Rep. Susan Davis On Impeachment Inquiry, U.S. Supreme Court Begins New Term, Basic Income Experiment And More

Speaker 1: 00:00 It was the topic of Sunday political talk shows new developments in Donald Trump's impeachment inquiry, yet not a single white house official to talk about it. This as a second whistleblower has come forward with information about Trump's July call with Ukraine's president, one of two attempts to get a foreign entity to investigate the Bidens today. Members of Congress are still on recess as the impeachment inquiry moves forward and house committees subpoena the white house Pentagon chief and acting director of office management and budget for documents. Joining us is San Diego, Congresswoman Susan Davis, who is here in San Diego. Congresswoman Davis. Welcome. Speaker 2: 00:39 Thank you very much. It's delightful to be with you. Speaker 1: 00:41 You know, the last time you spoke with mid day edition, it was about your upcoming retirement, but a lot's happened in Washington since then. Uh, you know, what is your impression of how the impeachment inquiry is unfolding in Washington? Speaker 2: 00:54 Well, in many ways I think it's an unfolding very much the way that the speaker Pelosi, I think I had hoped initially and uh, I was really with her on this. I felt that we needed to continue to investigate, to continue to investigate with some very important questions. But all that really changed. Uh, when the president, when it was revealed that the president had had these conversations with Ukrainians, president and, uh, and from that time on, many, many new issues are unfolding. As you all well know, Speaker 1: 01:29 your democratic colleagues on the San Diego delegation came out in support of an impeachment inquiry long before the communications between president Trump with Ukraine were made public. What was it about this incident in particular that led you to join them? Speaker 2: 01:44 Specifically the concern around our national security. I think that as that, that call revealed, um, that the president was talking about withholding and military assistance, uh, and really looking to the, the president to intervene in our elections and 2020 and I think that raised a lot of concerns that this, uh, in fact may not have been. The only thing, uh, that was of concern, but it certainly was, was what brought me to look at this in, in a different way. Speaker 1: 02:20 And you've been in San Diego on recess. What are you hearing from your constituents? Are voters as split as some polls suggest? Speaker 2: 02:27 Most of the constituents that I'm hearing from are wanting us to continue to move forward, uh, that they believe that it's very, very critical for our democracy. That is very, very critical for our elections that are on the horizon, uh, that we get to the heart of this. Speaker 1: 02:51 You know, if it's, if it's unlikely that the Republican controlled Senate will remove the president and with the election not too far away, why, and impeachment inquiry, Speaker 2: 03:01 again, I, I think it's, it's really, uh, not so much, uh, about whether or not they are going to support it, but whether or not somebody has to put a stop to this kind of behavior, it's behavior that suggests, um, that the president is above the law. I, I love the fact that Colin Powell, I believe it was, he just spoke on a, on a, on Sunday saying, this is about we, the people are not, we the president, Speaker 1: 03:28 you know, the president said on Friday that he won't comply with Congress's request until the full house votes on the Democrats impeachment inquiry. Do you think a full vote by the house should take place? Speaker 2: 03:38 Well, it's certainly not necessary, but I know that we certainly have colleagues who are very exasperated by the president's behavior. I don't know that they would be willing to come forward in a public vote, but generally I think if we could get, get these subpoenas moving because they're out, they are being resisted or the information is being resisted as we will know, then I think it's obvious to the general public that this is the way to go. And I'm not sure that they necessarily feel that it's required to do that. Certainly not by the law. Speaker 1: 04:13 Do you think the fight over impeachment will end up in court? Speaker 2: 04:16 It's possible that it could. Um, but again, I'm, I'm really hoping that the information, uh, that's coming forward and, and some of the push that's coming from Republican leaders as well over the years. Um, I'm hopeful that that might convince members that the, the process itself, the impeachment inquiry itself, which brings forth many of these concerns that have been expressed very specifically around the Ukrainian issue, uh, that, that will convince members to, um, be more open and not be as fearful about, uh, their election, uh, as they are about what happens to our democracy if this is not addressed properly. Speaker 1: 05:03 And, and if the public continues to view this process as highly partisan, could that backfire on Democrats going into 20, 20? Speaker 2: 05:10 Well, I think you could say that it certainly could, um, that possibility exists. And that's really why I think that we have tried to, uh, to, to move forward in, in a somber way, in a serious way, and to, um, convince our colleagues, uh, that they also need to be part of this. And in the end, uh, we, we're not predicting exactly what's going to happen at all, but that we should move forward with the inquiry. Speaker 1: 05:41 And switching gears a bit, when you get back to Washington next week, what sort of legislative business do you expect to tackle? Speaker 2: 05:47 Well, there are a lot of things that have been going on. It's interesting. I think that there's been so much focus really on, on the impeachment, but the reality is that, um, we've been taking up a, a number of bills, 51 in all resolutions. We also have been, uh, really having some very serious discussions about how we can lower prescription drug prices, protect preexisting conditions, but there are many other issues that are being dealt with and I think members will be anxious to get back and focus on those as well. I sit on the armed services committee of course, and sit on the conference committee as we deal with the, the latest, uh, national defense authorization. And, uh, those discussions will continue as soon as we get back. And uh, and many others. Speaker 1: 06:37 And you know, you mentioned a lower drug costs, uh, there was also optimism, Congress would act on gun reform and a trade deal with Mexico. But do you think the impeachment probe has already sucked all the oxygen out of the room? Speaker 2: 06:49 Well, I think that that's a concern, but I don't know why that has to be because those issues around gun violence, certainly here in the San Diego community where we've had a strong activism, we're fortunate that California certainly is far more aggressive about this and in other areas, but we feel this is important as a national issue. And I'm hoping that we can address those as well. And the, um, US-Mexican canal, uh, Canada agreement, we are, we are pretty close, uh, on some of those. And I think that, uh, that's an issue that I, I hope that we can work through and we'll have bipartisan support. Speaker 1: 07:32 I've been speaking with Congresswoman Susan Davis, Congresswoman Davis. Thank you so much. Speaker 2: 07:37 Sure. My pleasure. Speaker 3: 07:44 [inaudible]. Speaker 1: 00:00 As the Supreme court session gets underway today, the court has decided it will not take up SDG and E's appeal to pass on $397 million in costs from the 2007 wildfires to customers. This will keep the state Supreme court's decision in place and is seen as a win for rate payers. The court will, however be considering cases this session on DACA, LGBTQ rights, abortion, and an anti-smuggling law for more on these cases. We are joined by Dan Eaton legal analyst and partner with seltzer Caplan, McMahon Vita tech. Dan, welcome. Good to be with UJ. You know, these are some divisive issues to be deciding in a on an election year. Isn't that something the court usually avoids? Speaker 2: 00:44 Well, the court decides the cases that come before it and the court is basically a reactive institution in the sense that it doesn't go around making policy. It just decides the actual controversies in cases that come to it. And these happen to be very, very hot button issues and the way they come out may very well affect the upcoming election Speaker 1: 01:07 and the court will take up a series of cases tomorrow that deal with protections for the LGBTQ people. Uh, what type of protections will the judges be considering in these three cases? Speaker 2: 01:17 The critical question is whether a title seven, the federal employment discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination quote because of SACS. Closed quote includes, uh, a prohibition on discrimination because, uh, someone is gay. There is no dispute that back in 1964, when the statute was passed that no one contemplated that it would apply to gay and lesbian people. The question is whether the plain meaning of the statute embraces gay and lesbian people such that that protection should be extended. It's important to realize that the lower courts are split, which is why the Supreme court ultimately has to weigh in. And does this include transgender people as well? Yeah, there's a separate case that the court will, uh, hear involving the employee of a funeral home, uh, who was transitioning between male and female. And the question is whether because of sex includes, uh, transgender individuals, that person was fired. Speaker 2: 02:19 Again, this is a very interesting issue of statutory construction. Really the question is whether the plain meaning applies to gays and transgender individuals and protects a gender identity or perceived stereotypes. The Supreme court actually has held that it does or whether the understanding of the statute at the time it was enacted, uh, rules and uh, therefore these folks are outside of the protection of the federal antidiscrimination law. It's important to realize at California and several other States do protect gender identity and uh, people who are gay and lesbian and broadly, uh, transgender. But, uh, the federal is important for those in States that don't have those kinds of protections. And one of the big cases people will be watching this session is one on abortion. This is the first time the court, uh, the current court rather will be considering the issue, correct? Well, yes, that's right. Speaker 2: 03:14 J D the important thing is that three years ago with justice Anthony Kennedy sitting on the court, the court invalidated a very similar law, a out of a Texas. This case involves a Louisiana law that prohibits, uh, abortions by any doctor that doesn't have admitting privileges to a facility within 30 miles of where the abortion is going to be performed. Those who are challenging this law stabled weight that leaves as a practical matter only a single doctor in the entire state of Louisiana who can perform abortions. The fifth circuit court of appeals upheld, uh, this law saying that there was evidence unlike in the Texas case, that the requirement of admitting privileges actually helps to protect the health of a woman and therefore, uh, not withstanding the burden on her right to an abortion, it doesn't constitute an unconstitutionally undue burden. In light of this state's interest in protecting her health. Speaker 2: 04:11 And the court will also be making some key decisions on the DACA program, which protects nearly 800,000 people bought to the country illegally as children from deportation. What exactly is the court being asked to decide here? Understand J that DACA stands for deferred action for childhood arrivals and what the court is actually being asked to decide as a rather technical question about whether the administration and resending this program violated the administrative procedures act. Because the reason, uh, given, uh, by the administration for resending the program, uh, was that it was an unlawful exercise of executive power. Uh, the lower court said, well, no, that if that's your reason, that isn't right. That ends up being arbitrary because it wasn't an unlawful exercise of executive power given the broad discretion that the, uh, executive has, the president has with respect to deciding who, uh, stays and who doesn't in this country. Speaker 2: 05:08 So, uh, really the question is whether the reason given doesn't hold water and is arbitrary and uh, ultimately that may determine whether DACA for now survives or doesn't. And the Supreme court will also take up another case surrounding immigration. This one challenges in anti-smuggling law that makes it a felony to encourage or induce someone to enter or stay in the U S illegally. Talk to us about what the high court will be deciding there. It's actually a fascinating case and the court just agreed to a review this, uh, last Friday at its conference and it's out of the ninth circuit, which of course is based in California. Uh, the issue, uh, is whether this statute which prohibits encouraging or inducing, uh, someone to stay in this country illegally by the way, for purposes of financial gain. That's what the specific facts, uh, were and what the law says, whether the idea of, uh, criminalizing encouraging her to sing takes in two broad sweep of legitimate free speech activity for example, of the ninth circuit, uh, said that it would criminalize someone making a speech to a gathered crowd to say, I encourage all you folks out there without legal status to stay in the U S we are in the process of trying to change the immigration laws in the more we can show the potential hardship on people who have been in the country a long time, the better we can convince American citizens to fight for us and grant us a path to legalization now that could be criminalized under this law and said, well, that's legitimate. Speaker 2: 06:30 That is protected speech and this statute, it goes too far. It'll be interesting to see whether the Supreme court says no, that statute really can be read only to prohibit criminal activity and inducing criminal activity, and we'll be looking forward to all of the big decisions to come and many others. Yes. I've been speaking with Dan Eaton legal analyst and partner with seltzer Caplan McMahon Vtech Dan, thank you so much. Good to be with you. Jade. Speaker 1: 00:00 Since February 125 people from low income neighborhoods in Stockton have been getting a monthly cash boost with no strings attached. The 18 month experiment is aimed at finding solutions to the income inequalities that plagued the city and our state as part of our California dream collaboration. CAPP radio, Sammy K Ola reports that for the first time data has just been released on how the money is being spent on the 15th of every month, $500 show up on Giovan Bravo's debit card. He says it changes the way he approaches the family budget. Speaker 2: 00:34 It's a good feeling knowing that we, out of that I share a little bit of income. Speaker 1: 00:39 The 31 year old construction worker says the stipend has made buying school clothes and other staples for his three kids a little easier since he started receiving the money. He's cut his 68 hour work week down to about 50 hours. Speaker 2: 00:53 It's been great. You get to spend a lot more time with the kids. I'm able to pick him up from school, able to do a lot more things on the weekend instead of always being tired. Speaker 1: 01:02 The local organization running the experiment handpicked our subject for this story. Bravo is a member of their quote storytelling cohort. He's a Guinea pig for a concept called universal basic income, a fixed stipend that people can spend as they choose. Supporters see it as a replacement or at least a supplement for a broken welfare system. Several presidential candidates are running on some version of this. Here's Kamala Harris. Speaker 3: 01:28 Almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval, and so I'm proposing that we give them a lift up and Andrew Yang, my flagship proposals, the freedom dividend of $1,000 a month for every American adult starting at age 18 critics Speaker 1: 01:46 worry. People will use the money to buy drugs and alcohol or that they'll stop working altogether. Proponents say a little financial security could inspire people to start businesses and seek education. The first data to come out of the Stockton experiment shows recipients are spending roughly 40% of the money on food followed by clothing and home goods and then utilities. The data does not include cash expenditures from the debit card, but UC Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein says pilots like the one in Stockton aren't the most accurate tool for predicting behavior because people won't make major life changes when the income bump is temporary. Speaker 3: 02:22 They just can't be transformative at the scale. You'd have to scale them up by many orders of magnitude to have the kinds of impacts people are talking about and nobody has figured out how to pay for that. Speaker 1: 02:32 Outside Stockton city hall cars rushed by on their morning commute. It's a diverse city. Fewer than half of residents are white. It's also a place trying to reinvent itself. A decade ago it was known as America's foreclosure capital and still more than one in five residents live in poverty. The city's mayor, 29 year old Michael Tubbs wants to see a Renaissance. He's planning major beautification projects downtown inside his at city hall. Tubs explains. He's trying to change the look and reputation of the city while giving some of the people here a hand up. Speaker 4: 03:07 It's just all about breaking cycles of poverty and increasing. Then I have opportunity for everyone. Speaker 1: 03:12 The mayor is acting as a front man for the experiment, but the city isn't footing the bill. The $3 million it takes to run the program comes from a private foundation pushing for universal basic income. Speaker 4: 03:24 For so long. People have looked at Stockton for examples of when things are bad. Uh, but this is one of a couple of examples where now people are looking at something for a solution. Speaker 1: 03:33 Joe Von Bravo is a Stockton native. He grew up poor and he has a criminal record, but he wants his kids to have a different life Speaker 2: 03:40 stocked in. It's a very dangerous city at times. Um, so I try to keep my kids out of the streets and studying in school and stay busy and extracurricular activities. Speaker 1: 03:56 That's why some of his monthly deposit goes to sports camps and gymnastics classes. When the pilot ends, he'll go back to working Saturdays to keep up with those expenses. Stockton is one of two cities with a basic income pilot underway. Joining me is capital public radio reporter Sammy, Kayla, Sammy, welcome. Hi. Thanks for having me. So are there any rules about the way this $500 stipend can be spent? So there are actually no rules at all about how this can be spent. And that's sort of part of the deal. The people running the project, they're called the Stockton economic empowerment demonstration. I'm going to call them seed from now on. They really are trying to show that people will use this money to better themselves and their families. So yeah, they get $500 a month on a prepaid debit card on the 15th of every month and yeah, they, they get to spend it from there. Speaker 1: 04:49 And I would imagine Stockton mayor Tubbs has come up against some kind of of political resistance to this idea. Is that the case? Yeah, I would say so. There's a lot of skepticism about this idea. I think people worry that if you give recipients $500 a month or $1,000 a month, they will spend it on, you know, unnecessary items, maybe drugs or alcohol. And that this idea that people will use it to better themselves is optimistic. Uh, but I think mayor Tubbs, who is 29, he grew up in Stockton, he grew up in poverty. Uh, he watched his mom really struggle to make ends meet. He really thinks if you give people a hand up that they will change their circumstances and that they are just sort of victims of a broken system and that even people who are working very hard are not, uh, able to move themselves in their families to a better place or not able to achieve. Speaker 1: 05:47 Um, you know, the California dream you could say. So he's really convinced that an extra $500 a month can do that for people. So he's really willing to argue for this program and he really believes in the residents of Stockton that they will use this money to improve their lives. And he also acknowledges that there are some challenges here. He gets criticized a lot because people think he's using taxpayer dollars, but he isn't the $3 million for this program comes from a private foundations. There's no city dollars involved. And you know, he knows that there would be challenges with doing this on a wide scale. He acknowledges that what happens when money for programs like this is supposed to come from taxpayers. Yeah. So I think there's a lot of resistance to that idea, especially for people who are skeptical that they don't know how, you know, people will use this money. Speaker 1: 06:34 Um, and you know, all the, all the models are a little different. So Andrew Yang is proposing a value added tax of 10% that's a tax on goods or services that a business produces. And he also wants to consolidate or even eliminate possibly some of the welfare programs like Medicaid and social security. But you know, commonly Harris on the other hand is not trying to do universal income. She's more focused on lower and middle income people. And she wants to do that through the earned income tax. And you know, that would be an entirely different structure. And then you've got Cory Booker who is proposing a government funded baby bond. So you know, when people say universal basic income, there are a lot of different things that that could mean and a lot of different ways that they could pay for it. And tell us more about how some supporters of the basic income idea, belief stipends, could take the place of the existing social safety net, like Medicare and social security. Speaker 1: 07:29 Yeah. So this is maybe one of the most controversial ideas out there that we would eliminate Medicaid or social security to pay for these basic income stipends. And what Andrew Yang says is that our welfare system is kind of broken and people should just get this money. They should have the freedom to spend it the way that they want without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops and fill out paperwork. But critics and economists that I talked to said it's, it's not really feasible to eliminate those programs and still expect people to be able to get by a a thousand dollars a month probably wouldn't enable you to buy health care and you know, get all the food you were getting on food stamps and get whatever you are getting through your maybe disability income. You know, for most people it's, it's probably not enough to make ends meet. That's, you know, at least one of the ideas that critics are putting forward right now. Speaker 1: 08:20 And it's also gonna be a challenge for cities and States that are trying pilots to figure out how this stipend interacts with benefits people are getting in Stockton. They had to actually warn the recipients that you might, you know, lose your Medicaid if you take this by $100 if it puts you over the income thresholds and see the group that's running the pilot, they tried, you know, to get some waivers in place and get exceptions so that people could keep their benefits. But there, there was this sort of maneuvering that had to be done around getting this extra income and keeping people on their benefits. Uh, Stockton and mayor Tubbs don't want to eliminate any social programs. They see a basic income as a supplement to the current welfare system, not a replacement for it. I've been speaking with Capitol public radio reporter, Sammy K Yola Sammy. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you. Speaker 1: 00:00 A growing number of programs around the country are trying to treat posttraumatic stress disorder by getting veterans into nature. Even deep under the sea. Stephanie Calambini of the American Homefront project reports on how scuba diving is helping some veterans heal. 38 year old Shawn Campbell is leading a scuba diving trip off the coast of Clearwater, Florida diver. Okay, Roger that joining for the trip, our air force veteran Bob Harris and his son Justin and active duty pilot who serves in San Antonio, Texas. Campbell briefs them on their dive site and underwater military Memorial called the circle of heroes. Speaker 2: 00:40 This is very important to me as not only a local diver. Um, I am also the account that you're going to three cores. I'm a disabled veteran. Speaker 1: 00:47 Campbell says transitioning back to civilian life after he was wounded in Iraq was tough for him. He says diving was an outlet for him to meditate and stay active because being underwater relieves him from the joint pain he feels on land. Now he's a dive master at narcosis scuba. The shop has a lot of military ties and take service members out whenever they can. Justin Harris got back from his fourth deployment a couple of weeks before the trip and says it was a much needed break from the stress of military life Speaker 2: 01:19 are either flying all the time or deploying and away from our families. And so this opportunity to get away from that lifestyle, go down there, kind of forget about things that are going on in your life and just focused on the fish, the wildlife, and being under the water. It's a extremely relieving Speaker 1: 01:34 narcosis doesn't claim to be a formal therapy group, but Campbell says it's not surprising. Other organizations are exploring the use of scuba to treat PTSD. Speaker 3: 01:43 This is an opportunity to get out again, so maybe they're, yeah, they're not out around a ton of people, but they're still getting out [inaudible] they get become a part of a community that is a healthy community. Instead of going to like the bar or just drinking themselves into a comb at home or self-medicating in any way they could do something healthy and and meet like minded people and start living life again. Speaker 1: 02:01 These nonprofits span the country from more obvious locations like Florida to places far from the coast like Phoenix and st Louis. They organize trips to dive in hotspots like The Bahamas and Mexico, typically for week long retreats. Some of these groups have licensed counselors and military chaplains who volunteer to focus on trauma and that is the ideal. That's retired army Colonel Kathy Platoni, a clinical psychologist in Dayton, Ohio who's written about military trauma. She says there's limited research on the benefits of nature-based therapies like scuba, but there's merit to them, but she says it's important to involve health professionals and even then they're not for everyone. It's very hard to put people in a challenging situation who do have PTSD or have been severely traumatized into something that may further traumatize them. For instance, getting in the water with a scuba tank may be terrifying for some people, and there are other barriers. Speaker 1: 02:58 The VA or a health insurance company isn't going to cover scuba therapy and not everyone can pay for the expensive equipment and frequent dive trips out of pocket. Some support groups cover costs for their trips, but that's for one experience and Platoni says it can be really hard to maintain the benefits once the exotic adventure is over. So you have to have something that follows the scuba therapy, which would be individual psychotherapy group therapy, or just having some kind of contact with the other members of the group who have gone through this experience. Platoni says there is no gold standard of PTSD treatment. She says people need to be creative and cater care to the individual. So if you're like army veteran, Sean Campbell, and hanging out on the bottom of the ocean is what works best for you, go ahead and descend and enjoy your diet. Speaker 4: 03:54 [inaudible] Speaker 1: 03:54 I'm Stephanie Calambini in Tampa. This story was produced by the American Homefront project, a public media collaboration that reports on American military life and veterans funding comes from the corporation for public broadcasting. Speaker 1: 00:00 The San Diego Shakespeare society presents its 18th annual celebrity sonnets tonight at the old globe. The theme is a celebration of Shakespeare's women through sonnets and speeches. KPBS arts reporter Beth Armando invited Shakespeare society members, Darryl Woodson, Julia [inaudible] and Patricia Elmore Costa to preview some of the readings. Speaker 2: 00:22 My name is Darryl Woodson and I am the president of the San Diego Shakespeare society. We are doing the 18th annual celebrity sonnets. Its title is sonnets and speeches, a celebration of Shakespeare's women. The San Diego Shakespeare society has been in existence since the year 2000 and we are the only group in San Diego that does Shakespeare all year round. We do monthly open readings, a film series. We do also the free lecture series and we work with the San Diego museum of art to do what they call art stops. What I'm going to do now is sign at 130 that's from a Shakespeare's sonnets collection and this is one of those sonnets that has a reversal at the end or the last two lines. So if you listen closely to the sonnet, listen to the last two lines especially, which kind of reverses a lot of what happened previously. My mistress eyes are nothing like the sun. Coral is far more red than her lips red. If snow be white, why then her breasts are done. If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. I have seen roses damask red and white, but no such roses. CII in her cheeks and in some perfumes. Is there more delight than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. I love to hear speak. You had, well, I know that music at the far more pleasing sound I grant, I never saw a goddess go my mistress when she walks treads on the ground Speaker 2: 02:22 and yet by heaven I think my love as rare as any, she belied with false compare. And now we have two more selections from the 18th annual celebrity sonnets presented at the old globe theater. Thank you. Speaker 1: 02:41 Hi, my name is Julia Jill Zadie and I'll be performing a monologue from the Shakespeare play. The winter's tale. The character is named Paulina. This monologue takes place at the trial of Polina's best friend and a boss, her meiny she has been accused of by her husband with absolutely no evidence. And at the, uh, at the end of this monologue, she reveals to this jealous tyrant that his actions has caused his wife to die of grief. So, uh, she's pretty angry in this one. What studied, torments tyrant has to for me what wheels racks, fires, what flaying boiling in LEDs or oils. What old or newer torture must I receive? Whose every word deserves to taste of die? Most worst, thy tyranny together working with, by jealousy fancies two weak for boys to green and idle for girls of nine O. Think what they have done and then run mad indeed stark mad for all thy bygone fullerenes were butts spices of it that thou betrayed publicities towards nothing that did not show the of a fool in constant and damnable in grateful nor West much that was to poison good Camillo's honor to have him kill a King. Speaker 1: 04:00 Poor trespasses, more monstrous standing by where of I reckon the casting fourth two crows, thy baby daughter to be or none or little that were devil would have shed water out a fire. Air done it. Norris directly lead to the the death of the young Prince who's honorable thoughts, thoughts, high for one, so tender. Collect the heart that could conceive a gross and foolish sire or blemished his gracious dam. This is not no laid to thy answer, but the last Oh Lords when I have said cry. Whoa. The queen, the queen, the sweetest, dearest creatures dead and vengeance for it. Not dropped down yet, but Oh thou Ty rent. Do not repent these things for they are heavier than all thy woes can stir therefore, but take the two, nothing but despair. 1,000 knees, 10,000 years together, naked fasting upon a barren winter and still winter in storm perpetual could not move the gods to look that way. Speaker 1: 05:07 Thou wort, I really love this, of this peace and love performing this monologue as Polina because it's one of the greatest instances. I believe in Shakespeare's works of a woman standing up for another woman and a standing up specifically to a man in authority and saying to him, you're wrong. Um, I think it's extremely relevant both for hundred years ago and today for, uh, for women to stand up when you see something happening that doesn't look right to say this isn't right. Because sometimes, especially in this case, the character, her mind, she can't speak for herself. So Polina sees this injustice happening and she doesn't stand by and let it happen. She risks her status, she risks her job and she risks her life by standing for what's true. And, uh, again, like I said, I think that is something that even today is super relevant and super important to, uh, to, to put out into the world. Um, and incidentally, I am playing her mind in a production of the winter's tale right now at the core and auto play house. It's running Thursdays through Sundays, um, and at 8:00 PM and on Sundays at 2:00 PM, Speaker 3: 06:22 I'm Patricia Elmore Acosta and I'll be doing Kate from the taming of the Shrew. And uh, this piece is something that appears at the end of the play. Like most of his comedies, there's a wedding celebration and uh, so she and her husband are at the wedding celebration and there's been a wager and Petruchio my husband has bet that I will come out first when called and everybody laughed and said no way because you know she is a Shrew fi fi on nit that threatening unkind brow and dark, not scored. Folk glances from those eyes to wound die Lord by King, by governor. It blots thy beauty as frauds to bite the Meads confounds thy famous whirlwinds shake fair buds and in no sense is meat or amiable. A woman moved is like a fountain. Troubled, muddy is seeming thick bereft of beauty and while it is so non, so dry or thirsty will deign to sipper touch one drop of it. Speaker 3: 07:38 My husband is the Lord by life thy keeper. I had vice sovereign one who cares for the and for thy maintenance, commits his body to painful labor both by seeing land to watch the night in storms, the day in cold, well foul, liased, warm at home, secure and safe and craves no other tribute at the hands but love fair looks and true obedience. Too little payment for so great. A debt such duty as the subject owes the Prince even such a woman Oh with to her husband and when she is fro word peevish sullen, sour and not obedient to his honest will. What is she? But a foul contending rebel and graceless trader to our loving Lord. I am ashamed that women are so simple to offer war where they should kneel for peace or seek for rule supremacy and sway when they are bound to serve. Love and obey. Speaker 3: 08:48 Come, come you fro word and unable worms. My mind have been as big as one yours. My heart as great. My reason happily more to bandy word for word and frown for frown, but now I see our lenses. Arbid straws are straight as weak. Our weakness past compare that seemed to be most, which we indeed Lee star, then veil your stomachs, Florida snow boots and place your hands below your husband's foot in token of which duty. If he please, my hand is ready. May I do him ease. Kate is a wonderful character and she is a woman before her time in that she's independent. Now she is fro word peevish, sullen and sour. But I think Petruchio likes that about her because he's like that himself. So, um, this is a great example of the battle between the sexes and uh, I think what's really important to know is that all of us have our public selves and our private selves. And I think Kate has learned that um, she needs to put on her public self and show her view, one that she has indeed been shame, uh, tamed. She has been tamed by Petruchio and she has learned the value and importance of acquiescing in public. Why there's a winch come on and make, those were members of the San Diego Shakespeare society providing a little preview of what you can expect tonight at its annual celebrity sonnets. The event starts at seven 30 at the old globe.