefully excised from the system.
Last point. I think we can all agree that the 1% has taken over the system. They’ve
taken over the politics and they’ve taken over all the other income inequality issues
you guys are talking about –
And I agree with you as probably, statistically, a member of the 1%. I need to get fucked in
the ass because I’ve had it too easy, and I mean that—the second part I mean for real
because I have kids and I want them to live in a functioning society. And I want them
to live in a society that works for their rich dad is not a society that works for all
of us—including them.
That’s gotta be the last point. I can’t think of any on a higher note.
I apologize.
Elise Hogue has a poit about Citize’s United. Did it actually help us in a couple of ways?
Uh oh. We’ll be right back.
Our next point comes from Ilyse Hogue from Nation Magazine. Her point is about Citizen’s
United, and it has a great twist. Let’s watch.
Hi, I’m Ilyse Hogue, and I write a regular column at the Nation. Thanks for having me
on the show today. My point is what if we’ve reached a critical mass with Citizen’s United,
which actually will swing the pendulum the other way. Let’s consider two different
sides of the equation. For progressive movements, we’ve become increasingly reliant on pay-media
strategies. We’ve seen a reversion to old-school organizing tactics mixed with new savvy grassroots
strategies allowing us significant victories since the beginning of the year. SOPA, PIPA,
the Wisconsin Recall, the Keystone pipeline—not made possible by paid advertising, but by
people getting together, brainstorming interesting things to do and creating new alliances. On
the flipside we’re seeing SuperPACs with unlimited dollars start to actually cancel
each other out. They bought all the available airtime in South Carolina. Hundreds of millions
of dollars will go into this election while less and less people are watching TV. We’re
seeing the rise of people power and a questionable impact of the saturation of paid advertising
influencing the way people think. The result of that is that Citizen’s United may have
actually united the citizens all for the good of democracy. Thanks for having me on. You
can check me out at my blog at TheNation.com.
Manju, do we have an ironic twist here that Citizen’s United might have actually galvanized
the progressive movement. Plus, cancel each other out I guess with Gingrich and Romney
destroying each other.
Right. You know, I think Ilyse makes a great point if you look on the state level in Wisconsin’s
Recall and in Ohio in terms of overturning the anti-union legislation we’ve had some
significant victories. On the national front with Keystone and the birth control efforts
that were successful just last week. What I see here is voters being frustrated at what’s
going on with the domination of money and exploring the old tools. And at the South
Asian network, grassroots organizing is one of our fundamental strategies as we try to
foster the solidarity and empowerment of the South Asian communities in Southern California.
If you want to talk about movement building more than electoral politics, we’ve been
raising awareness, promoting active involvement of our citizenry, and engaging in policy advocacy.
When you talk about galvanizing progressives—look, we aren’t going to allow this to be about
money anymore. I do think the Democratic party has been about corporate money for a long
time. What needs to happen—you hear David Frum talk about how they fear their base—the
Democrats loathe their base. We, on the progressive side, need them to fear us so that they do
the right thing. That’s exactly what happened with the birth control issue. Presdient Obama
against the Catholic Church came out in favor of requiring all health plans to cover, as
part of preventative health care, birth control.
It drives me crazy. People who say, “No, support Obama. If you clap louder he’ll
do what we want,” which has not been the case so far. I’m both incredibly hopeful
and incredibly cynical on this issue. If we talk about what we have before about galvanizing
the citizen’s, or what Ilyse was referring to with the amendment—I think it can definitely
work, but we delayed Keystone… if a Republican wins no doubt it gets approved. If Obama wins
I think they’ll approve it anyway, right?
He’s already invited TransCanada to a resubmit that just goes around an aquifer to—personally,
I’ll bet anyone here five bucks that if Obama gets reelected—
Not ten-thousand?
Not ten-thousand, but… five.
Exactly. So Robin, what’s your sense? Can we win with grassroots movements? Are they
real victories or do we have to do something else?
There’s no choice. We have to win with grassroots organizing. There are no alternatives. Money
in media doesn’t win campaigns, elections—sometimes it means civil disobedience. We have to be
mindful always that part of the upsurge that led to Wisconsin, Occupy, this sort of US
Spring if you will. It had to do with previous organizing. There were these movements already
out there—Domestic Workers United for example—who had a great victory in New York and will have
one in California getting a domestic workers bill of rights. There’s Wal-Mart stores
that are being opposed in inner-cities. I think that kind of grassroots succeeds. Whether there
will be defeats—of course there will be defeats. In the case of Keystone—probably.
There are so many fronts to fight on. I think there is no alternative but mass mobilization,
and methods of organizing that are old-fashioned.
Patrick, are we going to have to pull in right-wingers to win. Because with a constitutional amendment
you need three quarters of the states to do that. When we beat SOPA and PIPA, conservatives
were also on our side—auditing the Fed, conservatives also on our side. If we need
them, how do we pull them in?
I don’t know but we have to. That is the only way. When I was spending time at the
Occupy encampment, I remember engaging with people and different issues would come up
that had little to do with recapturing our Democratic-Republic, and in almost every case
I said that issue will be for the people to decide. Should we ban chem-trails? Well, let’s
decide that, but the people need to recapture our democracy first. Conservatives need to
know that for any fundamental change to be undergone that will allow us to put our hands
back on the Republic we’re supposed to own that subsequent victories may be theirs. We,
as Amercians, have to say as long as our fundamental rights are not being violated we have to say,
“Okay. Conservatives, you’ve won this one.” At this point, yeah, it’s goignt
o require that. The progressive base in America is not nearly lartge enough to create that
fundamental change.
That leaves some ironic victories on the Republican primary side. One, Ron Paul is galvanizing
people on this Americans’ civil liberties issue, which we totally agree on. Second,
they’re ripping each other apart—the bad guys, Romney and Gingrich.
Right. When we talk about the Republican Party, one way money has not been as influential
is the fact Rick Perry dropped out of the race, and Newt is doing quite well with the
limited resources that he has. We’re not going to be able to unite a coalition of progressives
and conservatives on this, unless Obama and the Democrats raise so much money that the
Republicans have to claim poverty as they did last time.
That would be another ironic thing.
Right. They’re already saying, “Oh. He’s going to raise a million dollars.” If he
does that with the Democrats and they win the presidency and both houses, you may see
that but anything short of that you won’t see it. Also, I’m not sure SOPA and PIPA
doesn’t have to do with money.
Yeah, companies are dumping in money by the truckload. In fact, Patrick Leahy technically
admitted this is his job creation act for lobbyists. They’re all coming in. Hollywood
had already bought them, but the internet companies ahd not bought them sufficiently.
The Silicon Valley nowadays contributes just as much as Hollywood so I wish it was the
case the little guy stood up and the big guys went running, but it is a case where the little
guys stood up. Well, the little guy stood up before, the Electron Freedom Foundation
writes lots of model legislation which they might as well throw down a toilet. But if
you get Google and Yahoo on your side suddenly they’re listening.
Yeah, absolutely. What ties this together is these ironic victories, Robin, as you look
at this. It’s a point I haven’t heard before, Manju and it’s a really good one.
That if Obama comes in with a crushing amount of money, and Newt Gingrich beats Romney and
the Republican establishment gets pissed, and he did it on the one donor—Sheldon Adelson—and
then they said “wait now. I don’t like this one guy deciding the election.” Then
they run into the Obama machine, and Obama crushes them with money—because the only
way we seem to get anything done in this country is if Republicans do it. It’s sad but it’s
true. Maybe if we get all of those events together we’ll have Republicans say, “Alright.
Let’s get the money out.”
That comes from the assumption that Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney call the shots in the Republican
Party. I don’t personally think that they do. The people who call the shots in the GOP
are the people behind Romney and Gingrich who are writing the checks. And they’re
okay with one guy swinging the election. As long as they are okay with that, I don’t
believe it’s going to change.
My thought is, talking about money and the Democratic Party, whether the Democrtaic Party
would support campaign finance if their man is winning. It’s an ethical issue, it’s
a Democratic issue, and I believe it needs to be talked about that way. If not, it’s
a denial of democracy and full participation.
It’s very important for progressives to understand that when Democrats win that doesn’t
mean that Progressives win. So we must insist that Democrats do things that are progressive
or they’ll just take the money and call it “big, democratic victories” and we
go so what if it doesn’t get us the progressive ideals that we hope for.
Welcome back to the point. For our third discussion we’re going to go to Andrew Davis who was
a professional wrestler who was diagnosed as HIV positive and was tried for possibly
spreading that disease around by having sex without a condom and ot telling his partners.
Let’s go to a Channel Nine news report in Cincinatti.
A former wrestler who never told his many sexual partners he’s HIV positive. Andre
Davis apologized in court right after the sentence was handed down. “I’m sorry for
my actions.” One of the victims who did not wish to be identified read a statement
in court today. “I watched you sit through this trial with a smile on your face, and
it shows just how selfish, hateful and cold-hearted you are. Andre I want you to know you deserve
everything that’s happening to you, and I pray God has mercy on your soul.”
Robin, he got 32 years in prison. Is that right or is it too tough?
I think it’s unfair. I think the law itself is problematic. It criminalizes a disease.
I think it sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing women who may have children
who have sex without a condom if they know their partner is HIV positive. It can work
both ways. My concern is you have these cases of medical violence whether it’s the syphilis
studies in Guatemala and no one is prosecuted. Here you have this guy, another African-American
male, who is morally reprehensible but is it really illegal? Does it set a precedent
of criminalizing anyone who is HIV positive?
That’s interesting. If you can do it for HIV, can you do it for syphilis, clamidia,
crabs? How far can it go. On the other hand, I’m not sure if I disagree with him being
prosecuted. Manju, you’re a lawyer, what do you think?
I think it’s a case of a solution looking for a problem. How many cases in Ohio do you
have individuals who fail to disclose their HIV status? In a neighboring state to Ohio,
there were only 32 cases. It’s almost the same as the voter fraud Republicans are talking
about when there’s almost no evidence of it. Yet, they’re passing all these laws.
To me, the bigger issue is more than half of African-American males in this country
go to prison at some point or other in their lives. I wonder if the same thing would have
happened if Andre Davis were not African-American. Would we have this sentence of 32 years behind
bars? Additionally, how many people are we imprisoning overall? This is a nation now
in which we are putting millions of people—six million now—behind bars.
13% of African-American males enter the prison system in some way—outrageous. And then
there’s the victim, of course they didn’t show her face but she was white. Was that
a problem in the past? Of course. But, Patrick, let’s say there’s a woman I sleep with
and she doesn’t tell me she has HIV and I get HIV. In the past it was a death sentence,
but now you might be able to survive. I would be beyond pissed. I might think it’s criminal.
Yes. She might go to prison because we live in a nation of laws, and when you violate
the law you go to jail. That’s how it works. For instance, when CitiGroup created these
fraudulent mortgage securities and knew they were worthless then sold them to their customers—all
of those executives went to prison is my understanding.
Maybe if they were black…
Then the Bush Administration ordered torture and unlawful detention of citizens including
American citizens in violation of Federal law and International law—all those officials
including the Vice President and President—they went to prison because we live in a nation
where if you break the law you are punished. So, it’s too bad for Andre Davis and too
bad for this woman who you made sweet love to, but that’s the country we live in like
it or not.
And I assure you it would have been sweet.
You would have done a great job.
I hear you guys and injustice grows everyday. The CIA officer Gurkiow who exposed waterboarding
now being tried under the espionage act, but the guys who did the waterboarding not tried
at all. You do the torture, you’re fine. The guy who destroyed the tapes—wildly illegal.
No prosecution.
The guys in Haditha who totally smoked 24 women and children then covered it up—they
just got sentenced the other day to—
But you gotta be fair. He’s gonna get three months then that guy goes back down to Private.
That’s a good point. And he may have to clean up to one quarter of one latrine.
So, we got him.
Look, 34 states in the US criminalize it. Then you got Canada, UK, Germany, Austrailia,
New Zealand—all criminalizing this act. I don’t think it’s crazy to criminalize
it. Luckily it’s not as much anymore, but especially because HIV used to be a death
sentence—because when somebody gives you a disease without telling you, without a condom,
without notice, I think it is criminal.
It isn’t to condone the behavior at all. It is to say you may open to door to a lot
of ways of oppressing people and controlling sexuality. In other words it opens up the
door to the invasion of people’s private lives. What I thik it’s more important here
is balancing the cost of sending him to prison for 32 years, which is about $25,000-$35,000
per year. That money could go into these questions of eliminating HIV, dealing with health crisis—in
other words investing in the society and culture that we are in.
I am with you that the punishment is certainly disproportionate. We don’t even know if
any of the women got infected. Manju, if it happened to you, do you feel you woud like
the court to do something about it.
The real issue is in South Asia, which is that routinely South Asian women have found
they are HIV Positive because of their partners—whether they’re truck drivers or travel—will use
sex workers pretty regularly, and then they don’t disclose it to their wives. The women
find themselves, through no fault of their own, HIV Positive. In terms of gender issues,
this can be seen as a positive thing.
Is it legal or illegal in South Asia or does it vary by the country? In India for example
where you just described
is he then liable for criminal prosecution.
Yeah, I think that he actually is. The gender issues—the way they put blame on woman in
a way they would not on her male counterpart.
Right. In some countries it’s out of control. A woman will get raped and get pregnant, and
they’ll say we know you had sex out of marriage, but according to the Quaran you need four
witnesses to put the guy away. If you don’t have four witnesses he’s free to go and
you’re in jail, which is insanity. What is about truck drivers, by the way? Obviously
if you’re a truck driver you have to get whores. Every story’s like that. Final tally:
Would you put him in jail or free to go?
That’s hard. I don’t think jail time, but something else has to happen. I’m not
sure though, I’d give him jail time.
I’m not sure. Not that heavy of a sentence. That’s ridiculous and outrageous. Can I
say I’m not sure?
Put me down for yes, but not 35 years. Somewhere between 35 years and the Haditha guy who got
two hours.
I say pay reparations would be one way. Also, you know how you have sex offenders? Something
about the law in consent because it’s consent but not disclosure. Maybe he’s a sex offender—put
him on the list. But the jail time seems Draconian if it’s true that he’s a sex addict.
It’s not consent without disclosure actually, it’s uninformed consent.
Right, but it raises a lot of issues. If you do it for HIV, you have to do it for everything.
No. I draw the line on HIV, because it’s deadly. Prison time, but nowhere near 32 years.
Definitely the Heditha guy gets more time.
Out of all of this I draw the line at visiting Cincinnati in general.
That should get you prison time! Now I want to thank everybody that’s involved. Of course,
Russell Simmons sent in his point. Check out OccupyTheDream.com Ilyse Hogue writes at TheNation.com.
WCPO Channel 9 News in Cincinnati brought us the case of Andre Davis, and we want to
thank them for the clip. Thank-you to everyone on the panel. Robin Kelly, professor of history
at UCLA—and has a book called “Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination” which
deals with similar issues to what we’ve discussed today. Manju Kulkarni is with The
South Asian Network, of course. And they are about the release a report about Asian American
Workers in the community here in Southern California. We look forward to that. And Patrick
Meighan, we look forward to more episodes of Family Guy. Everybody talks about that
show, of course, as they do The Point. Thanks guys we’ll see you next week.