Side Effects of Challenging The Administration (with Prem Thakker)

This week, we talk to journalist Prem Thakker about holding the powers that be accountable, corporate influence in the mainstream press, the basic moral compulsion to acknowlege what is happening to journalists in Palestine, and why independant reporting is so important.

For more content, subscribe to our Youtube and Patreon!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Small Dunce help from this Small.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Small Human areas Small, It's so funky. Welcome to another
episode of Small Those this podcast. I in the last
two and a half years really began to get into
the weeds of geopolitics, not just because I wanted to

(00:31):
not be left out of conversations, but I also wanted
to be a part of envisioning a different future, and
so I needed to know the past and the present.
And one of the people that would keep coming up
into my consciousness was journalist prem Thacker, because in the
present he was very directly challenging the Biden administration's impact

(00:54):
and involvement in the genocide and Pussa in a way
that was like nobody else there was doing. I learned
in this episode that he actually is pretty young, which
explains why he's not willing to actually like point fingers
at the shady spinelessness of his elder journalists, but also

(01:15):
why he was also more willing to.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
Put it out there all along the line.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
And I so appreciate that because him standing or sitting
sitting on business in the White House Press Corps, I
don't know if I would say it gave me hope,
but at least gave so many of us a sense
of groundedness that we were not bugging in what we

(01:40):
were hearing from these elected officials, and how in contrast
it was to what we were seeing and hearing and
learning from the Palestinians on the ground. Prem is at
that crossroads between independent journalism and working for ZETEA, but

(02:00):
also young enough to be a part of this multimedia revolution,
so to speak, of independent journalists and independent fact checkers
and independent researchers that have Wi Fi and that can
actually get their thoughts across to a camera. He is
at a unique intersection right there in his work, and
I feel so cool that we get to have this

(02:23):
interview with him so early in his career, because I
have no doubt it is going to be a long,
storied one of doing exactly what he was doing when
I came across him the first.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Time, challenging administration, which.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
By the way, is something all of us need to
be doing, no matter who it is. And he gives
a great masterclass in that every time he shows up
on the hill. Let's get into it, small doses. We
are very very fortunate to be joined with the very
busy FRM Thacker.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
I mean, that's what this episode is about.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
There's literally like only you olding these administrations accountable.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
I feel like, wait, I was saying that as a joke,
but it really is like only you.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
First of all, the question I ask people these days
a lot is just how did you become this person?
How did you arrive at You know, I'm just going
to have to actually have a backbone and stand for something,
because that's what it requires to hold any administration accountable.

Speaker 3 (03:24):
So much of this I think relates to how I
just got to journalism generally, which is that I grew
up in the Midwest and a place I loved. I
loved growing up where I grew up a lot, got
a lot out of it. But just like any place,
it's its own culture, it's its own place. Where'd you
grow up with Anson, North Dakota?

Speaker 2 (03:42):
North Dakota fascinating?

Speaker 3 (03:46):
Yeah, So it's a place I love. I still love
connections there, people, I love dearly there. But again, like
any place, it's its own sort of cultural sphere, its
own bubble, like every place is. And so I found
that for me at least growing up.

Speaker 4 (04:01):
I actually I'm going.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
To have the time. Nope, I'm going to have the
time out? Are you Indian?

Speaker 4 (04:05):
I am?

Speaker 1 (04:06):
How did that happen?

Speaker 2 (04:09):
Because I don't know if there being like an Indian
enclave in Bismarck, right.

Speaker 3 (04:13):
No, certainly not, certainly not. You got like New Jersey,
California and Chicago, et cetera, et cetera. So yeah, the
very short thick of it, just because you know, I
don't want to get two off ros with this part,
but just my family moved from India to Chicago, which
was much more of like a reliable expected path for them,
and then just over time, shortly after I was born,

(04:34):
they found some more opportunities out in the Midwest, and
so they figured that both the opportunity and also just
the idea of raising me and our family in a
place that's maybe a little more low key might be good,
which I'm really thankful for. Like again, I actually really,
in hindsight and in the moment, like loved growing up there.
I got a lot out of it. I kind of
liked the small town feel, and I don't know, I

(04:56):
just really appreciate the opportunities I have grown up in
North Kota and and the fact that people were like
really nice overall.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
So you said, off the rails, But that's very imperative
to on the rails, because, yes, challenging the administration, Like
even though we're going to get to that work and
what you're doing, it starts as a seed in somebody.

Speaker 3 (05:15):
Yeah, And so you're exactly right, because I feel like
early on when I was growing up, I just did
not think that critically about a lot of things, just generally,
Like I think I was just kind of like a
shthead teenager in some ways, and so far as like
how I looked at things, Like I think, I try
to be a very nice person, but you know, like
there's a level of critical engagement that a teenage boy
doesn't have with the world. And I feel like I

(05:35):
didn't really have that much. But I feel later into
high school, I started, you know somewhat thinking a bit
more about the world existed in some form of a
critical manner, and I found that even holding like somewhat
left of center views felt very radical in some respects.
And you know, the kind of place that grew up,

(05:55):
and so you know, I started being a bit more curious,
especially you know, as Trump ascended, and even like the
seeds of trump Ism were kind of become more and
more parent like that sort of like propelled me to
think about things a little bit more. And the reason
I say all this is because you know, I started
having some of these you know, machinations questions sometimes from
my friends around me who were also kind of like,
you know, a bit critical about things. I remember there's

(06:18):
one memory I have where I was hanging out with
a friend and they had mentioned I saw them as
kind of this grungy kind of person who was, you know,
very anti system stuff. It wasn't even that dramatic, just
like again like this is the coach's sphere I was
in where this person mentioned how they had this qualm
with the pledge of allegiance, Like, man, isn't it messed
up that like every day we have to do this

(06:39):
pledge of allegiance? Like don't you think that's kind of weird?
And I was like, what do you mean, like pledge
of allegiance? Like it's just what it is, it's important.
I wasn't even just like it was it is what
it is. I was like, well, don't you like I
felt like I remember feeling this sense of like this
comfort of like, well, what do you what's wrong with that,
and of course, you know, only in that moment at
least I imagine at least this sense of like seeing

(07:01):
like bad motives in what they were saying, or this
kind of sense of like what do you mean, Like
you're crazy? Right, And of course in time to come
I would understand more at what they were getting at.
And so I remember junior senior year, I was definitely
a bit more critical of who I was in the past,
as like, you know, thirteen fourteen year old kid, and
a bit more trying to fair like, well, what's going
on here?

Speaker 4 (07:19):
Because I was, you know, right around.

Speaker 3 (07:21):
When Trump actually got elected for the first time and
I left North Kota go to college in New York.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
Oh that's a big yeah.

Speaker 4 (07:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (07:28):
So the contrast was crazy because obviously it's you know,
North Kode in New York and also very different in
terms of the political atmosphere like North Dakota generally speaking,
and that like a college campus in New York City
is very different with school Columbia the site of many
crimes as we've seen, which we will also get into.

(07:49):
I'm sure this degree.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
I look at it every day and I'm like, what
are you for?

Speaker 3 (07:54):
Yeah, one hundred percent but so I got there, and
I just felt like the contrast of places I'm so
thankful for because I think I got a lot out
of both. I think going to Columbia and going to
New York City made me appreciate a lot more about
map bringing North Dakota and conversely made me more genuinely
accept the idea that, you know what I loved growing

(08:16):
up in this place, North Dakota. I hold it so
dearly to my heart, but I have to accept at
the same time that like it's one place, it's one
bubble in an entire globe of thousands and thousands of bubbles,
and it's just a small dropping of people and ideas
and experiences that I can get. And then there's much
more out there too, and that doesn't invalidate what I had,

(08:37):
but it made me appreciate the fact that, like, there
might be more to this world than what I saw
in the first eighteen years of my life.

Speaker 4 (08:43):
Obviously, yep.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
And so the duo didn't feel like a contrast of
like rejecting my upbringing and then got it, you know,
embracing like this glamorous, interesting New York City life, Like
I didn't see it that way and I kind of
resented that idea because like, my you know, I'll bringing
men so much to me. But when I got to Columbia,
I found myself even then going again through this sort

(09:04):
of like ongoing process.

Speaker 4 (09:06):
As we all do.

Speaker 1 (09:07):
Of like you go as a journalism major.

Speaker 4 (09:08):
No no, no.

Speaker 3 (09:09):
So I came in and this is part of it.
I came in kind of aimlessly as an econ polycy
major because I just didn't really know exactly what he
wanted to do. But I thought those two fields seem
interesting to me, okay. And I remember after my freshman year,
I did pretty averagely. I didn't feel like too proud
binding it, but I didn't feel like terrible.

Speaker 4 (09:27):
But it's just like that was fine.

Speaker 3 (09:29):
And I was telling my friends about that, and they're like,
you know what, like a lot of my friends were
studying history, and they said, try some history classes.

Speaker 1 (09:34):
We love them.

Speaker 4 (09:35):
And so the next year, the next.

Speaker 3 (09:37):
Semester, I just decided to go all in and took
like my entire class schedules history classes. And that really
is what I think set the trajectory of getting me
here because I love the classes. I thought the professors
were so incredible, so interesting, and also just like really
did care about their craft in a way that felt
like they whatever their project was in their respective classes,
like they really dove into what they advocated for it

(10:00):
wanted people to understand their project and internalize it and
then behave accordingly. And I felt that was really powerful
and I really connect to that, especially because after I
got to New York and as I continue to thinking
more about, like, you know, how I viewed the world,
how I viewed my place in it, I just really
got this sense of man, like, I'm so thankful that
I got to grow up in one place, go to

(10:21):
this completely other place, and get bits and pieces from
both places, and also be open to the fact that
I could be wrong about things, and to meet people
who would meet me where I wasn't and try to,
you know, give me some nuggets of knowledge when they could.
I felt really thankful for that, and I thought, God
darn it, like it'd be cool if I could somehow
have some sort of occupation or life that could share.

Speaker 4 (10:43):
That film with other people.

Speaker 3 (10:45):
And so that feeling, especially I think engendered with some
of these history professors, you know, my second, third and
fourth year, especially my third and fourth year and that
experience coupled with I think this ongoing process, especially in
my like latter half of Call, of really starting to
understand where I saw the world was, where it had been,
where it could be going, and where we all kind

(11:07):
of fit into that. I think like that sensibility and
that curiosity I think crystallized a lot in sort of
the end of my college career, and so all of
those films kind of combined into this feeling of well,
what can I do? Like I loved one aspect that
I loved about history was writing and reading and reading
from you know, all these other people that scholars or
record Yeah. Yeah, And I think all that was like, Okay, well,

(11:31):
journalists write and read and if they can try to
connect with people and be generous towards people. But I
think also a good journalist would be someone who's both
generous towards people but also straight up with where they're
coming from. Like, I think one thing that I really
get frustrated with is this sense that like being someone
who's gracious or generous or open minded necessitates being loose

(11:56):
with your convictions. I despise that idea in so far
as like I feel like since twenty sixteen, especially, like
so much of the idea of like open minded journalism
is like the classic sort of like fetishizing a Trump
voter at a diner in Wisconsin and not like critically
engaging with that person, but like treating that voter like
some sort of like I don't know, like piece of
china that you have to like treat very gently and

(12:18):
you can't like pokeer prod at it right, and then
that is like a yeah, And I find that like
very disrespectful. Like I think the most respectful kind of
journalism or the most respectful kind of just like way
of being is to treat other people as you would be,
which is to say, if you think you can change
your mind or learn or grow or be sort of challenged,

(12:39):
then you ought to treat other people that way too,
Like you shouldn't treat people with kid gloves or treat
people in such a way that they're inevitable or static
or like you can't change their minds. Like I find
that so frustrating to me, and so like that bleeds
into like I don't know how I feel when we
talk about immigration or like I don't know, capitalism or
all these things where it's like well, you can't say

(13:00):
that because people believe acts like Americans believe there's an
immigration crisis, so you can't say that maybe we should
treat immigrants a different way, Like I don't know, Like
there's all these discourses where we just assume people believe
a certain thing or represcribe certain beliefs to them, such
that when you do that, it's anti political, Like it's
anti the idea of you going to someone, meeting them

(13:21):
where they are, seeing them as a fellow human being
and saying, hey, like I see this this way, and
I think you could too. Here's why, Like I think
that's beautiful. And I think I got that sense a
lot from growing up in North Kota and then leaving
and still you know, valuing that place and valuing those
people as much as I did when I first grew
up there.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
It's funny because when you said that last part about
just like not just putting people in this bucket, I
feel like during the Biden election, that's where I experienced that,
like more than I'd ever experienced it before, where people
were like, you can't challenge Biden because everybody that we
need to vote for Biden needs to just be dealt

(14:05):
with kid gloves and if you challenge him, then it's
going to make them.

Speaker 1 (14:09):
Not vote for him. So you have to go along
with this.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
And I felt kind of like, I mean, I guess
you guys know more than me, so I'm going to
do it. But then I sat through four years of
him just kind of, you know, languishing, and I felt like, okay,
Rob Wade was not codified, and there were just things
that I felt were still in motion that I didn't
understand why they were still in motion. And then here

(14:34):
we are, fast forward to the last election, and I
was then pressured again in that same way, and I
was like, no, no, this time, I'm not going to
do it. This time, I'm going to deal with people
as people. I'm gonna just give them the information. I'm
not going to tell them who I think they should
vote for who.

Speaker 1 (14:48):
I'm just going to tell them the information.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
And prem do you know, to this day, I get
messages on social media saying that I am responsible for
Kamala Harris not winning.

Speaker 3 (14:59):
It's just it's so ridiculous because on one hand, it's
like so infantilizing in terms of how they think you
should treat people in power.

Speaker 4 (15:06):
And also like other voters.

Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, but then it's also like so the exact ops
like it's aggrandizing of like your role.

Speaker 4 (15:13):
It's like, I'm just a person. I might be a journalist.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
I meant whatever whatever you or I are or how
they view we are, but like I don't control the campaign.
I don't control their decisions. I don't control how they
communicate with people, and.

Speaker 4 (15:26):
I don't control how you vote exactly exactly.

Speaker 3 (15:29):
And so it's this very asymmetrical way that some of
these critics kind of view power and influence, where it's like,
I actually do understand your frustration obviously, like I understand
if you are someone very specifically dedicated to even generously,
if some of their energy comes specifically from just trying
to make sure Donald Trump is win, for example, and
it's not about like blind loyalty just to a party,

(15:51):
but it's really about me. I get that, and I
get that frustration. Obviously, we see the consequences of that,
and we have some consequences for nine years now. But
if you want to do that, there are lovers of
power that are very clearly at at least someone's disposal,
and it's certainly not at my disposal.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
No no, And I mean I watched you really challenging
those levers of power, namely during post October seventh, and
I think for a lot of people, you were really
this glimmer of sanity in a room of folks that
were very obviously unwilling to ask I don't even want

(16:29):
to call it hard questions because it was just basic
questions that challenged falsehoods that were being said to our faces.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
Did you expect? How do I even like?

Speaker 2 (16:42):
I feel like that was a time where so many
folks were just like living in their morals, not realizing
that that was like a big deal. Did you in
that moment realize like, Okay, I'm going to be the
only one in this room doing this.

Speaker 3 (16:57):
So when I first got to the room, I was
actually a come I mean by my former colleague Ryan
Grimm from the intercept and now at drops like he
sort of helped show me the ropes, which was I
appreciate it so much, just because you know, I was
so nervous walking in there the first time. And what
I observed is all of them, I think, I will say,
like in the room, like a lot of people and
they are like quite good journalists, I think there's a

(17:18):
few especially notable ones that I think a lot of
people who might be listening are familiar with, said Arcot,
Ryan Grimm. Of course, a few others as well, and Andy.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
There's the older white guy with.

Speaker 3 (17:28):
Glasses, Matt Lee maybe Matt Lee, yeah, yeah, yeah, and
a few others as well who are very good and
more I think. So I definitely don't want to make
it seem like, you know, like there's just a few
knights in shining armor in the room. There actually are
quite a few good journalists in there. I want to
make sure they get the credit. But I've been asked
both in the moment and then since then by a

(17:49):
lot of different kinds of people, like, you know, like
what was your approach in there? Like what do you
think you were doing? Like what's your action? Was your
reflections as you're kind of getting at I really just
went in there asking the question I had, Like I
think it was as simple as that. Where sometimes the
most radical thing in DC, whether it's in these press briefings,
whether it's on the hill, is just straight up again

(18:10):
treating these people as adults they are and saying how
does that make sense to you? Or what happened to
this thing that you said you were going to do
that you never did. Very straight up questions that often
are enough, and often I think, perhaps I mean to
maybe the broader point of a question of you know
what I think about how people responded to you know,
these questions and these clips and whatnot.

Speaker 4 (18:30):
I think people just.

Speaker 3 (18:31):
No matter your politics, resonate with that sense of confusion
and incredulity at the decisions these people make. And sometimes
just asking quite simply a question on behalf of that
confusion frustration is enough, I guess for people to resonate
with it, and then that's all I'm really trying to
do when I go to these briefings. I think sometimes people,
especially like within some of these circles of power, assume

(18:53):
that you know, I'm coming in there to be like
a rabble rouser or like a troublemaker, or like ah,
he's here's this guy again, like he's annoying it. So
I'm just asking like very straightforward questions that in general
warrant answering, but no less when you think of specifically
this year of Israel and Palestine. I'm an American journalist.
I am trying to ask questions that relate to and

(19:17):
implicate the American people, the people who pay taxes that
pay these people's salaries, and it just so happens that
billions of their dollars go unconditionally to this thing, to
this genosip And so it's not rabbel rousing, troublemaking, or
scandalous for me to be asking these questions.

Speaker 1 (19:34):
It is completely legitimate.

Speaker 3 (19:37):
Yeah, it's reasonable, it's legitimate. And it's also just like
this is like baseline stuff for the people in our industry,
Like this should not be in my opinion. Of course,
I appreciate everyone who appreciates our work, and we're obviously
gonna keep doing it, but like I wish this was
the baseline and not some sort of aberration, you know,
Like I mean.

Speaker 2 (19:55):
I feel like at this point, honestly, and tell me
if you agree with me or not, I feel like
the polit titians and administrations have become centered like celebrities
in a way that questioning them is no longer seen
as like the responsibility of journalists and the people I
get so often I see people saying like, oh, leave

(20:17):
them alone, like they're doing their you couldn't do their job,
And I see that said to me and other people,
and I'm like, well, no, they're doing their They're there
to represent you, and if they're not representing me, I
get to ask about that, I get to challenge that, And.

Speaker 3 (20:35):
No matter, you probably couldn't do their job because I
don't think you would be behaving the way they would
be behaving. So I think in some respects, maybe that's true,
you couldn't do their job.

Speaker 2 (20:43):
I would be assassinated the first day. Honestly, they'd be
fighting over who would get credit for the assassination, Like
there would be so many trying to do it that
prem they'd be like.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
No I did it, No I did it, No I
did it. We'll just all be co assassinators.

Speaker 2 (20:58):
Because ultimately, it's doesn't seem to me like we are
still in a society.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
I feel like I grew up. Maybe I made that up.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
I feel like I grew up feeling like politicians need
to be challenged, like that's an expectation, and I just
don't feel like that's the energy that's out here anymore.

Speaker 1 (21:14):
What do you feel.

Speaker 3 (21:15):
I've struggled with this feeling a lot of being in
DC and seeing whether I think that's true of the
sense that like no one's challenging these politicians because again,
like I feel like, on one hand, I'm surrounded by
so many amazing talented, smart journalists, both like physically in
DC and just kind of like in the American journalism sphere.
But at the same time, it's like sometimes when you
walk through Congress and you kind of see the sort

(21:37):
of norms in which reporters kind of happily oblige to
sort of make sure that members of Congress feel generally
like just comfortable, it's kind of frustrating. It's like there's
some members of Congress who like it's just agreed that
like you don't ask them questions because they don't like
taking questions in the hallway. And it's like, I'm sorry, Like.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
When you're there, you can ask questions in the hallway,
Like is that acceptable?

Speaker 4 (21:58):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (21:58):
Yes, So generally speaking, in most parts of the hill
and so on, you have your press badge and you
see members of Congress, you can approach them, ask a question.

Speaker 4 (22:06):
They'll give you varying answers.

Speaker 3 (22:08):
I mean, oftentimes members of Congress just kind of norm
me or just give me like pretty blunt, uninterested answers.
That's fine, whatever, At least it's an answer.

Speaker 1 (22:14):
Do you like camp out.

Speaker 3 (22:16):
If there's hearing scheduled, like you'll make sure that you
kind of know where the members you're looking for kind
of might be at a certain time of day. So yeah,
it's there's probably, like you know a handful of places
that you can generally just kind of meander around waiting
for members, or you can kind of seek them out.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
Like I'm just picturing you parked like how the cops
do in Jersey, Like they have very specific little hiding
spots where they parked git you when you're speeding. I'm
like picturing prem jumping out from like an alley like
a ah, grassly, I got you.

Speaker 4 (22:44):
I honestly could do that a lot more.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
I feel like i'm again because I treat this so
kind of just straightforwardly and earnestly. It's like I'm not
even hiding, Like I'm just asking you a very reasonable question,
Like it's not that deep. You're making it that deep,
you know, with your answer not answer, Like I'm just
asking a question.

Speaker 2 (23:02):
You're pushing this right, like you could just say yes
or no, but now you've said this really invasive, you know, cryptic.

Speaker 3 (23:09):
Yeah, exactly, but so there's this aspect where like sometimes
when I'm walking in the hallways, like I get frustrated
where it's like there's just feels like there's so many
conventions that feel just so indeference to these members of Congress.
And of course, like obviously, like I understand, it's an
institution where like the press and members of Congress will
have like sort of push and pull where like they
kind of meet in the middle of access and so on.

(23:31):
Like I get that. I'm not sort of you know,
being naive or whatever or like holier than that. I'm
certainly not being like that, But it's just it's frustrating
when you think, in a very five thousand feet above
viewpoint that many of these members of Congress are actively,
by their votes, complicit for one, in the genocide for two,

(23:52):
by their votes, by their stances on different policy proposals,
by the money they take in complicit and environmental destruction, yes,
for three, complicit in by comparison to other Western nations
and other nations generally across the world, complicit in a
massive sort of emiserating, dehumanizing system where people have to
fight tooth and nail to get healthcare in this country.

(24:14):
There's so many ways in which the norms of how
this country works are baked into the halls of power,
such that to be a journalist that more fundamentally asks
the basic questions of like how can you vote for
this based on how many people it impacts? Like that
very basic question, How can you not support expanding healthcare
as many people as possible? How can you support these

(24:36):
possibile companies endlessly? How can you support this genocide endlessly?
Those questions, despite how demanding they are, like every single second,
are very much not asked in these halls of power,
which again, like one could say, well yeah, but like
there's these conventions, there's a these other things that matter too.
And it's like I understand that, I understand the technicalities

(24:57):
and the sort of like cogs and gears of how
dec works.

Speaker 4 (25:00):
I understand that.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
It's just when you take a step back and think
of like the asymmetry between the sort of daily routine
of Washington DC versus the daily horrors of what comes
out of Washington DC, it's disturbing. And that's one thing
I think people ought to just chew on and understand
and think about as they just kind of think about

(25:23):
the way power exists in this country, Like I think
that is like a fundamental, I don't know, vulgarity, you know.

Speaker 2 (25:34):
You know, I think that one thing that's really standing
out to me is that you're still viewing them as people,
not as politics. Like you're identifying them as individuals, not
as just pieces of a system.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
And I will see.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
People that I think, even in their best intentions, will
excuse things because, well, this person's a piece of a system, right,
whether it's a police officer or Like I remember when
Kamalo's vice president and she followed Tim Scott and said
this country is not a racist country.

Speaker 1 (26:06):
And I am still mad about that to this day.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
But I was really frustrated about it in that moment,
and there were just a lot of people around me
that were like, well, what do you expect her to say?
She's a politician, And that started me really like I
was so bothered by people's willingness to just excuse a
unadult really like, this is an empirical fact that this
is a racist country, but they were willing to excuse

(26:31):
it for the convention of well, yeah, but she's a politician.
And I feel like something that you do uniquely, is
you're really just speaking to souls when you're asking questions
in ways that we just don't see anymore. I think
there's been a lot of also, just journalism becoming so
baked into the politics of it all that they too

(26:53):
are politician. And then we're seeing, of course, mainstream media
be completely co opted by oligarchy, and folks are doing
the capitalism thing and keeping their jobs and whatnot, and
so it's like their souls are their own, souls are sold.
So how are they going to be questioning these folks
about them?

Speaker 3 (27:13):
Yeah, I have thought I'd be curious to hear what
you think, because so much of my sort of initial
earlier kind of awakening to things was kind of like
understanding how systems can subsume us in this country, and
how systems, of course have informed and instructed so much
of the construction of this country. Obviously that you know,
we talk about systematic racism, environmental racism and so on,

(27:36):
systematic inequities by a gender class, et cetera. There's obviously
that basic fact of the way this country works. But
since then, in internalizing that sort of system's way of
understanding and analyzing the world. There's also this sense of
like systems are not flat, that based on where you

(27:56):
are within that system, you may have more or less
influence on the direction or the success of that system. Yes,
and so when we view politicians sort of cynically as
outputs of systems, such that, well, what do you expect
like of course they're going to say X, Y and
Z thing, we forget that this is not just someone
that's you know, you're walking across in the mall or something.

(28:18):
This is a politician, a prominent figure, someone for whom
is not only whoever we're talking about, is not only
a big name, not only has access to certain levers
of power that you and I do not, but also
are in this broader constellation of other people who relate
to them in some way, whether in a very interpersonal way,

(28:39):
whether only with regards to finances. There's some sort of
interlink between a politician and everyone else in this system
on the top of this system. Yes, and so therefore
we can look at systems a bit more complicated, and
look at them in a bit more complicated way, such
that we can both understand and have empathy with the
idea that we're all trying our best within these systems,

(29:00):
trying to do the best we can. Of course, you
know there might be limitations. That's I think an understandable spirit.
But at the same time, the we is that question
in terms of who you're talking about, and the weak
can change, the we can change, you know, like a
politician came from somewhere, a politician was someone else twenty
years ago before they became a politician in some respects.
So also the sort of the permeability between who we

(29:22):
view as like someone with power someone without power is
also thinner than we realize. And I think I've learned
that a lot since coming to DC, when I interact
with some of these people where it's like, oh, like
we actually were able to have a nice chit chat
or whatever, or like, oh, like you're not as like
intimidating or like otherworldly as I think you are, And
like the only thing that makes you saw other worldly
is the fact that, like most of your day is

(29:42):
talking to very rich people to get more money, you know,
So like I think.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
Give me Nick Cannon and you're like, oh, you're not
corny in person, but ex exactly, yeah, I mean I
feel you. But I think there's an element of that
that's similar to like the bad apple good apple of
policing and just this kind of reality that no, it
is not flat, but it is built within a framework

(30:07):
that does not allow for expulsion out of the framework. Right,
So like even when you have someone like ilhan Omar,
you know, like she I would say more than most
will speak ardently about particular things. However, she's still a
part of a framework that requires like.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
Okay, and now I'm going to step back into this space.

Speaker 2 (30:30):
And I know for me, I did a documentary in
twenty twenty three called an Amanda We Trust where I
really was in real time trying to learn more about
just like how these systems of government work and trying
to get more understanding. And I remember I sat down
with Jamal Bowman and Ilhan Omar in the Cannon Building
and ask them to explain to me how a bill
gets passed.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
I was like, what are y'all doing it here all day?
Like this is nonsense.

Speaker 2 (30:55):
It was beyond my scope of comprehension because it was
it's like, oh, this is just so much. You know,
you hear the term bureaucracy, but you're like, oh, this
really is just a lot of people hanging out, like
hanging out, taking the little shuttle thing to go vote.
It's like high school in a way, and a lot
of folks who haven't seen it on the ground prop

(31:18):
it up on a pedestal that makes it seem like
it's inaccessible.

Speaker 1 (31:22):
And so I guess what I'm saying is like.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
Yes, it is a system, and yes I can understand, like, yeah,
you know, when you get in here, you might have
thought it was going to be one thing, and I
it's something else, and so that can like sway you.
But I think my biggest frustration and my number one
challenge is that if you're approaching it as a political system,
and you continue to approach it in that way, it
will never shift into what it should be, which is

(31:44):
a public servitude space. Like I believe it should be
a civil servant space where not just civil servants, like
people who are working, you know that are getting laid off,
but you are getting healthcare because of us.

Speaker 4 (31:59):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Yeah, but that's also like fantastical, right because it would
required entire revolution.

Speaker 4 (32:03):
That's true, That's true.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
I guess, like I think we do very much to
read that. Like the system as it stands now is
like fundamentally like incongruent with like what is needed for
some sort of like yes, long term self sufficient system
that actually is dedicated and geared towards like care and
trust amongst the populace.

Speaker 4 (32:22):
Like I think this system is not that, Like I
agree with that.

Speaker 2 (32:25):
Well, we're not even in that system anymore. We're in
like a whole other situation now.

Speaker 4 (32:29):
Yeah, in terms of even worse.

Speaker 3 (32:31):
Yes, yeah, yeah, I know the system I just lay
out is one that yeah, like that's not this system
for sure, that's one that.

Speaker 4 (32:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (32:37):
I think where I guess we're trying to kind of
figure out right now is what does it take to
escape or destroy this system such that we can enter
that next system, which obviously ageil question. I guess I
think as well of this question either leads to, you know, nihilism, cynicism,

(32:59):
optimism that could be seen as hopeless optimism. And I
don't know, I don't fault anyone for falling in any
of those, because there's a lot of things that are
just very sad and depressing and frustrating.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
You know, honestly prime on a basic level, I think
people just don't know their value.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
Yeah, that's like.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
A very Americans have been pledging a flag since we
were in kindergarten.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
That literally is telling us this is more important than you.
This flag.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
I pledge the legions to the flag of the United
States of America and to the Republic. Force stands one
nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
I am assigned to this place and this flag, not
this place, and this flag is assigned to me. And
I think it is that difference that we see in
other nations and why they are so quick to be

(33:52):
like fuck that, like you know, like the French are
like fuck that, they are so quick.

Speaker 1 (33:59):
Yeah, Kenyans, Kenyans is like you said, what we're not
going to get what Like Kenyans is.

Speaker 2 (34:05):
In the streets, and that's the threat of death. Like
it's not even like they're just like having a women's
march with pussy hats. Like they're in the streets at
the threat of death if they feel like.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
It's even for a second. Koreans, South Koreans.

Speaker 2 (34:16):
Or like you said, what I think he just said,
martial law, get out of here, get out of here,
you are done, Kamsamida. But it's because in all of
those places there's been a pathway to like self worth
that they've had to fight for that we have yet
to fight for in this iteration of what it is
to be in the United States, Like there's a narcissism

(34:36):
that is so deeply embedded that gives us this like
false sense of not just like false sense of dopeness,
but a false sense of security, you know. And that
false sense of security is what I believe has people
being like, why is prem asking them so many questions?

Speaker 1 (34:49):
Like these are good people.

Speaker 2 (34:50):
It's like, even if they're good people, are not good people,
that's irrelevant if their position is to represent you and
it's not representing you.

Speaker 4 (34:58):
Am I making sense you are? You are?

Speaker 2 (35:01):
Because I feel like the whites that are angry at
these forums, they're at a point where they're like now.

Speaker 1 (35:06):
Now, now, how now.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
You're not going to pull the wool over mass anymore.

Speaker 3 (35:13):
It's been amazing to see these town hall clips, honestly,
Like I do wonder how many members of Congress came
home thinking like it was going to be smooth sailing
when first of all, they didn't vote to really Sepstein files.
Second of all, a bunch of them, upon going on
vacation early just like immediately went to Israel bunkers, and
so I feel like, yeah, like even for people for

(35:33):
whom like me, they don't have like a strong sensibility
or connection to the issue of visual and pastime, like
these sorts of things that have happened over and over
and over again, Yeah, give people a sense like wait, wait,
what's like, what's going on here?

Speaker 4 (35:45):
Why are you behaving this way?

Speaker 3 (35:46):
And again a very basic manner such that you do
wonder like how many more sort of contradictions like this
can happen until there's like a critical mass of people
in this country that like are not just you know,
like oh, like when they answer the poll question like yeah,
like I'm opposed to the war whatever, but like actually
have this sense of calling to do something about it.

(36:06):
Because on one hand, we see poll after poll after poll,
like month after month. That gets even more egregious in
terms of how people view the US complicity in this genocide,
Which is good that people are responding to what they see,
but there's still the sense of and yet and yet
the US is still funding it, and yet there seems
to be very little sense amongst these politicians that they

(36:29):
will have any sort of repercussions or consequences for doing so,
And so you wonder when is that threshold? And I
don't know if you've been kind of thinking about this
over the past few months or or in the past
twenty two months, generally, like have you thought about that
sort of issue?

Speaker 2 (36:43):
That's all I think about, prem what are you talking about?
That's literally all I think about every day. All the
thing about every day is like when is this gonna
switch over?

Speaker 1 (36:50):
Like when is it gonna flit?

Speaker 2 (36:57):
I do feel a certain sense of solace in seeing
people say to me, Oh, by learning from things that
you're teaching us about and that you're informing us about,
I began to question, am I getting what I deserve?

Speaker 1 (37:15):
You know?

Speaker 2 (37:15):
Like I began to see myself in this equation more
because I think so many people just don't see themselves
as a part of the change, right, I mean that whole,
Like you are the change you wish to see.

Speaker 1 (37:27):
Like it sounds great and it looks great on like
a poster.

Speaker 2 (37:30):
With a really idyllic mountain landscape that you get at
a Scholastic book fair, but it's also just the truth.
And I think it's like these really like basic, basic
things so for instance, like there's this brother that's in
a comrade who's in Jerusalem right now, And so we
were dming and he was sending me videos of like
you can hear the onslaught. And we were talking last

(37:51):
night after learning about you know, Anas and the other
members of Altacida who were targeted, and he was like,
you know, you guys have to stop this. You have
to shut down airports, et cetera, et cetera. And I
felt embarrassed, like deeply embarrassed to have to say to him,
like these people don't even consider Zionism an issue worthy
of Like the masses of people do not even know

(38:15):
about or consider Zionism to be like an issue worthy
of their attention. They still see it as that's a
thing over there. They don't see it as an infringement
upon their own rights, their own access to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness here. They haven't been able
to like make that link yet, and let alone make
that link to the administration or to their politicians. And

(38:37):
so I just felt really kind of demoralized to not
be able to give him more of a gung ho.
We're doing the things like some of us are, but
even I will say to myself like are you.

Speaker 1 (38:52):
I mean, every day all I do is wake up
and say like, are you doing af Amanda.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
And then my Patreon is like yes, I'm like, ah,
I don't know, because like seeing Anas murdered really sat
me down. But yet I feel like we're sometimes in
a bubble, those of us who are paying attention to this,
Like I don't know if you feel like your other
journalist's friends are waking up to like caring about this,
Are they now maybe not friends Piers?

Speaker 4 (39:18):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (39:19):
I think some of them probably not.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
Like I don't know if they consider it to be
an issue that is attached, and I do consider it
to be an issue that is attached.

Speaker 1 (39:28):
Like I see all of this.

Speaker 2 (39:30):
What I feel like I'm looking at prom is like
let's say it's like a ring that's all connected with
spikes on it, and when it's fully extended, it looks
like it's all far apart, and like, oh yeah, I
can dodge that.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
I can dodge that. And I feel like.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
It's like closing in closing, in closing, Like we're like
in the middle of a snare.

Speaker 1 (39:49):
That's what I feel like.

Speaker 2 (39:50):
We're in We're in the middle of a snare, and
I'm constantly trying to figure out, like, how are there
going to be enough of us to find the twig
to like block?

Speaker 1 (39:58):
And I don't know. I mean, I rely on.

Speaker 2 (40:00):
Folks like you to consistently just be no pressure or anything.

Speaker 1 (40:09):
I mean, I love that you're just consistent.

Speaker 3 (40:11):
Well, I appreciate that. And I also loved although I
don't know about love, but that's a very good metaphor
and visualization that I think is useful when you think
of just all the different ways that this issue has
involved so many of their aspects of American public life.
The basic level of just like how much money has
been dedicated towards this genocide rather than anything else that
we could be spending on. Also immigration policy, like how

(40:34):
much coordination has been between the State Department, ICE, HHS,
another press administration to target people for their speech protesting
this war. Academic spaces obviously, the accountments, the police response
to them, police departments, surveillance, like all these things that
inevitably interlink with the rest of American public life. It's squeezing.

(40:55):
And I think you put that quite well. One thing
that just gets me when I think of about the
press role in this after last night's murders, Journalists have
a job that I understand again, I understand particularly for
people who are my level of journalism, which say, not
the head honchos, but just people who have a writing
job at a mainstream outlet. Let's say, I understand that

(41:17):
they have certain confines that they have to be sensitive
of slash editors that will just spike stories at will.
We've seen that at several mainstream outlets come out, you know,
New York Times, cn IT and so on. But there's
a lot of very talented journalists within them. When I
think of granting that caveat, because I do want to
be fair, granted that caveat, it still feels like as
an institution, and especially for people towards the middle top

(41:39):
part of this institution of what we call the mainstream press,
there's the basic moral compulsion to if not see these
tens of thousands of people have been killed, at least
your press colleagues, for whom there's been a historical mount
killed in the past twenty two months by these reun military,
around two hundred and forty at least, who have been
killed more than ever before in such a manner.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
And it didn't start on October.

Speaker 3 (42:03):
Seventh, surely not, surely, not even the killing of press indeed, indy,
just within this concentrated period.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
M hmm.

Speaker 3 (42:09):
There's this moral compulsion, at least to your fellow press comrades,
to see them, to look at them, and to see
yourself and them, to understand the fact that, just by
virtue of the lottery of existence, you are a journalist
in the West. They are a journalist in Palestine. Right,
You are a journalist within your own conditions, you know, regardless,

(42:30):
like the micro aspects of your specific life within the West,
within the general comfort, the relative comfort of the United States.
Let's say these journalists are journalists covering the end of
their lives every single day, the destruction of their house,
the destruction of the street that they grew up on,
the destruction of the library or the cafe they used
to go to, and the killing of their own kids.

(42:51):
And they they cover an air strike that kills their kid,
and then the next day cover the next strike, and
the next strike and the next strike. Because for them,
they're just trying, they're clawing at whatever visibility they can
to convince the rest of us, for whom either are
not there or even funding those bombs, that you need

(43:12):
to do whatever you can to make this stop. Their
calling to journalism is their life. They're calling to journalism
is the promise of the potential, of the hope of
having it tomorrow at all. And so if you're a
journalist who is not at least morally compelled by that,
well then that takes us to point too, which is

(43:33):
the fact that you're a journalist and your job is
to report on what happens in the world. If you
go outside and your head gets wet, you say it's raining.
If there are two h and forty of your colleagues
at least who have been killed murdered, very often either
on camera or explicitly by the direct targeting and in

(43:53):
fact gloating post facto of the Israeli military, it's your
job to say that, and nothing more, nothing less, no
senseless addendums to make it seem like there's some sort
of confusion as to what happened here. It's very clear
what happened here. And so I, on one hand, can
empathize with individual journalists who might be in the confines

(44:14):
of the machine that they're in and the editors that
they're in that spike their stories. At the same time,
there is limits to that, because we have choices we
make as individuals when we're faced with the stakes of
the world we're in. And then that also especially does
not extend to those people who can make those decisions,
those people for whom, as we talked about earlier, these
systems are not flat, and some of these people might

(44:36):
have an outsized role within those systems such that when
you make a choice, sure there might be a risk
to it, but there's a much higher benefit to that
risk when you take it than someone like me who's
a younger journalist taking it. If I was working at
the New York Times or whatever where like an equivalent
journalist to me, they might get fired, you know, onto
the next one. They'll get replaced someone at a higher level.

(44:56):
Tell you, I'm twenty six, you're a.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
Baby, twenty six.

Speaker 3 (45:04):
How's that going, I said, you know, I mean, outside
of the horrors, pretty good, you know, right, shout.

Speaker 1 (45:11):
Out to twenty six. I'm thinking that you're Wow, I'm
an old person.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
Yes, Actually, that just really reminded me that I'm an
old person. I'm like, oh wow, eighteen years older than
this young man. Well, thank you. I want to go
to our special Patreon segment and I want to get
your thoughts on how you feel the corporate influx into

(45:38):
journalism has impacted the ability to challenge administrations. So here
we are, it's twenty twenty five. Every day feels like
a groundhog's day of just how do these people get worse?
I'm fascinated every day, like how does it get worse?

(46:00):
How does it get worse? How does it get worse?
As we're recording, this DC is essentially being occupied, right,
You have the FBI, you have the National Guard being deployed,
you have a houseless people being told they need to
get out. Where does someone like yourself go in this
direction when challenging is going to affect literally where you live.

Speaker 4 (46:25):
It's I mean, it's just so ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (46:27):
Like the most cynical response is just to feel like, ah,
like this is just because he's trying to, you know,
steer away up attention from the Epstein files, and regardless
of what the actual explanation is, the fact matters it's happening.
I'm sure like there's plenty of people in this administration
who love this solely on ideological grounds, barring any distractions
they're trying to make, because both parties and certain respects

(46:48):
have to be clear, not I may this is a
both sides things, so cove it right away, but just
have allowed DC to remain fledgling in this way, to
remain largely subject to the efforts of Congress, such that
in the Biden administration there were overtures and efforts by
administration to combat crime re forms that were being done
locally by the DC Council. And so wait say that again.

(47:12):
So there were crime reforms that were pursued by the
DC Council in twenty twenty three, but reforms.

Speaker 1 (47:18):
In what way like more cops or like no no, no.

Speaker 3 (47:21):
More sorts of more resources kind of thing, like they
were not punitive measures, so to speak, generally speak okay,
got it. And so the bid demonstration and sort of
Congress generally efforted to sort of stop those and so
all to say that these seeds were there such that
the Trump administration doesn't, you know.

Speaker 4 (47:39):
See this as completely out of nowhere.

Speaker 3 (47:40):
Of course, they're not citing the Biden administration's efforts as
inspiration per se, Like this is way beyond the pale
of that. So to be clear, dear listeners are not
equating those at all, but all to say that this
is I think just another example for which the opposition
party can stand affirmatively for something such as sanctifying if
not DC is a state, because I know there are

(48:01):
like obviously challenges to that that go beyond just the Democrats,
but just like sanctifying DC's power and role to govern themselves,
that is something that you can pursue and advocate for
if nothing else rhetorically such that something like this would
feel even more risky for the Trump and ministry to pursue,
Like I think, like it is like morally and sort
of like materially like scary and dangerous, but politically they

(48:26):
seem to be just so comfortable doing a lot of
these things. Sometimes not all the time. Sometimes it's just
because they're crazy and they'll do whatever. Sometimes they're control
because like they feel that there isn't there's sort of
this already pre baked opposition to the actions they're going
to taste. So a good example of this, for example,
is when we think of like Medicare and social security
cuts in some respects, they pursue them anyways, but they have.

Speaker 4 (48:48):
To do so much more work to.

Speaker 3 (48:50):
Disguise the fact that they're doing that. Yeah, because the
opposition has done a good job of telling peop about
you know, like this is a good thing and they
believe it because for a lot of people it's very
important to them that they they have these benefits.

Speaker 1 (49:00):
Whereas with immigration they were like.

Speaker 4 (49:02):
Yes, exactly, exactly.

Speaker 1 (49:04):
Whatever, you don't like these peop believe there guys.

Speaker 4 (49:06):
Right right exactly.

Speaker 3 (49:08):
So they have not done that sort of legwork to
justify the things that they say they believe in. They haven't,
in simple terms, used that conviction to tell people that, yeah,
like this stuff is also worth defending. Whether it's immigrant rights,
whether it's due process and free speech, whether it's DC
home rule. All these things are things that people can
have sort of passively, if not actively, believe in them

(49:30):
as things worth defending. And sometimes I find that Republicans
of the Trump administration especially view which things don't have
that sort of fore grounded basis or a backgrounded basis
rather and then they exploit it and of course then
do these incredibly risky, horrible things, And so I don't know,
it's another example for which, like I want to obviously

(49:53):
honor the fact that like this isn't all the Democrats fault,
but to understand that, like there's pretexts for the such
that if they were there earlier, we would be in
a different spot. And I mean you could say, more broadly,
if they were there earlier, Donald trum might not be
president to be doing.

Speaker 4 (50:07):
This at all.

Speaker 1 (50:08):
I've been saying this every day, Bram. People don't want
to hear it.

Speaker 3 (50:13):
I'll get curious, like how you view this, I imagine
you will feel similar. But these criticisms I find when
we say them, whatever they might be, you know, I'm generalizing,
it's meant to be you know, goodwill and good advice
such that, like I'm not saying this to be needlessly
combat it for no reason, Like my hobby is not
picking fighting dignants, right, yeah, exactly, Like I whenever I

(50:34):
have an opinion on these things with regards to the
dangers of trump Ism, it's in the interest of standing
against it, Yes, And I wish, you know, people would
approach these conversations with some of that goodwill that I
think we are at least trying to exhibit as well
that I think we have a lot of the same concerns.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
This goes back to my feeling that the United States
is not well, it's not a country that honors ducation
for all. It's not a country that consumer. Is it
like fashionable or stylish or even attractive to have knowledge?

Speaker 1 (51:04):
You know, you go to other places and it's.

Speaker 2 (51:06):
Like ooh, you read books, you know, like this is
not a sapio sexual set of states. And so what's
actually more aligned with this country is convenience and simply
a false sense of I believe it to be false,
but they believe it to be a real sense of

(51:27):
security that is representational of like their own moral standing.
So I think so many people their patriotism is well,
if I believe they're good, then that's a reflection of
me being good, and then I don't have to worry
about anything else, and I'm off the hook. And I
can admit that I think there was genuinely a certain
level of that that I was adhering to myself until

(51:48):
I had to like check myself and be like, no, like,
you're not off the hook.

Speaker 1 (51:51):
You are here and you are.

Speaker 2 (51:53):
Seeing this, and you can't keep lying to yourself that
it's not being caused by these sources.

Speaker 1 (51:59):
Or it's not being stopped by these sources.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
So I think when it comes to this like the
basics of like sharing information, I feel people say to
me all the time like, well, you're just complaining, but
you're not telling us what to do. And I'm like, well,
that's just news. That's literally just the news, Like this
is happening. When I tell people like, hey, they're come
into DC, they're occupying DC, I had so many folks

(52:27):
and I don't know are they people or are they
bots saying you're such a negative Nancy, You're just being negative,
You're being an alarmist. At the same token, I've seen
real people want to continue to pretend that we are
not facing fascists. That word feels very frightening to them.

(52:47):
It's easier to avoid it than to lean into it. Yeah,
but I you know, my thing is, you know, fuck them.
I'm gonna beat it into their brains. And so I'm
here with them, so like it doesn't even benefit me
for folks to remain with their heads stuck in the
stand either, Like I'm not gonna act like there isn't
a certain level of also like.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
Hey, I'm here too.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
Yeah, And if it goes down and y'all are still
pretending I'm taking the l with you.

Speaker 3 (53:15):
Yeah, no, it's true. It's true what you said earlier
about the Wayne, which all this in certain spects can
view things and I guess for lack of ve terms,
so like it's just such a team manner of just
like yeah, like if I think they're good and I
support them, that makes me good. Like that just basic
formula way of like how people often view like politics
or or just society generally in America, Like.

Speaker 2 (53:34):
Just put a pin in that, Like that's the same
thing that people will do, like as a black person,
like I see this trend with Okay, this black person
got murdered by the police. We're gonna make them look
like a thug. And so now you don't have to
feel bad about them. They deserve this, and the cops
felt it, and now you feel it.

Speaker 1 (53:53):
So everyone's on the same page.

Speaker 3 (53:57):
Yeah, and so yeah, I mean that's a great example
of how many different ways that can manifest in a
very potentially negative manner. And what's so sad about that
is to your other point of just because of how
I think what you're getting out of how education is
in broad strokes of course you know who am I
to say this? But like I feel like in broad strokes,
in America, education is very often, if not passively, at

(54:19):
least actively viewed as just attachment to your livelihood and
essentially just your job.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
What do you mean, who are you to say this?

Speaker 2 (54:26):
You're here, It's true, it's true, you're more aware than
most by literally like your job.

Speaker 1 (54:33):
That's who you are to say this.

Speaker 4 (54:34):
Well, thank you, but shit, thank you.

Speaker 3 (54:36):
That's very nice. But I think like when we view
schooling and education and learning as just largely just high
for your job and what happens next in the chapters
of your life in a very sort of clinical manner,
that of course, like it is obviously true that like
school is not great for everyone when it comes to
their job, their livelihood, when it comes to what they
would like to do with their daily life. That's obviously true,

(54:58):
and that's great. But can be more than that, Like
education can be more than just how you make your money.
It can be about how you exist or wrongside the
people that you share your country with, let alone the
planet with who might be educated a different way than you.

Speaker 1 (55:10):
And in other nations this is practiced.

Speaker 3 (55:13):
Yeah, and so when we view education in that way,
we then might also feel maybe a little less predisposed
to also view our politics and our social life in
such sort of like siloed out team ways, where like
you just view things a bit more richly or a
bit more complicated, such that you know things are worthy
of increase, things are worthy of intellectual generosity and curiosity

(55:36):
and grace, and just the sense that like, maybe the
way things are don't have to be this way, and
maybe I don't have to, like because they're only you know,
two or three or however many sides on an issue,
I don't have to fall into one of those categories.
And I think that'd be a lot easier to have
that sensibility among more people if we also viewed education
as not just tied to your job, as something that

(55:56):
we can all practice and get something out of that
is more spiritual and human than just well, you do
four years here, four years there, and then you got
your job, and then you have your job forty years
and then you retire. Yep, there's got to be more
to this experience of knowing each other than just that.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
The last Well, I appreciate the work that you do
and how it educates I think that also is part
of it, is seeing that our education exists beyond a
classroom and seeing our interactions and where information is being

(56:39):
received from is all a part of what is shaping
us and what is also inspiring us and encouraging us
to act. And so I take it like I didn't
grow up in a world with social media. However, social
media is a huge part of people's education at this point.

Speaker 1 (56:58):
I mean, I can if I site here.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
Right now and I say, you know, I just don't
know enough about the Ottoman Empire. I don't have to
go anywhere, I don't have to go anywhere, and I
can put together a pretty solid rendering on the Ottoman
Empire and like a matter of hours because of this access.

Speaker 1 (57:17):
So you know, you are a part of that.

Speaker 2 (57:19):
And I think it's great that you see yourself as
a moral aspect of that. You see morality in that,
because I think that's so lacking in where I see
journalism going. And I hope that you are imparting this
to your peers and to younger folks too, because like
that's the other thing. It has to be like a
pay it forward kind of coalition element, you know, Like

(57:42):
I see it in like Kate Pritzker and Eugene per
Year from BT News, like it's very like, we take
this seriously. We are not going to pretend that we're
not socialists. We are basically communists and this is the
news today. But again, I wanted to have this conversation
with you because I feel like it's important for people
to just literally hear what it is like to be

(58:04):
in the belly of the beast and still manage to
keep your heart.

Speaker 4 (58:09):
So thank you, thank you.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
I don't want to have to come back and be like,
remember when Pram was on the podcast, look at him there.

Speaker 1 (58:18):
So this is.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
Now on record, Yeah, let's keep the one hundre it. No,
I appreciate it very much, and I will say like,
quite genuinely, I think it's a lot easier to keep
my heart and keep my soul surrounded by people like
you and others that are kind of you know, in
the sphere that you know, maintain this commitment to a morality,
this commitment to justice, and this sense that despite all

(58:39):
the horrors, we're here, yes, and we are also we
might be subject to these horrors, we might be just
witnesses to them. And if we're just witnesses. We have
to do as much as we can to make sure
those that are victims to these horrors know that there's
someone out there that cares about them and so if
nothing else that can accross at the end of day,
to show people that there is care out there for them,

(59:03):
and that hopefully that care can manifest enough such that
they won't need it anymore, that they'll be okay too.

Speaker 1 (59:10):
Listen, you can't just see the light. You got to
be the light.

Speaker 2 (59:12):
Promise me that if you feel yourself being pulled and
having your integrity questioned, that you will step away knowing
that and this is a true fact, knowing that when
you stand on your integrity, it's gonna suck for a
little bit, but it never fails to be worth it ever,
like never fails. So I say that as somebody who

(59:35):
has lived in that and I.

Speaker 1 (59:38):
Just want to see that for everybody. So prem thank
you so much for joining us, and keep up the
good work.

Speaker 3 (59:44):
Thanks bunch.

Speaker 1 (59:45):
I appreciate your service.