 Hi my name is Sandy Baird and I'm here with what's happening in our people here tonight Mark Estrin and Kurt Mehta and the reason I kind of stumbled on that is that none of us have any titles and we were asked what our titles were but we are mere common people. We don't have any titles at all. Defenders of the faith. Defenders of what faith? Right. It sounds like the Jesuits. And so we're here to discuss current matters that are floating around in the world and we're going to begin with the local matter and talk a little bit about the importance or non-importance of the struggle over Burlington Telecom. And so what's happening Mark? Well we're in a, we're in a lull, a public lull but there are intense negotiations going on and this week the original four bidders to have been re-invited back into the bidding process because after two votes between Ting and... Ting Tukau's. That's right. Ting Tukau's. And the Keep Vermont, Keep BT Local, it was a six to six vote in two votes so they decided to invite the previous two that had been excluded into a four person, four company offer. And this week the companies are submitting the current proposals to the mayor and to the council and it's all hush hush. Right. But one of the stipulations is that before the council votes on the 27th, I think, it is, that the proposals will be made public this week or next week so that the public has a chance to look at them and then participate in the voting meeting on the 27th. But I think this lull is a good thing, right, based on the conversation we had on the last show where we were afraid that they were just going to make a rash, you know, quick economic decision, you know, having this additional time. Well, it's... Do you think it's going to be beneficial or is it just going to be a predetermined decision in the end anyway? I don't know. It seems to me that I'm a fan of Keep BT Local that the more, that was already one of two contestants. Now it's one of four contestants. So if it were completely random, the probability of BT Local... I don't think it's very probable that Keep BT Local will be kept. Yeah. So I think the lull is not necessarily as good as having had a real decision previously. Really? From my point of view. Right. From... I have a slightly different point of view than Mark. I'm two of the cooperative and I really hope for that one to succeed. However, I have a feeling and I have talked to some of the city councilors actually that that was never a real possibility. Although there were firm supporters of the co-op, that they were voting for the co-op, for the co-op, but also as a way to prevent it going to Ting. Because in many of their views, Ting is really not a great company, very little experience with apparently telecommunications and was totally going to privatize the whole system. And it was the mayor's first choice. And it was odd the way the whole thing happened. He pressed for Ting throughout this whole proceedings and there were better, according to the city councilors that I talked to, there were better companies that were offering more money and more local control even, like Shurs. I don't know what that is, but is that... Okay. Anyway, sometimes this show is a live show, so... Yeah. Well, the phone is ringing down. I ordered pizza a little while ago, so maybe... Right. So I believe that while the councilors were pro-co-op, they were trying to get the co-op and the co-op was trying to get a more viable proposal. And so this stall is, I think, good for the co-op and good for everybody. Because if Ting had won, it would have been a disaster. But it's not a stall. It's a period of new negotiation. Might, might, yeah. From our point of view, it's blank, but it's probably the most intense now because people know what the issues are and who's for what and where. So that the current proposals are going to really be in struggle. Right. But what about if it's a joint venture, again, with a better company? But how do you put together a model with a capitalist model? I agree with that. I mean, it is like capitalism and socialism. It is. Right. I agree with that. But anyway, so... You're saying from the get-go this wasn't going to... Look, from the get-go, what I've been told, again, I'm not an expert on this, although I've been to all the meetings and I watched it all unfold. But from the get-go, it was felt that the mayor was totally biased for Ting and that he really... In fact, he urged another one of those companies to withdraw. In spite of the fact that some of these companies were offering more money? More money. So that's really surprising given the attitude of just making an economically-based decision off the debt. He was... I don't know why that happened because this company sure is... And there was one vote for sure, and that was Kurt Wright. And Kurt's a Republican, but I often think that he is speaking for the best interest of the city. Of the city. I mean, I've watched him over the years. And I know everybody says, oh, you know, he's a Republican, blah, blah, blah, which is true. It is true that he's a Republican. Right. You can't end the description and conversation. No, right. No, I don't. We and I basically were old friends and we fought for the waterfront together, Kurt and I did many, many years ago. He was for a public waterfront as well. But anyway, so he favored Shores. And so I asked him, how come? And there were two reasons that I learned from him and the other counselor who was a strong proponent of the co-op, and that's Dave Hartnett. In fact, I think he was a real kind of a hero. He stuck by the co-op till the end, and I think he might still. He told me that there were two advantages, one that Shores was offering more money. But secondly, Shores is offering more local control, real ownership interests to be kept by the city. Which is to me, which is what I'm interested in. Right, right. You know, the more money stuff only makes sense if you say more money when and what's the cap on the money. And the keep the keep the local has published last week. Even, you know, 10 year projections at which the most money comes into back to Burlington. Oh, I favor them, actually. So when you say more money, you're just talking about more money initially. No, I'm not talking from me. When people say, well, this is $12 million versus $30 million, that's the initial separation. But those lines come together as the... So we're talking more about a down payment, essentially, rather than, you know. But for instance, the ting is cut. The amount of money that comes back to Burlington is $6 million, period. And after that, that's it. Whereas the amount of money that comes back to taxpayers, I don't know, we're being harassed. At least it's not a robo call. Yeah, it's a crack call. Yeah. Well, I'm not saying what I think. I would like the co-op to be chosen. Regardless of the money, regardless, even if it's not as seemingly viable, I still want the co-op. I'm just saying what I've heard their thinking is. And their thinking is that it's not a viable proposal and that if they could get more money up front, maybe. But it sounds like you're saying that it was never a viable proposal. It was never even under consideration. No, no, it was under consideration. Of course it was. And the city council stuck, those six, stuck firmly with the co-op and maybe they still will. It's just that I think that the risk was that ting was going to win. Okay. Is there a possibility of a deadlock? I don't know. It can't be. This is the other thing, which I was told by a fan of the co-op. Why the hell are they selling it at all right now? When Jonathan Leopold did whatever he did to Burlington Telecom, and I'll say what I think he did, he invested in Burlington Telecom and it's hugely prosperous now. It has a growth rate. They've increased their subscribers double and they're really in the black. They're really doing pretty well and they have plans to extend. But why does it have to be sold? The mayor is saying it has to be sold. The mayor is saying. No, it was in the agreement. I know. But agreements are made to be renegotiated. Correct? I think you're over my pay grade. I don't know. No, you do know. That's what the president says. Well, and so do we as lawyers, right? All things are meant to be renegotiated. So I don't understand why it has to be sold. Okay. So you accept that from the commoners point of view, it's in a contract whereby it has to be sold and the amount that Burlington can get back differs after January 1st coming up etc. So the optimal time to sell as per the contract is before the end of the year. You're talking about the rules of capitalism. I'm talking about a contract. Correct? What do I know? I'm talking about some kind of contract that they keep holding up in front of their faces. Right. And that's the answer to your question now. Take the question behind the piece of paper. Yeah, which I would do. Okay. So then, I don't know. I mean, I don't know how you do that. Well, the reason I think it's real, it's the most important issue facing the city because I've told this story before a million times. When I got involved with Burlington Telecom, I've talked to you about Al Jazeera all the time. Right. Right. And so I learned at that time through a mutual friend of ours, Jared, who he and I worked on that legally, that if it has a municipal ownership piece, then it's kind of it has to meet constitutional requirements. Right? Certainly. And so we were able to protect Al Jazeera English because we argued that it could not be censored because it was locally owned, and therefore it had to meet requirements of free speech. If it's Comcast or Ting or any of these other companies, they don't have to do, they don't even, I don't think, have to do public access. I don't believe they do. So that's what's important to me, and that feature has not come out at all. Not at all, has it? I think the guy who was here from Ting had verbally pledged to continue public access and extend it. He verbally did. Yes, verbally pledged. By the way, did you notice his Burlington costume? Did you see that? Yeah. He deliberately dressed down to come to Burlington. It was really... No Armani suit. No T-shirt. No sweater. Yeah. With Alan Mattis. With the same deal. With Alan here. Right. Same deal with Alan Mattis. But anyway, that's why I think it's important. I think it provides, Burlington Telecom has provided alternate media. And I'm not certain that Ting would, certainly Comcast. And they're not bound to. No, they don't. No, it's a private company. Right. It's a private company. Private corporations don't have to do free speech. I would guess that those points that have been verbally made are the new level at which the four competitors this week and next week are going to be compared. I hope so. Yeah. But so it's those kind of details. Well, I heard you say it. You said it four times. I'm not certain Ting is still in the offing. Is it? Yeah, it is. But anyway, I didn't hear any, in any meeting that I went to, any guarantees of free speech. But is it essentially a negotiation ploy later, if that's who they go for? They'll say, well, what they're giving back is they're going to have, you know, a public access option. Yeah, they could say it and then sell it to Comcast. Of course. Well, of course. But I'm just saying as a way to sell it and make it, you know, viable to the public, that we're going to provide this, you know, hour of public access. Do you think the public really cares about Al Jazeera English? Not a large portion of it, but I think a portion does. I do too. But I do not think that will be, I don't have a option. That hasn't been in the headlines. No. I mean, I tried to, and I felt like I was a maniac. It is Trump requiring that RT register as a foreign agent. I saw that. I saw that. And now Putin saying, well, we have his own list with Voice of America. What does it mean to register a foreign agent? Does that mean they can't be on television? No. And why isn't countries like Israel register as a foreign agent? Well, good question. Yeah. Right? Why is it only Russia? Yeah. Well, because. The scrutiny is on Russia. Because, yeah. Right. I loved RT. That used to be on Burlington Telecom, too. Well, I see. I watch it every day. But you watch it on a computer, which I, yeah, I can't stand that, but anyway, I like RT. So the idea of what's legitimate public offering is out there now, because Trump is bringing it up, you know, it's just not legitimate because they're a foreign agent. Why do we have to use public airwaves to support a foreign agent? Is that his position? I imagine. He doesn't have a position. But if you read, if he says, and I don't want this to happen, but if he says that RT has to register, what really does that mean? What does it mean? I don't know. It's probably less. I think there's a greater level of scrutiny regarding finances. Finances only or content? No. No, no. It's finances. It's a method of controlling content. And so they have to register. Who else did you say? RT and somebody else? No. Putin says we have to respond in kind, and I don't think that's a finished proclamation is being voted on in Russia. But I think the para. And that in itself is going to bring up the issue of public television and what's available. To at least greater visibility. So what do you think would happen about that? Why is RT even on the air here? It used to be in Burlington, but RT is Russian television for our audience. But it's not on anymore. But it's not a government-controlled station anymore than on the streets. Right. Right. So it's a freewheeling network. I know. I know. Anyway, so that's my worry is that free speech will be cut down if a company like Tang takes it over. That's really what I'm most worried about. I mean, it could happen even with Burlington, the co-op, because the co-op is not the city. The co-op is a economic institution, right? Right. So I'm not certain. Right. If you put it on the flip side. I mean, if there was a right-wing station or programming that wanted to come in with a co-op, bar them. I don't know, but I'll tell you an interesting story about that, too. Because as a result of the Al Jazeera struggle, I was appointed to the, because I got interested in the subject, I was appointed to the Cable Advisory Committee. And I served on that committee with three other people. And they thought of Al Jazeera English as two pro-Arab. They thought of it as a terrorist network, and anti-Israel and anti-U.S. I mean, that's the way it was portrayed, I remember, during the Iraq war. Right, right. So I was sitting on this committee with these three other people who wanted it off the air, essentially. And I didn't say a word. I never said anything, and one of them brought up, well, I want Glenn Beck on the air. And I said, sure, fine, why not? Get him, fine. And then that guy sort of said, he sort of really questioned, who the hell is this person, right? She would say something like having Glenn Beck on the air. And I did. He actually called Glenn Beck and said, I have this crazy friend, Sandy Barrett, who's a pro, having you here. So I interview her on Glenn Beck's show, and I was interviewed for that show. But when I said that, I really meant it, that we have to guarantee free speech. Right, I mean, free speech? And I don't know about the co-op, I don't know. Right, I mean, that includes the entire spectrum. Right, what do you think? You think that they would follow that? Of course. But they wouldn't have to. I mean, the prediction of, of course, comes exactly from those Al Jazeera meetings. That, you know, the city meetings, city-wide meetings, and it was vastly, hugely supportive of having, you know, Al Jazeera. And why? Not because they were voting, you know, for, against Israel, but because they were voting for free speech. Free speech, right. And that's, I think, predictive of the way Burlington will, the Burlington Keep Local will vote on anything, it's free speech. I would hope so. I would hope so. I mean, there is... I'm not as confident as you guys. No, no. I didn't say that. I didn't say I was confident. Yeah, I think if it was a right-wing message game. I think we'd have to watch. I think we'd have to watch. Yeah. Yeah, really careful. And I'm confident, because in a certain, to a certain degree, the culture in Burlington is reactive to the general push now, towards censorship, towards, you know, the kinds of things that Trump is pushing, and the Department of Justice is pushing, and the McCarthy kind of hysteria thing, that so in Burlington's face that I think free speech will remain the primary... I hope so. Think of what basically the Democrats are doing about Russia, you know? Yes, right. You know, that is shocking to me that they would censor anybody associated with Russia, right? But hasn't that always been the case? No, no. I mean, there was a brief period of time, I guess, maybe with the fall of the Soviet Union when that fell apart, that, you know... Because the premise at that time was that they were going to become, you know, a Russian copycat of the United States. Well, Yeltsin seemed to want that. Right, he did. But once they deviated from that model, you know, then it seemed like things went back to the way they were during the Cold War with respect to any kind of different message being put out. Right, right. Especially with Putin, and I don't... Right, especially with... I don't totally get it. I don't really. It's a capitalist country, isn't it? Well, he was ex-KGB, and I think, you know, the military elite here they're going to hold that against him. Well, and the CIA spies and the NSA spies are complaining about him being KGB. Right, right. And we should trust them, because, you know... But these are old associations, and... I don't think so. I don't think... Yes, to a certain extent. But I also think, for once, I agree with you about economics. I mean, it seems to me that Putin is trying to make an alternate economic union with China. That would be very threatening to capitalism. It seems to me. Putin, China, if that became a whole economic union... That's not an opinion. That's the case. That's really true. There was a prominent, I think, person Republican, I forget, or someone in the military. No, it was Kelly. Michael. Yeah, right. Right. I think he made a statement that was really controversial in the last few weeks, you know, aside from the War Widow and all that stuff that was going on. He said that communism worked in China. It does? But it's not communism. Right. Well, a hybrid. But still, I mean, with the Marxist literature and the flags and all that stuff that they still do have in China, that was a very controversial statement for someone that high up in any administration in the United States to say something like that. And he got a lot of crap for it. Is it, though, truly a communist? Well, I don't know. I mean, it's not. First of all, it's remarkably successful, China is, right? And that's what I think that the U.S. fears is this kind of union of the Russians and the Chinese to form this alternate sort of economic force. Sure. I mean, you'd have two billion people in between the two countries. Right. And it tells us what would be the international trading standard or monetary standard. Absolutely. What would be the currency? What would it be? It wouldn't be the dollar. No. Well, they're going with a kind of mixed pot of currency to become the standard. Like what? The end? You want to end? Not the ruble, though. I don't know. I don't know. But I know it's big in there. I don't know what the other... But why then, if that's the case, if that's what the U.S. fears, this union of Russia and China, why then is Trump so pro-Russia? Is he trying to just split that and make a nice deal with Russia alone and sort of divert them from any kind of a connection with China? Is he trying to split them up? Why is he so... I mean, the last several administrations going back to Nixon were well before Nixon were hell-bent on trying to create that fissure between Russia and China. But they appealed to China primarily, right? Of course. They leaned towards China to try to break up that possible communist union. Right. There's a kind of immunological level at which, since 1905, probably, but in any case 1917, at which anything for Americans, anything Russian is a threat and so develop an antibody system and the antibody system can get triggered by anything at the switch of the button and then you go into anaphylaxis and the whole body shuts down. You can't breathe, you need emergency injections and it's an anaphylactic response that we're having that we can... Anybody like Hillary or the Democratic National Committee who wants to manipulate American consciousness, they just have to push the Russian button and that's what's happening and that will distract from anything, immediately, anything else like what's going on. I mean, they want to trigger people's deepest, darkest fears during the course of the Cold War. What is the fear of communism? Really? Well, whatever the fear was in the 50s and 60s. Take away your toothbrush. Yeah. You'll have to use someone else's toothbrush from a common... Then you're going to have to pay more taxes. Your money's going to go towards... And you'll be treated by women doctors, low paid. But everybody goes to women doctors here, right? The one thing that is always missing in all this anti-Russia hysteria is the two facts that to me are the most important, that we allied with them twice, that we were allies in a common effort, essentially, to stop Germany. Why is there zero mention of that? If that's not utter propaganda, the stuff that they say about Russia, without mentioning those two facts, it's just total propaganda, it seems to me. It's not a fact. I mean, we were both... It is a fact. We were allies. Of course we were, but we weren't. Right? No, well, we were for convenience. Okay? Yes. Right. The second time around, initially, they were allied with the Germans. It was when the Germans double-crossed them that they became allies. No, the Russians. Right, correct. But... Well, yes. They had it... They had it packed, you know, to divide up Poland and the Baltic states. I mean, the plan for the Cold War was put into effect before the end of the Second World War. Yeah, sure. Right. But how do you... That shows you that our ally, for us, for them, up there, was not our ally. We had to maneuver so that the post-war settlements, whatever they were in terms of land and economy, had to take care of the Russians, not as an ally, but as an enemy. What are you referring to, the Holocaust? For instance, the dropping of the bombs, you know, was to show Russia what we can do. What we can do. More so than even showing the Emperor of Japan what we can do. Yeah, right. Right. Because we didn't need to do that at that point. But... Is that documented? Because I've heard that before. Yes. It is documented. Yeah. The biggest book on it is Alparavitz's book. What? Alparavitz, Garaparavitz. Uh-huh. And he has an excellent big book on the decision to drop the bomb. But anyway, it's not just that. You know, you read in Truman's Diaries, you can... Yeah. So it's to call Russia our ally and then to build some kind of thought structure on that when it's not really true. You know, it's true on the surface. It should be mentioned, don't you think? Shouldn't it be mentioned that they basically... Won the war. Won the war in Europe, at least. Shouldn't it even be mentioned that they drove back to Nazis? No? No, because, you know... That's not the narrative. That's not the narrative. Right, that's not the narrative. People want to create their own... And also... You know, that all the heroes are here. Mm-hmm. And no one wants to mention that. It's never fun to share credit. Right, exactly. Exactly. Exactly. So turning to another matter, what about all this sexual harassment? And you said you'd bring it up because you're a man and... Right, well, we were just talking about Russia. I know, I know. So you bring it up. Right, so I'm going to just put the question out there. Is this going to result in any kind of change in the long term? Or is this a thing like everyone on Facebook two years ago, we're putting the French flag after the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo. Yeah. And now everyone is going back to the old Facebook... Well, it can't be that. Because the people with the sweet Charlie, all of that really didn't know beans about... Of course not. But the people who are... The women who are consistently and have consistently been harassed in this culture, in the patriarchal culture, they are there. They are Charlie, you know? And that's a very big difference. But is there going to be any kind of systemic change in the next five years? Five years from now. What's going to be different? I mean, to me what it seemed to represent was that nothing's changed. Right. I mean, I thought we went through a round of this during Anita Hill. Right, that's true. Justice Thomas was put on the Supreme Court. And the issue of sexual harassment was brought to the mainstream. But only with regard to Anita Hill? I guess so. I mean, there were a lot of women that came out and said that we identified with her. We've had these experiences. There weren't? I said there weren't. There were, yeah. Right, but it was all directed at the level of a Supreme Court nomination. I mean, it was sort of more rarefied. There wasn't a broader reflection in society. Across... And it's not just politicians now. It's men in power, period. And the distribution of power. And everywhere you look, in power structures, you find it. So it's a vast charge that's happening now. The question is how does it sustain without getting boring? To me, it feels a little bit, yeah, right. And it's also become politicized. I mean, when the folks... There were a number of leading people at Fox News that were charged. The Democrats jumped on them and said, well, okay, this is a Republican issue. And now that a number of people in Hollywood, prominent people in Hollywood have been accused. Weinstein is a Democrat. But now, yeah, Dustin Hoffman... Al Franken. Al Franken? Yep. That was that today? Yesterday. Okay, I didn't hear that one. But now, then, you have people on the right saying, this is a Democratic issue. What no one wants to admit, this is a male issue. No kidding, yeah. You know, it's easy to, you know, point fingers on that. So I don't know that anything is going to really change. What do you think it's all about? I mean, some... I think there is, as Kathy Pollack pointed out in The Nation in this current issue, there is somewhat a risk, I think. And if a woman comes forth after 30 years, I think there is a little bit... I mean, it's great to hear from a woman. I would believe her. But what is the evidence at that point? And it could lead to a trivializing of the whole issue also. You know, there is... And there could be a backlash, like it typically is. Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. That's what I'm afraid of. I mean, in fact, when Trump was outed about all this stuff, no one cared at all. What does the backlash look like, though, that's other than... That women can't be believed. ...from a credibility standpoint that, you know... As always, right? I mean, right now the backlash... You can see that it is as any different from what we have... No, it's not. It's not. No, it's not. But it could be. It wouldn't be. I mean, right now the focus on... I'm not certain it helps. Yeah, the focus on this former Chief Justice in Alabama... Oh, yeah. That's different, though, isn't it? Why? Because he is accused of assaulting people and raping them, isn't he? I don't think he was accused of rape. No, the problem with Moore is underage. Underage. Yeah. Well, that's rape. Right. Well, again... Sanctuary rape, yeah. Right. I mean, but 30, 40 years after the fact. That's right. And in terms of the evidence, they say, you know... The only thing that they can find is that he was banned from a shopping mall. Mm-hmm. You know, for the fact that, you know, when he was District Attorney in his 30s that he would hang out and try to pick up girls. And the why? And what? The why. The why? He was kicked out of the why. I didn't know that. But that's a whole male. No, no. At that time, was it? I mean, it was the YW and the YM. So the YMCA? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Okay, but what does it really say about the whole power structure in the United States? What it says to me is that the power structure is still male, right? Even after women's liberation, even after feminism, it remains mostly that men are in power, right? Absolutely. There's no question about that. Right, and I'm not certain. I'm just not certain what kind of effect that this is going to have on that. I mean, I'm trying to think of proposed legislation that can come out, and I can't really quite think of anything beyond... There is legislation, isn't there? Right, I'm going to say beyond what's already in existence. Mm-hmm. You know, I guess the only thing it could possibly do is create a situation where more women feel comfortable bringing it up as opposed to waiting 30 years when it happens. Mm-hmm. Right, but what I was talking about, the media getting bored, it then becomes a non-issue. Yeah, I know. Of course, they'll move on to something else. Including mass shootings, for God's sake. Sure, but that's the way the media works. Right, I guess so. But you don't have, I mean, mass harassment, it's like if you can kill more than 10 people, it'll get on the news. But when one woman at a time is harassed, then it doesn't get on the news. No more than one person killed. I mean, we have all these murders and we're not connecting them with mass killings. Right. So, you know, what happens when it becomes invisible again? We've had our... Sure, I mean, you know, the media runs in cycles. You know, three months from now, if there are a bunch of shark attacks in Florida, everyone's going to be talking about sharks. This will be, you know, old news. And will anything have happened, aside from to the individuals who are being accused? I think people, I think men in power, unless they're at a level of moronic behavior, will be more cautious. You do think so? Yes, I don't know that the behavior will change. But I think that the odds of getting caught are getting to have to defend yourself. But it seems like this moronic behavior is everywhere. I mean, you know, there was a... But it's higher or lower. Right. You know, in the last two weeks. Yeah, I would have thought, you know, even before, you know, people would have been a little more cautious before, you know, whenever the Weinstein stuff came out. But it doesn't appear, you know, people are very cautious. There was a congresswoman who just gave a statement talking about that it's endemic in Washington, D.C., in the halls of Congress. That, you know, pages are sent to congressman's homes and they get, you know, greeted by, you know, like the congressman, you know, he's wearing a towel, you know, that this is a very common thing that still exists. I mean, I wouldn't have thought it still existed. Oh, right. But, you know, it doesn't seem that they were being cautious. Well, that's as of last week. Right. So... They're also... I'm sorry. Anyway, my proposal is that they'll be more... The behavior won't change, but they'll be more cautious and line up their ducks, you know, slightly differently. Maybe. I don't know. I think a lot of times, you know, men that feel that powerful, they don't think the rules apply to them. Right. I know. Yeah, but that was last week. Okay. But look at... No, I'm serious. The volume of an attention, even if it's sporadic, has got to make a difference. These are public people. They're being publicly shamed. They're being, you know, publicly dissected. They're losing their jobs. This, it seems to me, has to make a difference. In male behavior. In public male behavior. I mean, the people... This behavior wasn't public exactly, was it? No, but the public... You're talking about public officials? No, no, no. Or public personalities? Yeah, but the people that are in... In the public eye. In the public eye, or can easily become in the public eye, you know, and that has to do with power level, so they're in the public eye. So is it going to make a difference for someone working at the post office who's being harassed? I think so. I don't know. I just think things change. Look, you can't anymore proclaim that you're going to start using slaves, you know, because that's your, you know, this is a free country. So why? I mean, something changed in consciousness, both on the part of perpetrators and on the part of the public, and it just behavior becomes intolerable, that wasn't intolerable before. And I can't imagine that this would have no effect, it seems to me, overly cynical. Could be. I guess it depends. I mean, if some of these prominent people wind up going to jail or losing their positions. They're not going to go to jail. If they don't, and if some of them continue to win... They have lost their positions, yeah. Okay. But they have not gone to jail. And I'm not certain if it's a 30-year-old offense that people should go to jail about it. Speaking of that, one more minute. This guy, Josiah Leach, did you see in the paper this morning? You know who he is. He's the guy who did the email crisis over in South Burlington. He emailed death. Oh, oh, yes. And he was, Judge Crawford sentenced him to maybe five years probation, and he just violated his probation, allegedly violated the probation today. It just is terribly sad for me to think about that, about a black boy going to jail. I hope he doesn't. Anyway, so I guess that's it for this month, and we'll see you next month, I hope.