From Apathy to Action: Engaging in the Legislative Process with Maaria Mozaffar
Who determines the essence of justice, and who is conspicuously absent from this crucial discourse? In our latest conversation on Perfect Union Pending, we are privileged to engage with Attorney Mariah Mossaffar, a veritable champion of civil rights and a legislative strategist whose life’s work epitomizes the intersection of law, equity, and civic empowerment. Through her extensive advocacy, Mariah endeavors to make policymaking an accessible and inclusive process, particularly for those historically marginalized. She imparts her expertise not only by drafting policy but also by actively teaching communities how to participate in shaping it. Join us as we delve into the intricacies of advocacy and the profound impact that informed civic engagement can have on the fabric of democracy, reminding us that our voices are not only heard but essential in the pursuit of justice.
The discourse navigates the intricate landscape of justice, a realm often dictated by those in power, leaving marginalized voices unheard. Mariah Mossaffar, an esteemed civil rights advocate, dedicates her life to redefining the parameters of justice through proactive engagement in legislative processes. Her commitment transcends mere policy writing; she empowers communities to articulate their needs, facilitating a grassroots approach to advocacy. The episode intricately weaves Mossaffar's experiences, underscoring the importance of civic engagement and the transformative potential of actively participating in the democratic process. Through her work, she elucidates how the legal framework can be reshaped to foster equity and inclusion, challenging listeners to reconsider their role within the political sphere and to reclaim the narrative of justice as a collective endeavor rather than a passive acceptance of the status quo.
Takeaways:
- The fundamental question of who defines justice remains a pivotal issue in society.
- Mariah Mossaffar's extensive advocacy emphasizes empowering marginalized voices in policy discussions.
- Engaging directly with legislative processes is essential for meaningful societal change and civic participation.
- Policies should not merely serve as temporary solutions but must address the underlying conditions of societal issues.
Links referenced in this episode:
Transcript
Who decides what justice looks like?
Speaker A:And who gets left out of that conversation entirely?
Speaker A:Today on Perfect Union Pending, we're joined by someone who has made it her life's mission to answer those questions, not just in theory, but in the real, messy, often exclusionary world of policymaking.
Speaker A:Attorney Mariah Mossaffar is a civil rights advocate, legislative strategist, an interfaith bridge builder who has spent decades making power accessible to those who've been historically locked out.
Speaker A:She doesn't just write policy.
Speaker A:She teaches communities how to shape it.
Speaker A:Her work lives at the intersection of law, equity, and civic courage, Whether she's pushing back against surveillance policies, designing grassroots legislative campaigns, or walking into state houses with people who've never set foot in one before.
Speaker A:Mariah brings legal fluency, cultural competency, and a deep sense of purpose to every fight.
Speaker A:So if you've ever felt like democracy, is something happening to you rather than with you?
Speaker A:This episode is your invitation back into the room.
Speaker A:Maria Massifar joins us now.
Speaker A:Let's dive in.
Speaker B:Hello.
Speaker A:Hello.
Speaker A:How are you?
Speaker B:I'm good.
Speaker B:And Taylor, it's Maria.
Speaker A:Maria, I'm so sorry.
Speaker A:It's the.
Speaker B:Oh, that's okay.
Speaker A:I find your story very interesting because there's not too many people that know about policymaking, right?
Speaker A:Too many people that are involved in that process as far as, like, outside the legal world and, like, outside of Congress.
Speaker A:Like, I have a friend who's an attorney, and I was asking her about if she had.
Speaker A:If she followed congressional politics, and she's like, and she's an attorney, so it's not like it could be outside of her wheelhouse.
Speaker A:And it's funny because she's like, no, she doesn't.
Speaker A:And I looked at that, and I went, how can you not, though?
Speaker A:I look at that because I'm an attorney, that this is an extension of what I do, Right.
Speaker A:Like, paying attention to what happens in Congress affects what I do as an attorney from a policy perspective.
Speaker A:And so, because I also teach business law down at a community college south of where my office is.
Speaker A:And so I like to keep my students informed, not just about the business part of it, but also about the policies and the representatives and the things that affect their lives, right?
Speaker A:Because so many people don't have a touch with the law unless they're either being sued or they're getting something bad has happened and they're trying to figure out a way to make the law work better for them.
Speaker A:And so too many people don't understand that the law touches their lives and that there's A reason why I used to say to my class, I used to say, they will never gut Social Security.
Speaker A:I used to say that because the people that showed up were the people, the older generation, the baby boomers, that type of thing.
Speaker A:The greatest generation, all of those, because they showed up to the polls.
Speaker A:They're the ones that voted.
Speaker A:And I would tell my class, I said, you guys by far, demographically, are significantly larger than the baby boomers and the greatest generation, right?
Speaker A:And Gen X.
Speaker A:The problem is you guys don't show up.
Speaker A:So politicians don't care what you like.
Speaker A:They don't care about you.
Speaker A:They don't care not because they shouldn't care.
Speaker A:It's because who votes.
Speaker A:Now, that's kind of been thrown by the wayside with the most recent administration, but it is not it.
Speaker A:It's still who shows up to the polls has the most control.
Speaker A:And as far as our thing is.
Speaker A:But people don't understand.
Speaker A:There's so much they don't understand about voting, how it affects their lives directly and indirectly.
Speaker A:Like the fact that how many people didn't show up to the most recent election?
Speaker A:More people did not show up to the most recent election.
Speaker A:Most.
Speaker A: hen I say most recent, I mean: Speaker A:That AP medical scenario had hurt our country significantly because they thought both candidates were bad.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:They didn't even want to bother showing up.
Speaker A:And a lot of them have been questioned since then, and they've said, maybe I made a mistake in not showing up.
Speaker A:Maybe I should have showed up.
Speaker A:And I think that's so important that we recognize that and we give them the.
Speaker A:The grace that they deserve.
Speaker A:Yes, we have to fight for the right.
Speaker A:We have to do these things.
Speaker A:But you know what, what we have to remember is everybody made a decision based upon what they thought was right at the time.
Speaker A: ting on the wall that Project: Speaker A:They thought, you know, it couldn't be any worse than the last time and the last time we survived.
Speaker A:You know, that was one of their reasons.
Speaker A:But here we are.
Speaker A:So I guess what sparked your decision to step into the world of legislative advocacy?
Speaker B:So I stepped in 20 years ago and I stepped into legislative advocacy because I understand.
Speaker B:Well, I understood and I understand that to change circumstances on the ground in real time and to affect people's lives in a very serious way, you have to change legislative code.
Speaker B:It doesn't happen through political rhetoric.
Speaker B:I Think voting is one part of it.
Speaker B:I think you vote, you make your voice heard, and then you start the process of engaging with your elected official to create policies that you want to see implemented.
Speaker B:Sometimes those policies have to come from outside the office, meaning community leaders and community members have to think about how we can change our own circumstances.
Speaker B:And community members are in a very unique position to be able to do that, because elected officials have political donors, and that's reality.
Speaker B:And so political donors have an influence on what policy is put forth, what bill moves faster, what gets stalled, what sits in committee.
Speaker B:And so once you understand all of that, you have to identify, am I going to play this role by just providing money to these elected officials for their campaigns and then use that power to make my policies a reality?
Speaker B:Or.
Speaker B:Or am I gonna create coalitions and bring forth really good ideas, really, really good ideas that are creative, that can inspire a new way of solving problems and bring that to the table.
Speaker B:That would inspire the elected official to say, yeah, I want my name on that.
Speaker B:And I think that's what community members have to do if they want to ease that tension that we have with money and politics.
Speaker A:I think that you bring up two very valid points, and I would probably guess you're not a big fan of Citizens United because of the money factor that it now introduced.
Speaker A:Significantly more opportunity for fraud and bias.
Speaker A:Now we have money that can be used, dark money, to hurt our voting.
Speaker A:Where it used to be, it was more directed towards the individual, but now we have money that can be used inappropriately, and that's a form of speech.
Speaker A:And I think that that's something that we have to address going forward, that we should find a way to congressionally as well as constitutionally, you know, get people back to one person, one vote.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Not you have a thousand votes because you have $1,000 to throw at a congressional candidate.
Speaker A:And I'm oversimplifying it a bit, but.
Speaker B:Yeah, you know, yeah, I agree.
Speaker B:And I think money and politics is a nonpartisan issue on both sides of the aisle.
Speaker B:So I think that's a very powerful talking point to be able to bridge the divide and then move into actual policymaking.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:I think, you know, one thing that you said earlier that I wanted to address is that you talked about the apathy of young people and not voting.
Speaker B:And I think that I would challenge that.
Speaker B:I think it's not an apathy of not voting.
Speaker B:I think that there are strong opinions.
Speaker B:I think they're strong opinions and they're strong.
Speaker B:No desires to have elected Officials do what they need to do and take some stances.
Speaker B:And I think that young people are recognizing the duplicity of language and they're also recognizing that sometimes a lot of these elected officials are controlled by their donors.
Speaker B:And I think that's what they're reacting to.
Speaker B:I don't think it's apathy.
Speaker B:I think it's understanding that the system has to change and that it's a form of dissent.
Speaker B:Now, I think if you are constantly engaging through that process, even before elections, if you're consistently talking to elected officials, if you're consistently saying, listen, this is not right in my state, this is unjust in my state, this is happening in my county, in my community, and you have a relationship, when you consistently are in that space where you take on that responsibility when it comes time for elections, you really can't afford not to vote because you're already in that system, you're already communicating.
Speaker B:So I really encourage, like, if you're in a position where you don't want to vote because you're so just disappointed by the candidates and so disappointed by the elected officials, move into that policy making space as a community member because then you'll see how these negotiations are made.
Speaker B:You know, what stakeholders come to the table and which elected official is willing to open the room, the different stakeholders that you align with.
Speaker B:And then you will have somebody to vote for because you know how that policy process works and you've had a hand in it, you know, through the process.
Speaker B:And you've had a hand in it that's separate from money.
Speaker B:Right, right.
Speaker B:They're separate from money because you have identified a certain issue and either this candidate or elected official moved on it, you know, by introducing a bill, or they didn't, or they ignored you.
Speaker B:So that will be an indication to you if they're responsive to your agenda.
Speaker A:Well, and I think it's interesting that you propose a more active role as opposed to the passive role that comes with donating money.
Speaker A:And I think that that's an important distinction that as I was growing up, I was raised conservative Republican.
Speaker A:Education brought me to more of a liberal centrist, if you will.
Speaker A:But more to the point, that was just what we did.
Speaker A:When I turned 18, I went to the polls with my parents.
Speaker A:My parents took me to the polls.
Speaker A:And I think that there's an entire generation of people that that wasn't necessarily true, that they weren't raised just okay, hey, you're 18, you vote.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And I think that's what I meant by apathetic I think it's more that it was learned that, well, they're both bad candidates is some of the phrasing that I've heard from them, which isn't accurate.
Speaker A:It's not true.
Speaker A:If you start looking at their policy positions and their character and the things that they stand for and stood for, then you can see that it's not both candidates are never the same.
Speaker A:It's what they want you to do to build that apathy.
Speaker A:Because unfortunately, the people that win when fewer people show up are the ones that are fueling that type of rage or that type.
Speaker A:Not rage, that type of perspective.
Speaker A:Because otherwise, why wouldn't they encourage you to come to vote for them?
Speaker A:If they had the most outstanding policies in the entire world, why would you not vote for them?
Speaker A:I think that both sidesism is how we got to where we currently are, are with people saying, oh, well, they're both the same, they're both liars, they're both.
Speaker A:They don't tell the truth, or they both have bad policies.
Speaker A:Well, that's not accurate.
Speaker A:If you actually look at the policies.
Speaker A:You have to look at the policies, though.
Speaker A:You have to do your research and do your due diligence to say this is someone that is worth voting for.
Speaker A:And whether so many people would put aside the morality of Donald Trump because they thought he would be good on immigration, they thought he would be good for the economy.
Speaker A:Many of them.
Speaker A:I watched so many videos of people saying they don't even know what a tariff really was, and they thought that that was a good idea because other countries would pay these tariffs.
Speaker A:I'm not even sure Donald Trump knows what a tariff is truly, because of that nature, because he's spouting things that other countries are paying these tariffs when that's accurate, because how do you enforce that type of thing on another person?
Speaker A:So what does that look like in practice as far as.
Speaker A:Like, how do we take a policy and how do we put that into writing in order to have a congressperson?
Speaker A:Because I've heard stories where people.
Speaker A:There was one particular.
Speaker A:She had been a victim of sexual abuse at school.
Speaker A:And so she wrote her own legislative paper and took it and got it with her congressperson and basically was a complete, total advocate.
Speaker A:And now there's sexual assault reporting on school campuses that hadn't happened.
Speaker B:Yeah, that's how it's done.
Speaker B:That's how it's done.
Speaker B:That's what I do.
Speaker B:That's 100% how it's done.
Speaker B:It's totally doable.
Speaker B:Everybody can do it.
Speaker B:And you're talking about a case in Harvard where the young girl was.
Speaker B:Yes, and she took it upon herself and she made a case for it, and she testified at the hearing.
Speaker B:And.
Speaker B:And it's just an example of the fact that you, as a citizen, as somebody in the community, is watching in real time the impact of something that may be unjust against you or the community.
Speaker B:And instead of waiting for it to be on the radar, the agenda of the elected official, you have to take it upon yourself and recognize, is it in it?
Speaker B:Is it on your radar?
Speaker B:You know, is it on your agenda?
Speaker B:And is it okay for you to inconvenience yourself and take that on?
Speaker B:And my answer is it's not inconvenience.
Speaker B:It's an obligation, because we are going to be responsible and we are responsible for the.
Speaker B:For the world that we create around us, for our kids.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:So if you are seeing something that sits unwell and you feel like, you know, it's just not my fight, kind of lean back and say, okay, so whose fight is it going to be in five or 10 years?
Speaker B:It's probably going to be somebody coming down the road that has less resources, is younger and.
Speaker B:And maybe your own kids.
Speaker B:And so don't you want to pave a way?
Speaker B:Don't you want to take.
Speaker B:I always feel like, don't you want to move that stone out of the road so your child can walk through without this obstacle?
Speaker B:And so when we have that idea in our mind, it's not an issue of what side of the aisle you are on, who you agree with or disagree with.
Speaker B:It's not about that at all.
Speaker B:It's about how do we solve the problem that's ahead of us.
Speaker B:And I would say something that you talked about is pushing the encouragement of apathy so you could win elections so people don't come out and vote against you.
Speaker B:There's also pushing a message of powerlessness that exists that people can actually start to believe and say, we actually do not have the power to make change.
Speaker B:We do not have the power to have an impact.
Speaker B:And so we're going to sit back and we're going to just, you know, stay in our lane.
Speaker B:Our lane, 100% is in the lane of civic engagement.
Speaker B:That is our lane.
Speaker B:If you are contributing as a.
Speaker B:As a human being, if you're breathing, if you're eating, you know, if you're taking.
Speaker B:Taking up space, you are in that lane.
Speaker B:The only thing you have to decide is whether you're going to be the recipient of everybody else's Decisions that may be unfair to you and unfair to others or.
Speaker B:Or you're going to advocate to be able to say, no, no, this is not.
Speaker B:This is not the life I want.
Speaker B:This is not the home I want.
Speaker B:This, not the streets I want.
Speaker B:These are not the schools I want.
Speaker B:And once we take that on, it's amazing what we can do.
Speaker B:I'm so glad that you brought up that example of that sexual assault on that day and that I think it was date rape that happened on campus at Harvard, because what an amazing way to use your privilege and your.
Speaker B:Your voice and your experience to be able to advocate for others.
Speaker B:Not only did she change what was going to come for other people, but she changed her own circumstance as well by taking what had happened to her and make it a point of empowerment, you know, and so that is what we need to encourage in you beyond just voting.
Speaker B:What are you voting for?
Speaker B:What are your values?
Speaker B:What do you want to change?
Speaker B:What do you want to create?
Speaker B:Which candidate looks like they are the type that would open the door to you to a discussion, right, that thinks outside the box, that does not just nod to political donors.
Speaker B:Which candidate is open to that?
Speaker B:Which candidate has come to your community, to your town hall, to your synagogue, to your mosque, to your church?
Speaker B:Which one?
Speaker B:Because it will tell you so.
Speaker B:You know, we just watched.
Speaker B:I don't know when the audience is going to see this episode, but we just watched this press conference with Donald Trump and Mamdani, and I think it's a very interesting conversation for.
Speaker B:For youth to see, because when you're focused on solving problems and, and your desire is to have a result that's beyond political rhetoric, it's infectious.
Speaker B:And everyone will get out of the way and everyone will get in line to help you.
Speaker B:You know, And I think that is what we need to remind people when they feel apathy or they feel powerlessness, that it is a.
Speaker B:It is a fraudulent message that you are powerless.
Speaker B:Yeah, it's a fraudulent message.
Speaker B:And it really works for people to do what they need to do without having to answer to you.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:And you are this.
Speaker B:You are the one that is a constituent.
Speaker B:They work for you, right?
Speaker B:So if you want them to answer to you, tell them that you're watching.
Speaker B:Tell them that you're.
Speaker B:You're the boss.
Speaker B:Tell them that you.
Speaker B:You can, you know, you can get rid of them in their position and focus on how you can solve problems.
Speaker B:Because people on different sides of the aisle will come together and recognize that sincere intention.
Speaker B:They'll recognize it and Move political rhetoric out of the way, which is, I think has been why I've been able to be successful in my legislative work, is because the rhetoric was left to the side.
Speaker B:It was not necessary.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:I interviewed Dr. Annie Andrews, who is the Senate candidate for Southern California, or, sorry, Southern South Carolina, and some of her perspective was very much of that, let's solve problems rather than tribalism.
Speaker A:And I think that that's such a valuable part.
Speaker A:And you're right with the Mondami Mum Donnie interview that happened.
Speaker A:Politics aside, he even was able to charm Donald Trump, which he left the Oval Office a few.
Speaker A:A friend rather than an enemy.
Speaker A:And that just goes to not only Mamdani's character, but also to the fact that, yeah, when you attack problems, it's a whole lot harder to attack the people.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:When you're looking at saying, let's address gun issues, which was what I was talking with Dr. Andrews about when we were talking about those types of things.
Speaker A:This should be a bipartisan issue.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, this should be a human issue, that we shouldn't be allowing children to be murdered in their schools.
Speaker A:Schools.
Speaker A:That should be a fundamental.
Speaker A:Just like with the Epstein files, it should be a fundamental thing that children, we should be the adults.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:We should be the adults, and we should do everything we can in our power to protect our children and the children's children and never have them have to deal with the travesty, the horror.
Speaker A:As a parent of six myself, I couldn't imagine not being the one taking the bullet for my children.
Speaker A:That's what we do.
Speaker A:We make the world better for our families, for the people that we love.
Speaker A:And we have to be in that fight.
Speaker A:Because otherwise, what good does the value of my upbringing mean if I can't take that and say, you deserve better than what I had?
Speaker A:I'm not saying I had the worst, but you deserve better.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:But what you're saying, Taylor, is.
Speaker B:Is really amazing because language and storytelling and being able to relate the issue beyond political rhetoric is such a necessity.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:And I think people respond to families and human.
Speaker B:To human situations and children.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:And we have to always go back to that.
Speaker B:Not just to persuade somebody, but.
Speaker B:But I would say to bring it back home.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Bring it back to base level, you know?
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:And I mean, I would say the same.
Speaker B:I say the same thing about the ICE detentions that are happening.
Speaker B:And I always say it's not about legalities alone.
Speaker B:It's not about just, are they illegal or not?
Speaker B:You know, did they break the law now?
Speaker B:Okay, we understand that.
Speaker B:We completely understand that there's people who break the law, that there's people who don't.
Speaker B:There's people that are nonviolent people that are.
Speaker B:But it's the way that you go about your process that matters.
Speaker B:If your process is dehumanizing, if your process is flawed, then it won't matter what the legalities are anymore.
Speaker B:And that's what we ended up seeing because We've seen now 170 US citizens behind bars in detention, and a lot of them wrongly detained and then released.
Speaker B:And we've seen children zip tied, you know, in Chicago, we've seen children left by the side of the road and the parents taken.
Speaker B:These are dehumanizing practices.
Speaker B:So once you allow that to happen, that it's a slippery slope.
Speaker B:Yeah, it's a slippery slope because that's when that.
Speaker B:When the law gets, you know, then the rule following the rule of law is not happening.
Speaker B:And I would say, you know, to use the term about families and children and responsibility and dehumanizing is a very powerful way to communicate about these things because then we can see these things as humans and not coming from a political rhetoric angle like, of course you're going to blame it on this.
Speaker B:You know, there we go.
Speaker B:There are the Democrats, there are the Republicans.
Speaker B:There they go again.
Speaker B:They have those four talking points and they stick to it.
Speaker B:And people respond that way because that's how we communicate.
Speaker B:If we actually communicated and humanizing terms in compassionate terms and understanding, like, how do we actually solve the problem without demonizing individuals?
Speaker B:It changes the whole ball game because every Republican has a child and every Democrat has a child.
Speaker B:You know, every independent has a child.
Speaker B:They can understand that.
Speaker B:We can all understand that.
Speaker A:And we were once children ourselves.
Speaker B:And we were once children ourselves.
Speaker B:Absolutely.
Speaker A:Did you ever see the movie Ratatouille?
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker A:Okay, so the scene that I'm remembering was the scene when he makes ratatouille for Anton Ego.
Speaker A:Because what it did is at first he was very anti that anyone could cook.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:You know, he was very egotistical, Anton Ego.
Speaker A:But then when he tasted and he was brought back to his childhood of his mother making so powerful.
Speaker A:It was so powerful.
Speaker A:Because that's what I feel like we need more of.
Speaker A:We need more of these policymakers, these lawmakers to be brought back to a time when they felt that they were either safe.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Because a lot of this comes from fear or that they have this fond memory of something where we can say to them, look, we want to provide this Idyllic childhood for more children.
Speaker A:And the gun laws that are currently on the books are not consistent with that.
Speaker A:How can we solve this problem?
Speaker A:To give more children the childhood that you had, or the opposite of that?
Speaker A:How can we provide, how can we make gun legislation so that it's safer for children to not grow up afraid of guns and afraid of having to do active shooter drills?
Speaker A:I mean, I didn't have to do active shooter drills when I was a kid.
Speaker A:Why can't we go back to that?
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:With the same safety in mind?
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:I'm not talking about, unfortunately we have to have them, but why do we, why can't we create legislation that can preserve our children's childhood where your children don't have to have an active shooter drill in order to be safe?
Speaker A:Why do we have to teach children how to barricade a door in order to be safe?
Speaker A:Why are we putting the responsibility on the children when we should be putting it on the people that are in positions to make those types of decisions?
Speaker B:That's I agree with.
Speaker B:And we can go back.
Speaker B:We can, we can take a few steps back.
Speaker B:We can figure out whether the role of policy is to solve problems in the condition they, in the conditions and facing the conditions that exist today.
Speaker B:And that's the only angle we take.
Speaker B:That's the only, you know, what's the word?
Speaker B:That's the only way we look at things.
Speaker B:I would say simply.
Speaker B:Or we also take it upon ourselves to change the conditions themselves.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So, for example, if it's the same thing as like health care, it's like, do you actually change your lifestyle or do you just take medication?
Speaker B:It's the same thing.
Speaker A:Right, right, right.
Speaker B:So it's like, how do we change the conditions itself?
Speaker B:So if you look at.
Speaker B:I would take any shit, I would take any share.
Speaker B:If you take an issue of criminal justice reform, let's say.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And recidivism, look at the conditions what led to the communities that are victims of recidivism.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Don't just say we're going to just figure out how to like, you know, make, make this transition smoother and get them back into the communities.
Speaker B:Well, have you thought about the fact that when they get back to the communities, they're coming in with felonies on their records.
Speaker B:It's, it's almost like they can't enter back into life.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And then they have goods to play and they have, they have bills to pay and they have families to support.
Speaker B:So let's talk about the conditions that exist And I think that's what's very, very critical, whether it be food deserts, whether it be education, whether it be, you know, criminal justice reform in a way that.
Speaker B:That.
Speaker B:That affects humans in and out, in and outside prison.
Speaker B:It's always, how do we change the conditions themselves instead of putting a band aid?
Speaker B:And I think, interestingly, a lot of times laws are passed to be band Aids.
Speaker B:They don't.
Speaker B:They don't solve the problem itself.
Speaker B:And so that's what's very, very, very critical.
Speaker B:And I think I'm able to see.
Speaker B:I've been very blessed to be able to see people respond in a positive way when they are given, given that reality check, that we can actually change these conditions.
Speaker B:We don't have to accept them as they are.
Speaker B:You know, I'll give you an example.
Speaker B:For example, in Illinois, actually throughout the country, Illinois was the first, there were tons of athletes in high school and middle school for years that followed a very strict uniform code.
Speaker B:And if you were not able to wear this uniform, you could not play sports.
Speaker B:And if you think about tons and tons of children coming into the public school system and the private school system, and they're from different backgrounds, different ethnicities, different religious observations, they're not allowed to wear certain uniforms in a certain way.
Speaker B:It's a very simple thing, okay?
Speaker B:It's not a.
Speaker B:It's not a criminal justice issue or a political issue.
Speaker B:They're just not allowed to wear shorts, or they have to wear a veil hijab on their head, or some parents want them to wear leggings.
Speaker B:You know, different cultures, different ethnicities.
Speaker B:They're excellent athletes.
Speaker B:These young children come into campus knowing that this is not a world for them, right?
Speaker B:And when you come into school, there are identities and there are messages of belonging that are sent to you very early in your life.
Speaker B:So automatically, you're an outsider.
Speaker B:You're an outsider, and that you will carry for the rest of your life within this nation, within your environment.
Speaker B:And so in Illinois, I was trying to think about how can we actually solve this problem, because we heard this so many from parents that, you know, their children aren't able to participate.
Speaker B:So we wrote a law to modify those uniforms and to say it's the athletic skill, it's not the uniform.
Speaker B:You know, as long as you are in color code.
Speaker B:And you should be allowed to modify your uniform based on ethnic, religious, and comfort.
Speaker B:You know, modesty.
Speaker B:I mean, this.
Speaker B:That has nothing to do with religion.
Speaker B:Modesty is, like, across the board.
Speaker B:You know, I heard from tons of Catholic parents That were like, we hate these volleyball uniforms for our girls.
Speaker B:Tons and tons of.
Speaker B:So it's across the board.
Speaker B:So we passed that in Illinois called the Inclusive Athletic Attire Act.
Speaker B:And then it's being replicated around the country.
Speaker B:It's very simple.
Speaker B:It's very, very simple.
Speaker B:And I got a message just yesterday, just yesterday from a mom saying, I'm sitting in the bleachers, my daughter is playing in a tournament.
Speaker B:She didn't mention what sport it was in her message.
Speaker B:And I keep thinking about you, that she is confidently playing this sport, fully covered, excelling.
Speaker B:And this is like something that she's enjoying.
Speaker B:And it's something so small.
Speaker B:But it's.
Speaker B:It changed.
Speaker B:It's changed the trajectory for kids coming into public schools now in athletic sports.
Speaker B:And it changes the idea of what it means to live in a global, multicultural, diverse, inclusive society, which the world is.
Speaker B:I want to just be very clear.
Speaker B:I say this all the time.
Speaker B:You know, the world is not one zip code.
Speaker B:You know, the world is not one area code.
Speaker B:So the world is actually multicultural.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:The world is multicultural.
Speaker B:We have different races, different ethnicities, different cultures.
Speaker B:So we are supposed to be independent, and we are created to be created to be different.
Speaker B:And so since the world is created like that, our daily life is supposed to reflect that and learn from those treasures and learn from those gifts.
Speaker B:So I want to create for the kids that are coming later.
Speaker B:But I say that in this way, is that for anyone who thinks that legislative and policy work is outside of their realm, just recognize that there are so many little things that can be changed that can change the.
Speaker B:The trajectory for so many people, you know, in so many ways.
Speaker B:You don't know.
Speaker B:It could be the next Muhammad Ali that comes out, you know, the next big tennis player that is.
Speaker B:That's fully covered, but amazing tennis player.
Speaker B:I mean, we're going to miss out on those people if we set limits like that.
Speaker B:Right, right.
Speaker A:And so, so many things.
Speaker A:So I taught in the.
Speaker A:In a local prison, one of my courses.
Speaker A:And so to give you a little bit of background, my bachelor's is in criminology and justice studies.
Speaker A:And there were a couple of.
Speaker A:When I was doing the interview, or when I was, I should say, I was doing the walk around of the prison, and the head of the program said to me, he said, you know, one of the people in your class literally had a gun put to his head and told if he didn't kill the person in front of him, he would be killed, and you and I will never have to deal with that type of choice, that type of possible consequence to do with it, does that make what he did right?
Speaker A:No, that doesn't make what he did right?
Speaker A:Was right.
Speaker A:He obviously made the choice to preserve himself.
Speaker A:But we've never had to deal with that type of decision that would have to be made.
Speaker A:And so I think politicians, I think people in general need to take a step back and look at and don't judge people by the outcome of their choices when you had no idea what the choices they had to decide on.
Speaker A:And more to the point, why can't we be tough on crime without being tough on criminals?
Speaker A:Right, Absolutely.
Speaker B:They're human beings.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:They're human beings who made a choice.
Speaker A:It doesn't make the choice.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:It doesn't make it necessarily good.
Speaker A:But at the same time, we don't know what they were facing.
Speaker A:Like a mother that steals formula should not have to spend, you know, years in jail for the sake of formula.
Speaker A:A person that's getting high.
Speaker A:In fact, I was watching a TED talk the other day about someone that was talking about addiction.
Speaker A:And we've thrown so much blessed money at the war on drugs and we are no better off now than we were when we started this stupid thing, right?
Speaker B:And we spent.
Speaker B:We didn't rehabilitate.
Speaker B:We didn't rehabilitate and we punished.
Speaker B:We.
Speaker B:I mean, addiction is a perfect example, actually.
Speaker B:Addiction is a perfect example because if your job is to improve lives and encourage people to be thriving individuals of community, then you need to give them resource to be able to do that.
Speaker B:You don't know why they fell into what they fell into.
Speaker B:And I came across this very early.
Speaker B:It's actually one of the first legislations I wrote.
Speaker B:Surprisingly full circle moment in this interview is one of the first legislations I wrote for a community organization that was trying to figure out why the kids on the south side of Chicago who had low level non violent drug offenses were getting felonies on their record.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And misdemeanors on their records as young kids while kids in the suburbs.
Speaker B:Kids in the suburbs when they had the same type of issue were sent to drug school, which is like a weekend school where they learn about the dangers of drug use and they go and they do a few hours every weekend, you know, for a few months, and they go back to school, school.
Speaker B:But these other kids on the south side of Chicago, you know, the disparity in race, were getting records.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:And so I think, I think it's so important to understand why was that disparity existing Right, right.
Speaker B:And so we created this legislation to have drug school be available in Cook county and provide people and resources.
Speaker B:But the reality is the person, the kid that's in the suburbs is no different than the kid that's on the south side of Chicago.
Speaker A:Exactly.
Speaker B:It's the different circumstances in that different environment.
Speaker B:And you are robbing them.
Speaker B:You are robbing them without giving them the opportunity to rehabilitate.
Speaker B:You know, And I think that I have a really strong feeling about the individuals that are incarcerated and the type of spiritual processes that they go through when there.
Speaker B:And I've met so many people that have become extremely educated while they're behind bars.
Speaker B:And they come out and they become such amazing people.
Speaker B:And we need to support and we need to encourage that type of.
Speaker B:That's what that time alone is.
Speaker B:You know, that's not.
Speaker B:That time alone is you're not putting them in a cage.
Speaker B:They're human beings.
Speaker B:You're not putting them in a cage.
Speaker B:You are putting them in an environment to self reflect, to go through this process of redemption and.
Speaker B:And regret and suffer the consequences, but it's also to still not take away their light.
Speaker B:You know, and one legislation that was really important to me that I was shocked by.
Speaker B:A lot of these individuals don't get access to chaplains.
Speaker B:And that's a huge thing because.
Speaker B:And that's why I say such a time of spiritual growth, when you're behind bars, these are human beings.
Speaker B:When you're at the lowest of your lowest is when you can improve the most as a human being.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:I mean, that's the whole purpose.
Speaker B:And so, like, having access to chaplaincy.
Speaker B:It was a legislation called Faith behind Bars.
Speaker B:Having access to chaplaincy, having the ability to pray, to be able to observe your religion, to be able to read books, and nobody should be restricted from that.
Speaker B:A lot of people say, who cares?
Speaker B:You know, they like people that committed crimes.
Speaker B:Who cares?
Speaker B:You don't get to decide who evolves and who doesn't.
Speaker B:You don't give.
Speaker B:You don't give life sentences to people when they're behind bars and stop their humanity.
Speaker B:You can imprison them for life.
Speaker B:They're still going to be there.
Speaker B:They're not dead.
Speaker B:They're not dead.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And so understanding that and recognizing that we're all interdependent and that there are pieces of our society that you may not see but are extremely, extremely important and valuable because one day they can come out and they can be powerful people.
Speaker B:So it's just, I think, look how varied the legislation that we just discussed.
Speaker B:Inclusive athletic attire act for a 14 year old to be able to play basketball, an incarcerated person to be able to pray and have chaplains, or a 12, 13 or a 16 year old kid that was, you know, at the wrong place at the wrong time at a party and had something in his hand, you know.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:In the sub.
Speaker B:They're all very different.
Speaker B:They're all very different, but they're very valuable individuals in our society.
Speaker B:And so I think once we start seeing policy that way, that it serves people that are valuable, it changes your mindset.
Speaker B:You know, it just gives you the responsibility to be able to solve as many problems as you can without falling into this political divide.
Speaker B:The political rhetoric and the partisan politics is the end of solving problems.
Speaker B:It's the end of it.
Speaker B:It's the end of it.
Speaker B:You're not gonna solve problems that way.
Speaker A:No.
Speaker A:Because you're too busy deciding that you're right rather than solving the problem that you could be solving.
Speaker B:Or who's wrong.
Speaker A:Or who's wrong.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Correct.
Speaker A:Correct.
Speaker A:And I think that who's been wrong?
Speaker B:Who's been wrong?
Speaker B:Let's just prove who's been wrong, who's in the record.
Speaker B:I mean, it's the same thing with the government shutdown.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Same thing with the government shutdown.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:It's them.
Speaker B:It's not us.
Speaker B:It's not them.
Speaker B:It's not us.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker B:That's awesome.
Speaker B:That's great.
Speaker B:How do you respond to the, to the, to the federal employee that has six kids that has to pay the bills.
Speaker B:What do they have to do with whose fault it is?
Speaker A:Exactly.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:It doesn't matter.
Speaker A:It doesn't matter.
Speaker B:It doesn't matter.
Speaker B:But they do happen to be your boss.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:So, I mean, I think we just have to, we have to look at things that way.
Speaker B:We have to look at policies as a way to humanize competing issues, divisive issues, and legislation as a way to halt dehumanization.
Speaker B:And I say that because every time you are comfortable with making people live with, with distressing circumstances, you have dehumanized them because you don't feel their life is as worthy as yours.
Speaker B:Whether it be whether they get health care, whether they get education, lead in their water or not let in their water.
Speaker B:This is all because you feel like that somebody needs to be protected and the other people can just go to the wayside because they're taking up space.
Speaker A:I think that comes from people thinking that life is a zero sum game.
Speaker B:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker A:That is a terrible way to look at life in business, you might think that as well.
Speaker A:But here's the thing.
Speaker A:Most people don't understand that Apple, Microsoft, fill in the blank.
Speaker A:Different companies don't have the same customer avatar.
Speaker A:I'm not trying to bring it back to business so much as I am trying to say that when you try to look at it as a market share or zero sum game, like a lot of people try to do, you're taking out that there's, there's incremental decisions that can be made, that.
Speaker A:Who was it?
Speaker A:It was A Beautiful Mind with, I believe his last name was Nash.
Speaker A:Russell Crowe was the character.
Speaker A:And he, you know, he introduced the theory that, you know, if everyone pursues the girl, nobody gets the girl.
Speaker A:Right, but if you have which, which would result in the zero sum game.
Speaker A:But if you have people that, that each person is designed to pursue someone different, Right, because we're all different, then we don't have to have zero sums.
Speaker A:Everybody wins, everybody gets what they want.
Speaker A:They have a partner, they have someone they love.
Speaker A:Fill in the blank.
Speaker A:It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
Speaker A:So why do our policies have to be zero sum policies?
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:Why do we have to put winners and losers when we could create?
Speaker A:I tell my students this, I blow their minds when I tell them this one thing.
Speaker A:And they're like, they look at me in almost disbelief.
Speaker A:They're like, no, you can't be serious.
Speaker A:I say, you know all laws are made up, right?
Speaker B:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker B:It's someone's idea.
Speaker A:Except for gravity and a few other laws of physics.
Speaker A:Idea.
Speaker B:It's someone's idea.
Speaker A:So why can't we change it?
Speaker B:It's someone's idea of what they define as social norms, right?
Speaker A:So what?
Speaker A:So why can't we change it?
Speaker A:If it's not working for us, then we should change it.
Speaker A:That's the point.
Speaker A:We shouldn't be stuck.
Speaker A:I mean, the brilliance of the Constitution.
Speaker A:Do you ever see Renaissance Man?
Speaker A:I love movies, by the way.
Speaker A:Can you tell, yeah, Renaissance man, when he talks to the snobby professor about what makes the Constitution great, and he said that it was because they knew that they needed to make mechanisms to allow the Constitution to change.
Speaker A:So these, these jurists and these politicians that are all like, constitutional, what is it?
Speaker A:Contextualists and all this other stuff that it's just, you know, forgive my language, but bullshit.
Speaker A:When you're like, seriously, the Constitution was meant to change.
Speaker A:That's why they have the amendment process.
Speaker B:Absolutely.
Speaker B:And it's a dynamic, It's A dynamic document.
Speaker B:What it.
Speaker B:It's a dynamic document, but you cannot erode the protections it gives.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker B:And that is the power of it.
Speaker B:So it's like, it's a dynamic document that is to expand based on the fact that there's equity in egalitarian society.
Speaker B:So you've seen it from the beginning, you know, with the erosion of slavery to the Civil Rights Act.
Speaker B:All of it is changing the norms.
Speaker B:And you saw in times when it was violated, when it was encroached upon, when it was undermined, the internment camps of Japanese Americans.
Speaker B:You know, the reason why I got into legislative drafting and policy making was because I was a law student during 9 11.
Speaker B:I was a law student during 9 11.
Speaker B:And I saw the passage of the Patriot Act.
Speaker B:And when I saw the passage of the Patriot act in real time, I was watching the erosion of probable cause and the surveillance through FISA and the Constitution being eroded in real time.
Speaker B:And you saw that across the country of Muslim Americans being under surveillance, which extended to many different communities as well.
Speaker B:But that actually showed me the power of legislative code.
Speaker B:Now, if you go forward to now and you see what's happening with the ICE detentions, the Supreme Court found that reasonable suspicion could replace probable cause when federal agents are questioning and detaining individuals.
Speaker B:That's a complete violation of the Constitution in which you cannot discriminate and detain someone based on their racial, ethnic identity or their religious identity.
Speaker B:But when people get scared, when people want to feel like, and I don't want to say when people get scared, I want to say when elected officials get scared that they are not seeming as if they are being responsive enough to a situation or they're not solving problems, the way that they should solve the first place they go is to go after communities by eroding civil liberty.
Speaker B:Because it's like, we're going to be tough on this.
Speaker B:That's not where you go.
Speaker B:You actually figure out how to solve the conditions that resulted in the situation that that has happened.
Speaker A:Exactly.
Speaker B:That's where you have to go.
Speaker B:That's where you have to go.
Speaker B:So that's where the misstep happens.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:So now if we're talking about.
Speaker A:The.
Speaker B:People that are, that are undocumented in the country, and you just say, okay, well, let's get, let's just remove them.
Speaker B:Let's just remove them and let's replace probable cause with reasonable suspicion so we can quickly go after them.
Speaker B:We can detain them.
Speaker B:Okay, you've dehumanized them, you know, and we, we can just all gather them up.
Speaker B:You're not gonna, are you not gonna talk about the conditions of what, why they're fleeing?
Speaker B:Are you not going to talk about the conditions of how long they've been here and they've not actually gotten health care and they've been paying taxes and building communities and creating foundations for businesses to be successful?
Speaker B:You're not going to look at those conditions.
Speaker B:You're just going to ignore all of that?
Speaker A:They are.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:That's what they do.
Speaker B:Exactly.
Speaker B:So that's what happens when you don't look conditions that create the circumstances and you just focus on using legislation as band aids and you will actually end up violating legislative code that are there to protect us.
Speaker A:And that is all the more reason why we needed USAID was.
Speaker A:Because that was huge that they took that they did what they did with that.
Speaker B:And you can see I've spoken to people who worked in USAID and they will tell you throughout the administration, under the Biden administration, usaid, I mean, they would not respond to the level that they needed to respond to even support with any within what USAID did.
Speaker B:But it, it provided an immense amount of support for people programs and, and, and things that people were relying on.
Speaker B:Were there instances and, and were there violations and were there problems?
Speaker B:Absolutely, they were.
Speaker B:They were like any system.
Speaker B:So let's discuss what the conditions are that have caused this.
Speaker B:Can't just shut it down.
Speaker B:You can't just shut it down.
Speaker A:No.
Speaker B:The reason why you're able to shut it down, however, and I said this somewhere else when we were talking about this on global policy advocacy, the reason why you're able to shut it down is only if you see that the people that were receiving USAID across the globe are less human than you are.
Speaker B:That's the only way you can do it.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:You know, it's kind of like let them eat cake.
Speaker B:It's kind of like let them go.
Speaker B:You know, it's not our problem.
Speaker B:And that is a very, that's one day your problem will not be somebody else's problem.
Speaker B:And you wish that it was.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:You know, you wish that it was.
Speaker A:And that was the beautiful part about USAID is that it was addressing problems that if we spend, you know, I think it was what, like a $50 per.
Speaker A:Whatever the heck it was that it saved us $3 or something like that in having to worry about global pandemics and things of that nature that we shouldn't have to worry about.
Speaker A:So it wasn't, it was part altruistic, but it was also part self serving.
Speaker A:And I get.
Speaker A:But I cannot believe for the life of me that someone couldn't have taken Doge and all these people aside and said it's actually really good for the United States that these problems don't have to exist here.
Speaker A:That if we solve them at the sources, then we don't have to fight the things on our soil, whatever the problems may be.
Speaker A:Nobody apparently got that memo because otherwise they would have worked harder to not find the quote, unquote, fraud and abuse.
Speaker B:But you took the words out of my mouth because the memo is, it requires to dig deep beyond nuances and figure out what the conditions are.
Speaker B:And you're going to find that no matter what administration exists, you can't blame it on somebody.
Speaker B:There are systems that need to be improved, that needs to improve, you have to improve conditions.
Speaker B:It's not a point of the blame game.
Speaker B:And let's shut it off and see it as a victory.
Speaker B:You have to be able to solve the problems.
Speaker B:I know that we're ending our conversation, but I wanted to say something to you because I know that you teach business law and you're talking about the business aspect of it.
Speaker B:I really want us to think about and the audience to think about the potential and how we should keep our eye and really work towards private public partnerships when we solve these problems.
Speaker B:If our goal is to solve these problems.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And one example that I think is facing us today, that is, that's as a policy perspective, very important to me right now, is tech.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:You have six children.
Speaker B:You stated that.
Speaker B:Tech, tech, tech and their impact on children.
Speaker B:Digital, dopamine addiction.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Tech companies making money off getting kids addicted.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:And what role can private tech companies, in partnership with public elected officials, civic engagement communities, advocacy groups, come together to be able to solve these problems?
Speaker B:This is, I mean, it's just to answer your students that ask this question about, you know, how can we actually have an impact and laws are made up and how can we have a role?
Speaker B:Everybody can have a role.
Speaker B:You know, a parent can have a role.
Speaker B:The child who's in this cycle of addicted dopamine addiction can roll.
Speaker B:But that just shows you that private and public entities have to work together to solve problems like this.
Speaker B:What we see right now in that is that we're actually watching companies make money off kids.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And as soon as you're born in this country, you're a consumer, you're actually not a child.
Speaker B:How can we target you at age 3 and give you a tablet and be you Know, addicted to it.
Speaker A:They give them Chromebooks at grade three in my kid's school, and I'm like, I don't want my kid having Chromebook.
Speaker A:Why are you not.
Speaker A:Why do you.
Speaker A:This is so.
Speaker A:I don't like.
Speaker A:Look, I get technology is going to be a thing.
Speaker A:I understand that.
Speaker A:I am pro.
Speaker A:If you knew me, like, more, you'd know I am pro technology.
Speaker A:But I am.
Speaker A:But I grew up in a generation of I.
Speaker A:You know, we didn't have cell phones, we didn't have tablets, we didn't have Chromebooks.
Speaker A:We.
Speaker A:We barely had computers.
Speaker A:And I get that we don't have that same world that we live in, but why are we introducing this technology to children at such a young age?
Speaker A:I mean, it is just so bad for their brains.
Speaker A:And I have seen the difference in my children.
Speaker B:We don't have that between your eldest, your youngest.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:We've gotten rid of any type of device for them to have.
Speaker A:They get TV occasionally.
Speaker A:And the Chromebook that is supposed to be for school.
Speaker A:Because I've seen the difference between when they have it and when they don't have it.
Speaker A:And you can.
Speaker B:I mean, mood, moods, attention, creative thinking.
Speaker B:And here's the thing.
Speaker B:Here's the thing.
Speaker B:Where are the next innovators gonna come from?
Speaker B:Where are they gonna come from?
Speaker A:Instead of drones.
Speaker B:But it's just an example.
Speaker B:People think, like, policy is so political, and it's just such a.
Speaker B:It's not.
Speaker B:It's about solving problems.
Speaker B:You know, it's about solving problems.
Speaker B:And what I have learned in my work is that just identify what you can do.
Speaker B:Identify what you care, number one, identify what you care about.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Identify what you care about.
Speaker B:Identify other people around you that agree with you.
Speaker B:And I say this sometimes, is that, you know, that person that you always roll your eyes at.
Speaker B:If you go to town halls or community meetings and that person has, like, some printouts that they have and they bring to the meeting, they're like, I was reading this.
Speaker B:And they're always going to ask them the question.
Speaker B:You're like, oh, my God.
Speaker B:They're always, you know, these people are golden.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Because these people have decided to take it on.
Speaker B:The work.
Speaker B:That energy.
Speaker B:Work with that energy.
Speaker B:We need people to take things on, you know, community members to take things on that are deeply, deeply important.
Speaker B:And find your allies and go to the elected officials and say, I know how to solve these problems.
Speaker B:Because I promise you, in your immediate circle, you probably know five experts in five different industries.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:You really.
Speaker A:Yeah, probably.
Speaker B:Well, you're not bought by political donors.
Speaker B:You know, you're not running an election.
Speaker B:You don't have to satisfy anybody.
Speaker B:You want to solve a problem, to be able to raise your kids in a community, in a world that they can, they can say thanks, you know, thanks for doing that.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And like, and, and if other people are not doing you, you go ahead and do it.
Speaker B:So I just think it's, it's just very, very important for us to understand that powerlessness is fraudulent.
Speaker B:Completely fraudulent.
Speaker B:Yeah, It's a message been sent to you.
Speaker B:And if you were that, by the way, if you were that powerless, why, why do you think that they would tell you that same message again and again?
Speaker B:You know?
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:If you're breathing, you're not powerless.
Speaker B:If you're breathing, you're not going to waste time on you.
Speaker B:We're not going to waste time on you.
Speaker B:No, but we're going to remind you, we're going to send you, you text messages.
Speaker B:We're going to tell you.
Speaker B:It's really difficult.
Speaker B:So I just think, like, we need to take this, like, mystical thing outside that it's like just like policy making is just reserved for the few inside the chambers of Congress.
Speaker B:It's just not true.
Speaker B:You know, a lot of these elected officials don't even read their bills.
Speaker B:They do not read their bill.
Speaker B:They don't know what's in it.
Speaker B:You know, policy people, you know, there's a few people that kind of outline bills that give them a white paper.
Speaker B:They may have their own biases.
Speaker B:They may have their own people that have been told, like, put this in this.
Speaker B:And I've seen them, I've seen this in real time.
Speaker B:Trust me, I've seen legislations written and I'll get, like, I send them a draft and then they'll send me a draft back and I'll be like, this is not what I wrote.
Speaker B:And then we'll have to negotiate.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:Why is this read this way?
Speaker B:Oh, no, I think my supervisor just included that.
Speaker B:Oh, okay.
Speaker B:Tell me about your supervisor.
Speaker B:What industry are they from?
Speaker B:You know, what's their background?
Speaker B:These are people.
Speaker B:Anyone who writes legislation or policies are people.
Speaker B:And they were driven by biases and they're different by their agendas, and they're driven by.
Speaker B:So you choose an agenda, choose an agenda, choose an opinion and say, this is what I want to see happen.
Speaker A:And you brought something that the policies need to address the conditions that created the problem.
Speaker A:And that is such a valuable thought.
Speaker A:You know, I think that more people need to look at it from that perspective.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:That it's not a.
Speaker A:It's a bipartisan issue or it's a bipartisan thing, but it's about solving those conditions or improving those conditions.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Because a lot of times, you know, you're not going to get a home run at your first up at bat in the majors.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, that's just not a reality.
Speaker A:People don't like crazy amounts of change all at once.
Speaker A:But we do work with incremental change.
Speaker A:I mean, we look at things like the EPA that has constantly improved our air quality and our water quality and I mean, it used.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:All of these things.
Speaker A:I mean, the fact that we have now that there's laws against things like that Ford decided to do with their Pinto case and their coffee case, I mean, you know, and their Explorer case and Toyota and these all come about because of policy changes and that we no longer accept that our cars can be death machines.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:That they want.
Speaker B:I mean, the analogy.
Speaker B:Is that the simplest way to create an analogy, and I'm just thinking about you speaking to your students about this.
Speaker B:When you say that all laws are made up is just saying it honestly.
Speaker B:Like, it's the same thing as health care.
Speaker B:Either you have medication as a band aid or you change your lifestyle.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Or.
Speaker B:And in the same way, you either have a law that's a band aid that just quickly solves a problem and gets some political points and you know, you know, and this is where we're going.
Speaker B:Or you actually change the conditions.
Speaker B:So how can you change the conditions?
Speaker B:And let's create that.
Speaker B:So if we saw that in healthcare, the policies would be different, the protocol would be different.
Speaker B:What are you eating?
Speaker B:How much are you sleeping?
Speaker B:How much?
Speaker B:How much?
Speaker B:How much sugar are you taking?
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:We're changing the protocol.
Speaker B:So laws need to change some protocols.
Speaker B:Right, Right.
Speaker B:They need to change protocols.
Speaker B:And I think it's the same thing when we get back to protocols and ICE detentions.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker B:You're trying to go after people that are undocumented.
Speaker B:How are you treating the children when you see them in the situation?
Speaker B:Do you understand that you just arrested this little girl, Superman, in front of her.
Speaker B:Okay?
Speaker B:She's demoralized.
Speaker B:She's demoralized.
Speaker B:Now she thinks that her dad, who's her protector, is somehow a criminal.
Speaker B:Whether you believe they violated the law or not, to hit to her, to her, he's her protector.
Speaker B:So your policy should not encroach on that relationship.
Speaker B:Your policy should not encroach in that relationship.
Speaker B:So if you want to Be able to talk to this person and bring them to, you know, to court.
Speaker B:How are you doing it?
Speaker B:Are you busting their window and dragging them out in front of the child?
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:You know, you are.
Speaker B:These are, these are these critical things.
Speaker B:These are these critical things that we talk about.
Speaker B:What is the protocol to actually improve the conditions?
Speaker B:And then you'll talk about what was the father going through?
Speaker B:What.
Speaker B:What was he fleeing?
Speaker B:You know, who is he as a person?
Speaker B:What's his character?
Speaker B:How many people are depending on him?
Speaker B:All of those things matter when you write good policy.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So important.
Speaker B:So, yeah.
Speaker B:So many different angles to this.
Speaker A:We could probably talk for hours about this, but I know neither you nor I have the time for that.
Speaker A:Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker A:Where can people reach you if they'd like to reach out and talk with you more about help with their policymaking legislation?
Speaker B:Yeah, we have.
Speaker B:I have a website, and it's www.mariamos.com.
Speaker B:you can visit me on there.
Speaker B:You can follow me on Instagram, too.
Speaker B:You'll find that on my website as well.
Speaker B:And message me on Instagram, you can Message me on LinkedIn and you can look through a lot of the legislations that are on there that have already become law and identify if there's legislations that you want to bring to your state or your communities, and those can be replicated.
Speaker B:And I'm always talking to people around the country, I'm talking to people around the country how to replicate a lot of these policies.
Speaker B:So I'm excited.
Speaker A:Very cool.
Speaker A:Thank you again so much.
Speaker A:Sincerely appreciate it.
Speaker A:I hope you've actually made me excited.
Speaker A:I may look into doing that myself as a practice area, because that seems to be something that I would be passionate about, that I might have an act for.
Speaker A:So thank you so much.
