07/16/07 – Bill Brown – The Scott Horton Show

For Antiwar.com and Chaos Radio 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas, I'm Scott Horton, and this is Antiwar Radio.
My guest today is Bill Brown, from the Surveillance Camera Players, the website is www.notbored.org.
Welcome to the show Bill.
Thanks very much, Scott.
Thanks for having me on.
Well, you know, video camera surveillance has been an issue of mine really even before it really got too widespread.
When they first started putting them in the convenience stores back in, say, the early to mid 90s, I kind of got my hackles up about it, and I've been watching the issue a lot ever since, or, well, probably not as much as I should, but I very rarely get around to covering it on the show.
This is the kind of thing that bothers me to no end, and it's really the government cameras that I have a problem with more than somebody trying to protect their own property.
But I see that you guys, basically since around the very same time, right, been around since 1996, according to your website?
That's right.
And basically what you're doing is spoofing these video cameras and doing plays and so forth to draw attention to them and call them out for what they're doing, right?
Exactly.
Not only just for what they're doing, but the very fact that they're there.
Too many of the cameras that are, especially installed by the government, but especially in public places, too many of them don't look like cameras.
They're little globe objects that many people think are lights or ornaments.
Right.
But they don't know that the cameras are there, and virtually none of them are accompanied by signs that say, warning, we're the police or we're a security guard company hired by so and so, so that people never really know that there are cameras there.
They have the general idea, but they don't know what they look like, and they have no idea how many.
So that's right.
The performances are not just calling out the cameras in general, but particular ones, so people can get educated to know what do these things look like and get an idea of how many there are, because especially in a place like New York, and no doubt in Houston, and especially in almost every American city, there are thousands and thousands of them, and the powers that be only want to add more of them.
Yep.
And it's interesting, you talk about disguising them so they sort of look like lampposts and what have you.
A friend of mine is actually living in England right now, and I asked him, so what's it like walking around London with millions of cameras pointing at you?
And he says, millions of cameras?
You know, I didn't even notice at all.
Didn't even know they were there.
That's right.
I mean, by law, the English are supposed to put up signs, and apparently, you know, a number of watchdog groups will say that only one in four of their cameras actually are accompanied by signs.
And when I was there a couple of times in different cities, same thing, that we would make maps of the cameras and where all the cameras were, and there were so many cameras, you could barely make a map of them.
And again, people are not really focused on this issue just yet, where the English have already thought it's very 1990s, because that's when all the cameras went up there, and they don't realize how many cameras are watching them at all times.
Yeah, and it is sort of the thing where, well, I guess this has been my frustration since I was in 10th grade and read 1984, was, well, wait a minute, if this is, you know, the second or third most popular, most read book in America, then how could it be that we're all letting them do this to our society right in front of us when we've all read the book and know exactly what is happening here?
Well, I think it comes down to an idea that people either are very apathetic, either that or they really don't put, you know, kind of draw connections between the various dots.
And especially people who don't have a bad experience with the police or security guards think, well, they're not really doing anything wrong with the cameras, so why should I worry?
And the people have actually had an experience of what the watchers are like or what the cops are like, what the security guards are like, know that they can't be trusted.
It's very hard to trust them in general, and especially if they're able to zoom in, you know, they're hiding in some sort of little watcher's room with a little joystick that allows them to zoom in 15 or 100 times, you know that they can't be trusted.
And that's why I think many people don't make the connection between 1984 and what's going on now, is that they don't really put all the dots together to see the bigger picture.
Right, although to me it's just amazing that there's anybody in this country who's yet to have a negative experience with a cop.
Well, there's a lot of insulated people, or just mark it down to a fluke, rather than saying this is just what some people, some parts of the population go through day in and day out.
So when we hand out maps of the cameras or do performances in different areas of the city, it's amazing to see the different responses where, especially here in New York, there's a big difference between tourist areas where people are afraid because they've been watching too much television, and then you go into the areas where people actually live and they say, oh yeah man, the police have got their boot on us all the time and thanks for the map, and the response is very, very different.
Oh, I see, it's the, you know, Times Square where everybody's scared and wants there to be cameras, and yet they're down every street in Brooklyn too.
That's right, so that in Times Square the tourists will say, I like that there are cameras.
You can't find any locals in Times Square, and all the tourists say they like them, but go to Harlem, go to the Lower East Side, go to Brooklyn.
They're all saying, I don't trust the cops, I don't trust the cameras, thanks so much for doing this, you know, we're totally with you.
Well, you know, I don't mean to be too conspiratorial about it because I don't have any paperwork that says, you know, what they were talking about at the time or anything, but I know that when they first, very first started putting up the cameras here in Austin, Texas, that the very first thing they did was cover all the entrances to the city.
Every road, in or out of town, back road or otherwise, pretty much any way in or out of town from any of the neighboring towns, every road had, those were the places that got the cameras first, and that seemed to me to have a lot more with policing than traffic flow or what have you, you know, since a lot of those places weren't necessarily the heavy traffic areas, just the main arteries, you know.
See, that's what's so significant about what's happened since September 11th, is that the Department of Transportation at the federal level, that's part of Homeland Security, so that when they put up DOT cameras, presumably, yes, they're just watching traffic and it sounds very benign, but what they're doing is you realize that anybody who comes into Austin, drives around Austin, here in New York as well, that way they can keep track of them, their cars, that is, wherever they go, and it sounds benign because it's only watching traffic, but it's a police function, and because DOT is really Homeland Security these days, it's also supposedly, it's a big brother function.
Right, and, you know, to think about the integration of the Department of Transportation with the national policing functions and so forth, is that really happening on the state levels too, where the, say the Texas Department of Transportation is now part of some police agency?
Well, it's part of the Department of Homeland Security, so here in both New York City and New York State, that's what DOT is, it's just been brought into Homeland Security, and their justification is that terrorists, or the people that are called terrorists, are either going to use mass transportation or target it, or that that's why they put in most of the government money, goes into Department of Transportation cameras, and that the next step from there, based on the English model, is putting software on those cameras that allow them to read and record license plate numbers.
So that means, if you come into Austin, say you're driving around a machine, reading your license plate can keep track of you, wherever you've gone, when you entered the city, if you passed any of their cameras in, when you left it, completely automatically.
And see, that's a very important point too, that they can have the same cameras that they've had up there since 1997, and it's all about the software.
If they have the right software, it can recognize the digits on that license plate.
That's right, it's not the camera that gets upgraded, although I mean, it'd be nice if they had put down digital, for their purposes, if they had put down digital cameras to begin with, but it's the same thing, because it's a very cynical argument that they say, we're not putting in any new cameras, we're just updating the ones that we already have.
So therefore, you're used to them, they tell us, so therefore you shouldn't mind if they go from analog cameras to digital cameras, from cameras that are watched by people, to cameras that are watched by machines and computers.
Well, you know what's interesting is, when they first put the cameras up in Houston, which was, I think, about a year and a half before they put them up here in Austin, the first ones that they put up, they had them on the big towers on the freeway, you know, for the kind of long range view, but then they also had a camera on specific signs over the highway, there would be three cameras pointed down at an angle, right at the back license plate, basically, and that was way back then, that was ten years ago.
That's right, that's right.
I mean, they've been, DOT has been planning what they call intelligence or an integrated system for a very long time, they've been doing it incrementally, and it can also make them money, and that's the current scandal here in New York, is that these aren't security cameras, they're scammers, as in they can be used for congestion pricing.
So say you have to come into work from Brooklyn, you have to go into Manhattan, the cameras that are operated by DOT take a picture of your license plate and then send you a bill, because you are contributing to congestion, and that's one of the ways that in England the cameras are used, the very ones that were supposedly anti-terrorist cameras are just used to be able to charge people for coming into the city using their cars.
So that they've been planning this in Austin and New York for a very long time, because the English have showed the way.
You know, I wish I still had the videotape to get the audio from this to play, but I used to have, I guess I taped it, some kook had run this on the local access channel, and it was a Hughes Aircraft promotional video for the Smart Highway System from probably 1994, something like that, and it was cameras everywhere and transponders in all the cars, and that's something that we have now here in Texas where our fascist Governor Rick Perry has forced the taxpayers of Texas to pay for these freeways, forced all the people off their land at gunpoint who were in the way of course, forced all the people of Texas to pay for the freeways, and then sold them to foreign corporations and given them 25 or 75 years or whatever to tax us all by the mile and put tracking devices in our cars.
That's right, exactly, so that the whole thing not only pays for itself, but makes profit for the people who put these people into power.
We build the roads and then they tax us by the mile anyway.
Right, exactly, and again the British unfortunately have been ahead of us in England now, all over the country, every single license plate comes with a transponder, and it's going to be the same thing here in the United States when they make a national registry or ID card based on your driver's license, and every single license plate is also going to be equipped with a transponder, so you get charged on the interstate highway system, and once again it'll be the DOT and their cameras and their transponder readers that photograph your license plate, find out who you are, where you've been, and charge you.
And now you're predicting that, or that's in the Real ID Act?
No, it's actually in the process of being done.
It's just, this is such a huge country, and there's so many different states with so many different laws, it has to be done over a period of, as we're talking about, we're talking about a fourteen, thirteen year period since 1984, it's being made like a quilt, piece by piece, where in England they could throw it together pieces of such a tiny, tiny country they could do it quickly, but it's been in the process of being made here in the United States over the last decade.
Alright, well, just to play devil's advocate, I'm sorry, because I know it sounds stupid, but if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about and all that.
Yeah, I get that a lot, and there's so many different ways of demolishing it, it's almost like a sport, which is, the classic example is this, that say, you're the French government, and it's 1939, and you've created a database of homosexuals, and this database, or it's actually a set of index cards, is simply to provide health services or some other function, and then what happens is that the Nazis come in and take over the country, they use that very same collection of information to exterminate people, and the same thing could happen now with all of the cameras, all of the information, is that even though, yes, you have nothing, you're doing nothing wrong at this moment, the government could change, or the law could change tomorrow, and what was innocent today is guilty tomorrow, and that's why we have to be very careful about cameras and everything else that collects information, is that they'll change the laws the next day so that every innocent, so-called innocent person is guilty.
And we've seen how they're already doing it in Iraq, making people scan their eyeballs and all their fingerprints, creating a database of Iraqi's eyeballs.
That's right.
The U.S. military.
That's right, and even if those Iraqis never come here, what they're doing is padding the pockets of the defense contractors who are spending billions of dollars making the software, so that that way they're able to make their money back, institute it in warfare, and once they either get a trial run, or prove, quote, that it's successful in Baghdad, then it gets used in Austin, then it gets used in New York City.
Well, and what an important point that is.
The military industrial complex, I see you have a list on your website here, BAE Systems from the United Kingdom, Boeing, Honeywell, Raytheon, certainly Lockheed's in on this.
Right.
And that is what we're talking about, really, is businessmen who aren't man enough to compete in a free market, and so instead, they go to the captive market, the American taxpayer, and they pay congressmen, you know, maybe a couple million dollars, and they get hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in return from those congressmen of our money.
Yes, that's right, and especially if they can do that on foreign soil, where literally it's an occupying force, nobody's going to compete with Halliburton or Boeing to be able to get these contracts in Baghdad, so that's right.
They get a privileged deal out there, make their money back, and then they can turn around and sell it back to the Americans, to us, saying, well, it worked in Baghdad, it'll certainly work in stopping crime in, you know, the Fifth Ward of Houston, or someplace that's been demonized as being sort of the Baghdad of America.
And it's almost going to be the exact same people.
Muslims in Iraq, and then Muslims and blacks here in the United States, those will be the same targets, whether it's the war on terror outside of the country, or the war of terror inside the country.
They will identify the very same enemies.
And the financial interest behind it, I hate to just continue harping on that, but it's, I guess, legendary here in Texas, that the biggest supporters of the war on drugs are the concrete and steel bar manufacturers.
And there's just no secret about it.
Who is for the government waging war on the American people?
It's these certain politically connected private interests who stand to gain so much financially at the expense of all of our liberty.
Right.
Well, that's why I've heard people say that it's not just the military industrial complex anymore, it's the military industrial prison entertainment complex.
Yeah, and security complex.
And all of them have a role, yes, they all can make money out of making a spectacle out of the war on drugs, the war on terror, and they make money by making jails, and then they have to put people inside them.
Yeah, that's right, a mass without roofs, a prison to fill.
Okay, so now, tell me a little bit about your group.
I like the idea of activist lefty types going out and putting on plays in front of these cameras.
Tell me a little bit about how you guys call attention to the Surveillance Society.
Okay, well, first of all, as the group is, we're a very small little nucleus here in New York, and we try to organize ourselves as much by anti-authoritarian principles.
So, we don't have just like one leader with a hierarchy and have a mass organization.
What we've tried to do is encourage people, if they like what we do, to found their own groups, either take the names from bounce camera players or make up one of their own, so that all over the country and all over the world, little SCP groups have come and gone.
So, there's been one or two in Tempe, Arizona, San Francisco, weird places like Lithuania, Sweden, Greece, so that we try to not only have an anti-authoritarian message, but put it across in a way where we're not using the same techniques of the people that we dislike so much, and we try to be de-centered and anti-authoritarian in our practice.
So, what all those little de-centered groups do is basically give out, collect and give out information.
Where are their cameras?
How do they work?
How do they not work?
How many of them are in certain places?
And the plays get people to just stop, you know, they're walking around, thinking about their rent or their job or whatever it is.
You get them to stop just for a moment, and in a moment, you put a flyer in their hands that shows, not just is there one camera, but there's 300 in this neighborhood.
So, that's basically what we try to do is organize ourselves in a de-centered way and give people good, hard, useful information that they can then take with them.
Right.
Well, and at the same time, you do kind of funny plays and have signs and all that kind of stuff.
Tell us about that.
Well, it's got to be something that's going to make people stop.
I'm trying to make this fun for the audience here.
Yeah, I mean, the play has to be, I'm glad that you find the plays funny, because we try to make them ironic, funny, sarcastic, because especially in big cities, it's very hard to get people to pay attention to protesters, because people have almost been immunized not to listen to protesters.
So, we try not to look like protesters.
We try to look like street performers, or people who are making, you know, sort of a gag-like point by praying to the cameras, pretending that they're God, trick-or-treating them, anything like that to be able to get subliminally into people's heads so that they don't have any preconceived ideas and, bam, give them some information that they might not have known about any other way.
Yeah, well...
Humor is a big part of the plays.
And we do, to go back to 1984, do a version of 1984.
This is the sort of thing that almost everybody recognizes.
Well, I kind of like the idea of the big fat security guard sitting there, you know, doing nothing all night, and then he sees this, and you guys are basically calling him out for the parasite that he is.
Yeah, exactly.
As in, these people just sit in a room and they don't do anything.
And part of what we're doing is saying, if you want to watch us, you can't do this on the cheap, or you can't do this and be a coward.
You've got to come out and actually talk to us as people.
And the interesting thing is that they don't.
That they'll see us standing in front of their cameras saying, we know you're watching, mind your own business, and they don't come out.
They stay there as if they're afraid of us.
So instead of us being afraid of them, we turn the tables and make them afraid of us.
Oh, that's good.
Yeah, cops hate it when people point cameras at them.
Yes, they do.
I mean, private security guards is one thing, but a cop will, you know, you better look out, he doesn't shoot you and claim he thought it was a gun in your hand.
Yes, which is why we, I mean, we've got to be very careful, yes, especially with the cops.
The security guards are one thing, but with the cops, that's why it's very good to be able to say to them, look, we don't really like what you're doing, but the cameras put them out of business as well.
And there's a difference between the rank and file cops, the people who are actually municipal workers, and then there's the unions and their bosses who want to put in cameras and replace cops or pay them much less money to watch the cameras, and you can sort of divide them in between themselves and say the rank and file is against cameras, but it's their bosses and their unions that are telling them, you want cameras for the same reason that everybody else does, but they really don't.
They know the cameras will put them out of business, that they won't have a job anymore, or they'll have a bad job, which is nobody wants to sit in a dark room watching 50 screens.
You'd much rather be out and talking to people, and you can use that against them.
Well, the bosses always are going to just be obsessed with the technology, especially as long as the military is giving it to them for free, which has been the standard for quite some time now.
And that's an important thing to tie together, is that people understand that surveillance cameras in public places is literally not only military technology, it's a military style of watching.
And if you go back to some of the CIA documents that were just released, the so-called Crown Jewels, it shows that in the early 70s, the CIA was providing police departments in Washington, D.C. with surveillance cameras.
So it's the source of all this stuff, the very, very first cameras that went in to public places around 1970 came from either the CIA or the military to fight against the anti-war movement back then.
And nothing has changed in 37 years.
Yep, and you know, that really goes to the heart of it, too, because, you know, government action against the anti-war movement is the perfect example of them using these kinds of powers to protect themselves.
That's what fighting the anti-war movement was about.
There was nothing criminal about being an anti-war movement.
This is America, for crying out loud.
You can peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances and tell your congressman he better do what you say, or he's fired, and all the rest of that stuff.
So the only purpose they had in deploying these kinds of things against the anti-war movement was to oppress Americans and remove them from their rights.
That's right.
And in that way, the war that they fight is always on two fronts.
Against an enemy that they've basically convinced us is our enemy when they're not, and an internal one at the same time.
Let me ask you this.
If they had put up cameras all over the place around that same time in 1970 where everybody could see them and everybody knew where they were, or, you know, they were at least, I guess, as obvious as they are now, how different would the reaction have been, do you think, to the way it is now?
It's a great question, and I think the reaction would be much different and much more outraged back then, and that basically what's happened is that the society has gotten so good at seducing people and doping them up with reality television and Paris Hilton and cheap gas prices and just all the way that the media can manipulate people.
They manipulate people much better now than they did 30 years ago.
So 30 years ago, 35 years ago, I think people would have had a much different approach, a much more angry and direct one, and now people are mostly asleep.
I have to say I agree with that.
I was only a little kid at the time, but, you know, just my overall impression of the, you know, grown Texas gentlemen that I knew as they existed in the early 1980s, it seems to me like the kind of thing where they would have gone inside and grabbed their rifle.
You know, this is not going to stand.
Come on, boys, let's grab our pitchforks and torches and head on down to the Capitol building and put an end to this right now.
Yes, that's right, and things have really changed, and to my mind it's the media in all of its forms that has gotten very good at keeping people both stupid and passive.
And, you know, the conservative, that right-wing conservative, at least here in Texas, leave-me-the-hell-alone attitude, was responsible for in, I think, 97 or 98 or sometime.
The Texas legislature, they were basically passing a law legalizing the right, the authority, I will not say the right, the authority of the cities and counties and so forth around Texas to begin putting up red light cameras.
And it was a very right-wing crusty old conservative, if I remember right, in the Texas Senate who added an amendment that said, okay, you can do this, and he successfully added the amendment, you can do this, but you have to put up a giant poster of Vladimir Lenin and it has to say Big Brother is watching you at every corner where you do this.
And, of course, that was the poison pill that killed the bill.
But is there anybody in the Texas legislature who would stand up like that today?
I don't think so.
And they're moving that way right now here.
There's one or two of these people.
I can remember Dick Armey teamed up with the ACLU to fight against surveillance cameras.
So you do get libertarians on the right who hook up with libertarians on the left.
And those are people that it's very hard to make connections, but we need to make connections between them.
So I remember several years ago a militia, a kind of right-wing militia in Michigan, made a link to our site, the surveillance camera player site, and they were saying, look, you know, we may disagree about the Second Amendment, the one about guns, but we agree about the Fourth Amendment, which is that the government does not have a right to take away our free speech rights and to be able to just put up cameras everywhere.
So there are people who are left, right, and center who are just anti-the-government and this kind of Leninist way of saying, we know what's good for you.
And the trick is, is making alliances without selling ourselves out, without buying into their racism or whatever it is that the other things that go on with it.
But I think these people are fewer and fewer because they're there.
They've got to be there, but they're just keeping quiet.
And the key is, is getting people to speak up and say, you really don't like the speed cameras, we don't like the cameras at red lights, and getting them to speak up because there's more of us, I'm convinced of it, there's more of us who are against this.
It's just that people have been taught to be quiet, and we've got to teach people not to be quiet, but to speak up.
Yeah, I think you're probably right about that, that there are a lot more people of all different persuasions and even people who don't really study or follow politics at all, who would try to object to this if they thought there was an effective way to do it.
Well, but that's the thing, it's the first thing is just to get to people who realize that we're not alone and that it's only a little minority that outshouts everybody else, or just convinces everybody else just to be quiet.
And the key thing that I hope surveillance camera players is doing is saying, just speak up.
Once you speak up, you may find out that people agree with you.
So we've had very, very peculiar people who agree with us.
As I said, you can't predict it, and it's not people who necessarily agree with us that you think would agree, or the people that would disagree.
Yeah, well, if there's one unifying issue in this country, I hope it's the Bill of Rights, all ten of them, and I know that the ninth and the tenth have never really existed, but you know, the first eight were around for a while there, and you know, I'd sure like to keep them if I could.
That's right, but as you know, we've got a president who doesn't believe that habeas corpus should be a right, and I was reading someplace, you remove habeas corpus, and the entire Bill of Rights collapses.
That's right.
And we've got to defend not only the Bill of Rights, but habeas corpus, so that that way you can actually say to people, you can't hold me indefinitely, you've got to charge me with something or let me go.
All right, now let's finish up here a little bit with kind of, you know, we talked about the changes in our society that have allowed this to happen, and particularly the influence of the media telling you to care about anything except what's important, which is obvious enough, but I want to get back, to finish up here, I want to get back more to the idea of the kind of society, not so much the one we're living in right now, but the one we're headed towards in say five or ten years, where all these things that you and I are discussing now that you've been discussing here at notboard.org for a good ten years or more, what is it going to look like when all these systems are integrated, when the camera that takes a picture of our license plate, you know, is integrated right to the database that, you know, says whether we're behind on our taxes or whether we have, you know, a speeding ticket or any old thing, when all the products at the stores are talking to the main frames, when all the great many more of these cameras are all online and integrated together into central databases, it reminds me of the story, and I hope I'm saying it right, because it's been a long time and I kind of forget, but is it the panopticon, the prison design, where there's a central tower in the middle, and none of the prisoners are able to tell if they're being watched at any given moment, so the impression is that they are, and that kind of, I mean, that's a model for how to build a prison.
Well, I think it's something like that only much more modern, and I think you were getting there, which is that the society we're going to is that everybody has a number, not just prisoners who always have a unique number, but every citizen, which means that there's no hiding, there's no way of having any privacy whatsoever, because it's as if people are going to walk around now with their numbers tattooed on them, and either that's your license plate number, your cell phone, or either an identifying card, your license plate, and that that way, once the government is able to give a unique number to every single person, and have all the mainframes controlling people, that's where the society is leading, and to me, it looks like social death.
It looks like an absolute dystopia where everybody knows everything about everybody else, and that there's no way of hiding or having a private moment, because they've literally given you a number, and they have your number, and they'll be selling you things, and everybody will know if you're behind on your taxes, or if you skipped out on your student loans, or if you once were arrested for smoking a joint someplace, everybody will be completely naked, informationally naked, and to my mind, it's something that's not five or ten years away, it's more like three years away.
In England, the surveillance net that they have there, they put together basically between 96 and 99, and America is moving under Bush that quickly to make sure that every human being in America basically has the equivalent of a number that can be visible to everybody else, or especially to the government and all the corporations that support it.
Now, besides your specific actions and things that you're doing, which I think are just absolutely commendable, what do you think should be the target of people who are opposed to this?
How do we oppose it?
Because we can't go Ted Kaczynski and try to undo technological advancements and stuff, the computer chips are just going to keep getting faster and faster, these kinds of technologies are going to keep getting cheaper and cheaper, is not the problem, from my point of view, and I'm a libertarian, free market kind of guy, I tend to think that the biggest problem here really is state power, and that ultimately private business will find it not profitable to treat us all like cattle, because we don't like that, we become unhappy customers that way, whereas the state, it seems like they're the ones really pushing this, and of course they're the ones who have the authority to kidnap us and kill us.
Yeah, I would tend to agree with you about that, to the point there about basically the corporations want to make us happy so they can sell us stuff, but the government doesn't have to sell us anything, they just have to keep control.
And I guess that the basic answer is learning how to break up power, that I've always thought that what the United States needs is to devolve into its real regions, that this is a very, very varied country that's been artificially brought together into this thing called the United States of America, and that basically a secession movement would be one of the most effective things, to break the United States up into natural biospheres that everybody knows that there's a special vibe that goes on in the Northwest, instead of pretending that the Northwest has the same vibe as the Northeast, make them separate countries, and thereby limit what political power can do by going back to being a country of states instead of a country of a federal government.
Oh, Bill Brown, you are a man after my own heart, did you hear that, everybody?
Re-instate the Articles of Confederation.
That's where we screwed it up, right, was listening to Alexander Hamilton and them.
Yeah, well, it's very interesting, I just saw that they released the so-called anti-federalist papers, and Thomas Paine was a very big, you know, Thomas Paine, give me liberty or give me death, was very big on limiting the size of the federal government, and I think history has proved him right.
Absolutely, alright, what a great interview.
Bill Brown from the Surveillance Camera Players, they have a book, you can find it online, we know you are watching the Surveillance Camera Players 1996 through 2006, the website is notbored.org, thanks very much for your time today, Bill.
My pleasure, Scott, good talking to you.