08/29/07 – Nelson Linder – The Scott Horton Show

Alright, my friends, welcome back to Anti-War Radio on Chaos Radio 95.9 in Austin, Texas.
I'm your host, Scott Horton, and my guest today is my friend, Nelson Linder.
He's the director of the local Austin, Texas, office of the NAACP.
Welcome to the show, Nelson.
Hey Scott, how you doing?
I'm doing great.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing great, and it's fantastic to be here and be on your show.
I know, I've been looking forward to interviewing you for so long, and unfortunately, I'm stuck covering foreign policy pretty much all day every day on this show, but I'm also getting sick and tired, well, I have been for a long, long time, sick and tired of seeing the Austin Police Department murder unarmed men, almost in every case, I think, unarmed black men in this town, and something's got to be done about it, if only publicly shaming them.
If that's all I can do, then we'll do that.
You know what, if it's okay with you, I'd like to go ahead and just real quick, just for a minute or two, if we can just get this out of the way, if I can get a quote of you on tape, I already know what you're going to say, about Ron Paul.
Here's a man who they have nothing on him, his middle name is Ernest, he's been married to his wife for 50 years, was a milk boy when he was a little kid, track star, and they've just got nothing on him, they've got nothing, except in the 1980s, some papers were written by a ghost writer, I know that you know, that said some pretty disparaging things about black folks, and it is still going around on the blogosphere, people will not just use their Google and do their research, they just take the first link they find, and these rumors are still going around that Dr. Ron Paul is some kind of racist, and I know that you know Dr. Paul, so I was just wondering if I could give you a chance to describe what you believe his character is.
Well sure, I met Ron Paul about 20 years ago on another station, and he was doing a presentation and I called in and talked to him, I've also read his work, let's face it, Ron Paul is a thinker, he's also a constitutionalist, he believes in the Constitution, and in America in 2007, where that document has been tossed around like a piece of paper, he's a very very dangerous man, he's talking about real issues, he's very intelligent, he's very informed, and he's a free thinker, so that's going to invite attacks on him, as far as a comment, there are a lot of folks who don't quite understand the libertarian philosophy, I mean we appreciate the fact that you watch the Constitution, but in reality, as black people sometimes, we don't feel social policy, and sometimes people can say things in a context where it can be distorted, and have a much greater impact, so I think in his case, he was basically taken out of context, I've watched his work, I admire what he does on foreign policy, he has a lot of potential, I just think that in the future, we want to talk more about social issues, because in reality, if you talk about trying to have a meaningful impact on the American political system, you've got to understand that as African Americans, we do have to deal with social issues because of our history, and I think if they would do that, as well as talk about the fact that the Constitution is very, very important, I think a lot of folks would be a lot more comfortable, not only joining the dialogue, but perhaps being a part of the party, so I like Ron Paul personally, I like what he's saying, I think he's sincere, I think he's correcting what he's saying, and I hope that more folks in the other parties develop the courage to join him and address the issues that I think will decide the fate of this country in the near future.
That's a very important point, and I think it's a fair criticism of Dr. Paul that he perhaps does not spend enough time explaining carefully to some of the weakest among us and the poorest among us who look to the government to be their safety net and so forth.
He's got to really address them particularly and explain why it is that the absolute liberty or close to absolute liberty he endorses is really the way that they ought to go, the policy they ought to support.
I think that's a fair criticism that he could do better about that, and I'll do my best through a couple of degrees of separation, hopefully I can pass on that message to him from you.
I take that very seriously, and you've met him, right?
You've sat down and had dinner with Ron, but you never thought that he was thinking, oh, a black guy, while your back was turned or anything.
No, I met him, we had a very direct handshake, looked out of the eye, he was a very informed man.
No, not at all, that was not my impression at all.
He was very, very careful about what he said, he was not disrespectful.
I don't get that from Ron Paul, I think he was a very serious person, I just think he was taken out of context based on that conversation, I never got that impression from him at all.
Yeah, well, and I totally agree with that, and like you said, the man's a libertarian and the libertarian philosophy is, of course, everyone is an individual to be judged by the content of their character, period.
So how could he possibly be a racist if he's an individualist?
Right, and I think too, Scott, if we look at the big picture here, we talk about the Constitution, I mean, my God, you can't have a more important topic than that particular document in 2007, because if we understood it, we wouldn't allow what's happening in this country currently today to go on.
So I think he's got the right topic, obviously, we need to figure out some way to involve the American public in general, and show them that even in 2007, if you don't have a document, you can use it to change things, but unfortunately, by the way, it requires discipline, it requires a certain kind of courage, and a certain kind of scrutiny, and nobody wants to be attacked by having a different point of view, so I think that's a challenge he faces in this time when we look at almost a certain kind of fascism in this country.
Right, yeah, I think you're right, and you know, I went to his barbecue birthday party, in Houston, over the weekend, and part of his speech, he talked about how people sometimes criticize him for wanting to be a weak president, he wants to basically give up all the unconstitutional powers that the presidency has usurped from the people, the states, and the Congress, and return it where it belongs under the real separation of powers and so forth, and people criticize him for that, and he pointed out, and I absolutely agree, that it takes strength, it takes incredible moral strength to resist the temptation of power, and Ron Paul is that perfect balance where he's just barely willing to run when people beg him to, but then he only wants the power so he can give it up, and that takes an incredible amount of strength to resist the ability to use the power of the state against whoever you might want for whatever your whim, that's the way basically all the rest of them act, and so, you know, I believe that he's really the strongest willed of them all, and it's because of his moral center.
Well, I think another thing, too, is that if we look at America today, Scott, 77% of the medical population can name the Three Stooges, less than 30% can tell you about the separational powers, about the negative power, about the inflating power, judicial power, so we have a problem, and until we educate the population about what the Constitution really is, and about the importance of checks and balances, he won't be fully appreciated, and that's my challenge as well, how do we get folks to think about things that are important in this country, like the Constitution, like the separation of power, and I think that's our challenge, more work, more information, we have folks that engage people in different places, we can't have these conversations on their friends, we've got to go to town hall meetings, we've got to go to what these other folks are, we've got to encourage folks to look at these different parties, the two-pointed system has failed America, I have no doubt about that, it's failed America, we're an evolving country now, we're growing with all kinds of diversity, just look at options and different ideas, if we don't do that, we're going to basically do a tremendous disservice to ourselves, so I think the idea of an independent thinker, that new party that's based on the Constitution, really can come at another time, we need that challenge, and I hope folks will have enough courage to research the party, and look at what they're really trying to do, I think, from a total standpoint, especially in foreign policy, because let's face it, when you invade foreign countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people, I mean, how immoral can you get, it doesn't get any better than that.
No, it doesn't, that is the worst possible situation, and even just this week, what the situation on the ground in Iraq is just incredible, it's unbelievable.
But these are young folks, guys like you and I, who have been sacrificed for absolutely nothing but money and power, I mean, that in itself is not reason to look at it from a policy standpoint, but also, look at the whole party, and try to find ways, once again, to make it more, I think, relevant to everybody, make it more relevant socially, and try to educate folks about what you're really trying to accomplish, and I'm definitely committed to that, because we need change in this country, and until we invite change, these other parties are not going to really address us at all, and I'm very serious about that.
Yeah, you are, and your history here in Austin, Texas is going an extra ten miles on every case requiring it, which is an endless list, to just simply try to hold the government to their own laws, I mean, I can't think of a single radio interview, or TV interview, or anything I've ever seen of you, where what you're saying is, you know, we need some kind of massive this or that, all you're saying is, listen, it's not okay for you guys to go around killing unarmed black guys, and the law not applying to you the same way it applies to us.
I mean, think of the double standard, let's get this really straight, everyone in the radio audience out there, if Nelson Linder killed a cop, even in self-defense, they kicked in the wrong door, thought it was a robber, and he shot defending himself, they would give him the needle.
No doubt about that.
Black man kills a cop, he gets the needle in the arm, period, if a cop kills Nelson Linder, that cop is going on paid vacation, and the grand jury's going to turn around a no bill, and that's the end of story.
Unfortunately, that's our history, the good thing is, now we're talking about the Fourth Amendment in every conversation, and I think we have a new police chief who I think kind of understands that, I see a cultural change here because folks are educated, we're talking about the Constitution every day, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, when you make that conversation, and you show the disparities, it's going to expose a lot of people, so I think right now, with Arthur Vado, and some of his key people and key positions, and because of the public issues that we've raised now, I think folks are thinking about issues of force and often, how really unjust it really is, it's been a long fight, but I think now some of them are finally listening, and we have to stop this, and for example, the DA's office, let's face it, you have a DA here who does not respect the Fourth Amendment, otherwise, why the disparity?
So once again, it's the Constitution, it's the education, and it's also calling a spade a spade, we have to do that to make sure people understand what we're trying to accomplish.
Yeah, and even, you know, the Fourteenth Amendment aside, if I take your meaning, what you're saying is, the Fourteenth Amendment applying the National Bill of Rights to the states and that it must be respected in that sense, but hell, the law in Texas is that it's not okay to murder people, and if you do, you go on trial for it.
Shouldn't matter if you're a cop or not.
That's right, and we also talk about, Scott, equal protection of the law.
Everybody should be protected equally, not just white people, okay?
And also due process.
We all need due process, not just this police office.
You know what, here's something I wonder about, and I wonder what your perspective is.
It doesn't seem to me, from much more of an outside perspective than you have on this, certainly, but it doesn't seem to me that the cops who, to be clear, we're talking about a dozen or two dozen unarmed black guys been killed by this government just in this most recent millennium started a few years back.
It doesn't seem like the cops are illiterate, redneck, mullet-headed, racist types.
I wonder whether it's really just the impunity rather than actual racism.
You know what I mean?
They want to kill somebody, and they know they can get away with killing a black guy.
And I think you're right.
I think, number one, definitely the impunity, but also I think it's subjective.
And this society, let's face it, if you're black, you mean less in terms of life.
And let's face it also, Scott, when you shoot black folks in this country and you wear a uniform, you get away with it.
So I think it's the culture, it's the fact that we tolerate it, it's the fact that they can do it.
And let's face it, the cops are trained to enforce the law, so if you can do these kind of things to a certain population that the government has disrespected historically, then who's going to really change that?
So that's part of our culture and part of our orientation.
So until we have cops themselves that say, wait a minute, this is not right.
And right now it's happening within a department.
When cops themselves say, look, we need to make sure that we're fair with everybody, this stuff will stop.
All of a sudden it's all over the country when police officers enforce their own rights and say, look, we're human beings, so this kind of behavior begins to simplify.
And that's kind of where we need to be today.
It needs to come from within a department, but also the society at large.
Right, right.
Yeah, it's a matter of community support.
Absolutely.
And really what's going on here is I am officially, I mean, it's been a long time, but I am publicly and officially completely and totally withdrawing my support from these people.
They don't deserve it.
Exactly.
And it's not okay to kill people even if they're black.
That's right.
Wow.
How's that for a revolutionary statement, huh?
That's right.
Killing people is wrong, even if you're wearing a blue uniform.
That's right.
Yeah.
And you know, here's the thing, too.
We mentioned checks and balances and so forth, the separation of powers.
In the Anglo-American tradition, going back 800 years, we have this thing called the grand jury.
It's created for a couple of reasons.
The first reason is so that the prosecutors don't just get to pick who they want to put on trial.
Right.
And neither do the police.
They have to check it with the neighborhood first.
And if the neighborhood agrees that there should be a trial, then there's a trial.
And that's to protect us from them.
And the other purpose of it, of course, is that if the prosecutors don't want to prosecute a case, because, say, for example, an APD shot an unarmed black guy in the back, the grand jury still has the power to go ahead and indict anyway and hold a trial, even if the prosecutor didn't want to in the first place.
And instead, what is the grand jury?
It's a rubber stamp for Ronnie Earl accessory to murder.
And it works exactly the opposite of how it's supposed to work.
It's there to rubber stamp every persecution of us and to rubber stamp every protection of them.
That's just gotten fight.
But in 2003, when they shot and killed Jesse Orange, the grand jury, it was actually very, very active.
They did research.
They made public statements.
They told us that there's an imbalance here in terms of race.
You need to address this.
They actually challenged Ronnie Earl and said, this is wrong.
Now, in that particular case, we got an indictment.
But guess what?
Ronnie Earl took it to a judge and threw it out based on technicality.
So when a grand jury uses its own power, it can investigate.
It can be proactive, but they understand what a role really is.
They can actually challenge the prosecutor.
But once again, if people are not informed about their rights, they can't be effective.
So I think even in grand jury process, it's not a passive body.
If they would challenge the prosecutor, for example, let them know what options are, not just one options.
Give me an A, give me a B, give me a C, but also let me form my own opinion.
You can actually challenge the DA and be more active.
But unfortunately, most cases we don't get it.
We get very passive grand juries.
We also have to change that as well.
Yeah.
Now, wouldn't that like the first indictment of a cop in Austin in a hundred years or something?
Well, when it comes to blank, folks, certainly.
Again, you know, we got the indictment, but Earl said it was not technically found.
And he knew the judge, he knew Judge Brenda Kennedy, who unfortunately was an African American, and they threw it out.
Well, so wait a minute.
What was the technicality?
What was wrong with the indictment?
And was it Ronnie Earl's fault that it had a technicality wrong with it in the first place?
Yeah, yeah.
But of course he blamed the grand jury, saying it was poorly construed and improperly written.
That was his actual statement.
Well, but isn't it his responsibility to make sure that, well, I guess it's not, right?
Well, according to him it's not.
And unfortunately, nobody in the legal profession, Scott, nobody challenges Scott.
Now, this is a huge case.
Unbelievable.
Nobody challenges Scott.
Get away with that.
You know, pretend that this is funny.
I already told you this joke last time I saw you.
But I was interviewing Max Blumenthal, who went to the Christians United for War in the Middle East, Israel Conference thing.
And he interviewed Tom DeLay.
Got a good couple of sound bites of Tom DeLay.
When I interviewed Max Blumenthal, he said this didn't make it into the video.
But one of the things that Tom DeLay told him was that when it came to all prosecutions and his indictments, that that was the devil behind that.
And I said, well, you know, if he's referring to Ronnie Earl, he may very well be right about that.
You know, and also I think the devil works for human beings, unfortunately.
So if you've got evil people that don't even think, that's how you operate.
We all have to understand that and we have to deal with that.
And you know what?
Again, I'm foreign policy all day long.
And I know you pay much more attention to these kinds of local issues.
Does Ronnie Earl have any redeeming qualities whatsoever?
Because all I can think of is his absolutely, totally and completely botched prosecutions of the yogurt shop murderers.
I can remember him indicting and trying Lucretia Murray, was it three or four times for a crime that everybody knew she didn't commit?
A little 11 year old girl at the time that he framed her up, his I don't know how legit they are prosecutions of Tom delay to try to get on TV.
Does this guy have any redeeming qualities except for perhaps persecuting delay?
Ironically, ironically, around Texas, if you ask the attorneys, they say he's a pretty good DA.
You know what I mean?
I don't know.
But that's what they say, that he's fairly progressive.
That's the irony.
I compare the most even state of Texas.
This county has a fairly progressive reputation.
Of course, it's not asked to the general public.
That's not my reputation, but that's what they say.
But when it comes to key issues, this guy simply does not get involved.
If he did on police brutality, on African Americans, in my opinion, he doesn't really get involved.
That's the subtle way around.
But according to the state overall, he's a fairly progressive DA.
Oh, man.
Well, yeah, see, I'm not sure progressive really counts for much.
I mean, in a cultural sense, if that means that, you know, you don't wear a white hood, then okay, congratulations or whatever.
But to me, progressive just means progressively more and more state until we're all slaves.
Yeah, what it means is basically that he's a Democrat in the state that's primarily most Republican.
And that's not good enough.
We shouldn't accept that, actually.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with that, you know.
And really, that is how it is as part of this two party system where I was like, well, at least he's not a Republican.
I don't know if I'd prefer the Republican that ran against him last time.
I forget the guy's name, but I remember thinking, oh, my God, this guy might be even worse.
Well, that's the irony.
But I think this time around, we're going to see a more progressive situation.
I'm getting that impression right now.
It's going to be a much better, I think, choice in my opinion.
But we'll see what happens with that.
Yeah.
Well, and you did mention you actually have some hope for this new police chief, huh?
Yeah, yeah.
I think he has a great background.
I think he's a real person.
He's on the street.
He's talking to folks.
But more importantly, I think he has had a right concept putting him in the right position.
I think that is critical.
He's aware of the early warning system.
He understands the importance of discipline, of enforcement.
And he's talking to folks as human beings.
I think he's got a great potential here if we support him and also realize that once he makes the right decisions, we have to see how this society reacts to him because, let's face it, in his town, for the most part, his territory, the union has run things politically.
So if he begins to fire police officers, how will we support him and protect him from the union, these other folks here who have had it that way for a long way?
That's my concern.
But I think he's going to be okay because he's a straight-up guy.
Oh, and that's a great point, too.
The government employee unions.
Right.
Boy, there's a force you don't want to mess with, man.
Yeah.
See, these factors like the union, civil service, law, the fact that the state, for example, is very quite on this issue.
Why are state reps on these issues?
Why are they challenging injustice in Travis County?
Why are they challenging these things all over Texas?
They are not.
So this is a huge political issue.
And while we fight it locally, it's really a national issue.
Yeah.
Well, although, in my view, I don't know how you feel about this exactly, but in my view, it's a national issue to be solved locally.
Oh, certainly.
Yeah, certainly.
And, in fact, you mentioned the 14th Amendment and so forth.
And I wanted to ask you whether you think, and this will be a controversial kind of thing, I guess, but I look at asking the national government to come in and do their civil rights investigation as the worst distraction and waste of time.
You know, honestly, and I know it hasn't been to the benefit of black folks that the Bill of Rights was construed this way originally, but the Bill of Rights on the national level and the national Constitution is supposed to be a list of restrictions against their power.
Right.
And they're supposed to go to the Justice Department to come in and, you know, file lawsuits against states or whatever.
And it just seemed to me that if we would never focus our energy on trying to get the Justice Department to come in and do a civil rights violation investigation, which never leads to anything anyway, why should it, then that energy could be better spent here smearing and destroying the reputation and career of Ronnie Earle, Accessory to Murder.
Well, let's put it in context.
Historically speaking, when they came to town from the national government, they were coming to stop lynchings and stopping black world commerce.
So in that case, Mississippi was burning, Georgia was burning, Alabama was burning, Kentucky was burning.
So in that case, the national government provided through a kind of release.
But in 2007, when you have moral rights, I'm with you, you have to have some sort of oversight, but I'm not sure that it's real oversight.
I think we do it as an option.
We do it as a strategy because in reality, what alternatives do we have?
We can't get these things out locally because in reality, where do you go?
If the DA says no, then what's the next step?
I think there's a hope that sometimes, somehow, from a national standpoint, there might be a more fair perspective based on public scrutiny where at least these states might be exposed, but death is strong.
I understand that.
But it's an option based on a political history that we can't deny.
Right.
Yeah, that's clearly understandable.
And hey, the people of Austin have proven that they don't care.
Nelson, they don't care when these guys come and shoot your neighbor in the back.
Keep in mind also, that's a request.
If these things were done properly locally, we'd never call the federal government.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Here we are, 2007.
I don't think you could find more than three or four or five percent, if that many, of the population of this town and the surrounding suburbs, et cetera, who would openly tell you, yeah, I'm a racist.
What of it?
It's not cool to be a racist.
Nobody's a racist.
It's stupid to be a racist.
And yet what do we have?
We got a big federal highway, divides our town in half with you on one side and me on the other.
Not very far on the other side, by the way.
I always tell folks, in the scientific world, there are protons, there are neutrons, there are electrons.
In the real world, the folks who are neutral, that's what a problem is.
If they weren't neutral, they could have an impact.
If all the folks who are neutral on this issue got involved, we could change the system tomorrow.
Right.
Don't be neutral.
Get involved and take a position.
And that's our problem, Scott.
We have too many folks here who will feel lynched and look the other way.
If they will stop the lynching, this stuff will stop.
So I want to challenge folks who are neutral, get involved and take a position.
And make a difference.
You still have to be right, but face something and do something.
Yeah.
Hey, you know, I saw this statistic the other day in a different context.
I wonder if you could verify this for me.
Is it true that Texas has the largest prison population of all the states?
That's what we've heard.
I was certainly, I feel very secure in saying that, absolutely.
Yeah.
And of course, California has, what, twice the population of Texas, something like that?
Absolutely.
That's right.
I'm not really asking you to verify this or not.
This one I heard years and years ago, but it was something about Texas executes as many people as, Texas is first, and then the United States is second, and then China's third, and execution, something like that?
I think that's also been verified.
Absolutely.
This system in Texas right now, on the Rick Perry, is absolutely gruesome.
And the other thing is, once again, who's really going to challenge it?
We had a joke in the last election, and they made it a joke, really.
And this state is very, very serious in terms of what it does.
It's regressive.
It's really deplorable.
But once again, we accept it and we tolerate it.
Well, let me ask you this.
As long as we're both speaking perfectly reasonably and sounding like some kind of radicals because of how radical our actual situation is, let me go ahead and sound like a radical.
How about this one for you, Nelson Linder, local director of the NAACP.
How about we just abolish the APD and the Travis County Sheriff's Department, and if people want security, they can just hire their own damn security, and then we can all be free.
How about that?
Well, Scott, hey, man.
Now, wait.
Now, we do need some kind of law and order, and I'm afraid that if we did that, the inmates might be running the asylum, so...
Well, but that's what we got now, is the inmates running the asylum.
Here's what I mean.
I know what you mean.
I understand your facts.
We need law.
We need law.
I just don't think we need a monopoly on it, and I don't think that we need a security service that none of us are allowed to fire.
Why should we...
I mean, look, everything that government does, business does better.
Why should security be an exception?
I think my point will be that even in these organizations like APD and the Sheriff's Department, they are good people.
And I think if they do their jobs and remain human beings, that's how we solve problems.
I don't have a problem with the institutions themselves.
I think we need good people there who don't become a part of the institutions and they remain human beings.
So I have a different point there.
I think we can do the right thing if we have the right people there who are committed to human rights and treat us as human beings.
But unfortunately, sometimes these institutions have a life and a power of their own, and that's where the problem, I think, comes from.
Yeah.
It's the lack of accountability, and I'm not going to try to get you to go on the record as an anarcho-capitalist today or anything here on the radio, but the thing is, it's the lack of accountability.
For example, if I drive down Sixth Street or I walk down the sidewalk on Sixth Street on a weekend evening, there are on this corner and this corner and that corner, there are cops standing around eating steroids and looking like tough guys and being the biggest gang on the block and basically treating people like absolute garbage.
And my theory is that if the bar owners downtown hired Stanley Smith and Burns Security and so forth, and it was their dollar that was being put into the security officer's pocket, then they would insist that they provide good security and treat all their customers with respect or else they would be fired.
And yet the APD is never fired.
The APD's contract has never expired.
It's always here and it's always going to be here.
They get all their money right out of our paychecks, right out of the price of everything we buy at the store.
They don't have that private capitalist incentive to provide a good service for a reasonable price.
I think that's a very, very serious argument.
I'll agree with you there.
When you take out the incentive factor, obviously we suffer.
I think that capitalism does have some virtues.
Anytime you're dealing with private enterprise where it's based on incentives and the end result, obviously that has a big impact in a positive way.
But sometimes if you're an institution, let's face it, we're not a purely capitalist society anyway.
We have a mixed market here that has some of everything really, to be honest about it.
But so we're not really there yet.
I just think we have folks who can understand that concept would be okay, but in reality they don't because of education, which is really indoctrination.
What about Nelson Linder for district attorney?
Hey man, I'm going to rest on education and private enterprise.
My goal is I'm a business guy.
I think if you can create organization institutions that can make money and hire people to do it the right way, we can change the society.
Because in reality, when I do that back of the poor folks who I think have good ideas, that we can put a balance back into the system.
My goal is to change the society from what we can by having, number one, great educational system, opportunities and encouraging folks to be the best they can possibly be.
And that's what happened in America in 2007.
And you know what?
That's why I've always been so fond of you.
Long before we ever did any business together, I heard you over and over on KOBJ radio and saw you interviewed on the local news channels and so forth.
It's so obvious that you got your principles in the right place that you only mean the best for people, obviously extremely active in the community in all facets besides just defending people from police brutality and so forth.
You know, I guess I don't really know, Nelson, but if I had to guess, I bet that you've done a hell of a lot to wake people up to that way of thinking and get them thinking along those very same lines.
And close cut is also that they can make a difference.
If you get involved, make a difference.
And don't be afraid to look at people like Juan Paul and others who are saying something different.
Be courageous enough to be different.
Read what these guys are saying.
Look at the Americans overseas, what they're really doing.
Read the Constitution.
See what we are today in 2007.
And we can encourage folks to be creative and take chances.
And every risk that we take, Scott, can be managed.
Take a risk, do something different, and change the system for the better.
All right.
Nelson Linder, everybody from the local NAACP.
Thanks, Nelson.
Thanks, Matt.
You take care.