Human Up Season 2 Ep 6: Navigating a Divided World with The Brinkleys
This is a transcript of Human Up Podcast Season 2, Episode 6 with The Brinkleys which you can watch and listen to here:
Dave: Welcome to the Human Up Podcast. I'm your host, Dave Marlon. And today we have two for one. I'm so honored to have Garland and Patricia Brinkley here on the podcast. Welcome to the two of you.
Patricia: Thank you, Dave, for having us.
Garland: Thank you very much.
Dave: It's my pleasure. I've gotten to know you both over the last year, and I feel remiss for not being neighbors have not established a relationship sooner, but I'm so glad that we've become closer recently, and I'm glad to dig a little deeper in today. Great.
Garland: Excellent.
Dave: Now, I'm a big fan of education, as you could see by all the degrees behind me. But Garland, you have an impressive career with an MPH, which I'm assuming is a master's in public health.
Garland: Correct.
Dave: As well as a PhD. And your PhD is in economics?
Garland: Economics.
Dave: Okay. I think I'd mentioned my undergraduate degree was in economics as well. So I look forward to having more discussions about that. Now, you got your MPH at University of California at Berkeley, which means that you're really smart. And typically, it means that you're really liberal. So I'm going to try to understand what happened in Berkeley.
Garland: Well, it's funny because Berkeley has a reputation for liberal, but a lot of the departments are not. They're actually quite conservative. They get this reputation because a few of the departments- The social services. The social studies in particular are very liberal and they do the protests like that. But it's like economics is very conservative. And I would say that public health is somewhat ... My concentrations in public health is epidemiology and biostatistics. So it's like a numbers is what I look at, or actually data analysis.
Dave: Well, that plays closer to conservatism from my perspective. Can I interrupt,
Patricia: Dave? Oh, please. One thing that Garland did tell me is that as far as research is concerned, their research is probably pretty liberal because a lot of the issues that he wanted to research, he didn't get any funding for it. So if you don't go along with their overall view of things with your research, you're not going to get the funding
Garland: For it. That's true. A lot of the research I did had to do with drunken driving. And there's some interesting interventions that they had reducing drunk and driving that I was looking at. And I'll actually see if I can get it more introduced here in Clark County because the substantial decrease in drunken driving, the intervention I'm thinking about. And it's actually very cost-effective.
Dave: Please tell me, but what is that intervention?
Garland: Okay. What it is is a alert eyes and DUI reduction. And basically what it is, is a secret witness reward program where if you see someone driving drunk, you call the police, they've agreed to stop anyone with those phone calls. And if the person's arrested for drunken driving, you get a reward for it.
Dave: Okay. Your intervention is leveraging the public to assist enforcement to catch people who are offending and driving while impaired or intoxicated.
Garland: Absolutely. And what's interesting is that the money, the reward money, the police when they arrest them, it's just an arrest, not a conviction. So when they're arrested, they tell the bank, "I had a phone call from ABC123," for example, and the person will go into the bank and collect the money.
Patricia: And this program was implemented in Stockton at Garland's initiation.
Dave: Well, Bravo helping positively affect social change.
Patricia: However, when you think about it, think about COVID and the neighbors are calling it reporting neighbors. And so it's going to have a negative connotation to it when you think about COVID and what they were doing with the mask and everything like that.
Garland: What we're doing is rewarding people for being good neighbors. You don't want to have people driving drunk or drunken drivers out there because of the huge cost, the human cost and the police costs and things like that. Public
Patricia: Safety.
Dave: Oh, a hundred percent. I think you know I have a long career as a licensed drug and alcohol counselor. And very frequently, I'll talk to a mom or dad who's called me about their son and they're like, "He's very drunk and he just got in his car and what should I do as a parent?" And they're often always surprised when I say, "You should call the police if you need someone who's drinking and driving." And they'll say, "But it's my kid." And I said, "Don't you want to prevent them from having a terrible catastrophe and don't you want to have consequences for their inappropriate and unhealthy actions so they could implement some
Garland: Change?" Absolutely. It's better to have your child or your parents go to jail for drunken driving than to have them kill someone or be killed.
Dave: A hundred percent agree. Wow. Let me know what I could do to chime in to help champion improving our streets with this initiative that you got implemented in Stockton. Bravo.
Patricia: When you're elected in Ward six, that would be a great opportunity to do so. Yes,
Garland: Absolutely. I've actually spoken to the district attorney, Steve Wolfson, about it, but very briefly, and also to the Chief of Police here in North Las Vegas. And that's Jackie Gravitz, just very briefly about it, and they seem positive about it. The reward money actually does not come from the state, if you will, government. It's actually donated money. And they had it in Stockton, California for quite a long time, years now, decades now. And at that time, this was like back in the '90s, the reward was $100 every time someone was arrested. In today's money, that's like 350 to 400. So it's like if you, oh, how do I say? See someone driving drunk or had the science of it weaving back and forth and you call and they're arrested, you can collect that money then. And it's a nice incentive for people to do that.
Dave: Right. And I assume they would be calling the 311 or perhaps a new unique line.
Garland: Either a
Dave: New
Garland: Unique one or 911.
Dave:
Yeah.
Garland: I mean, it's like if someone's drunk and driving, you want to catch them as soon as possible.
Dave: No, agreed. 100%. For them as well as for society.
Garland: Yes.
Dave: Now, we've jumped right into one of your studies, which you determined doing your epidemiologic, economic work, but could you tell me the human side? What took you down that path?
Garland: Oh, funding briefly, because I actually had my PhD in economics and I was teaching at Berkeley at the time. And I found out that most of my research had to do with health economics.
Dave: And
Garland: I say public health officials and economists use the same words, but they mean different things. So a random effects model in economics is different than a random effects model in public health. And so I'd read these articles, medical journals, things like that. It's like, well, this makes no sense to me. And so that's one of the main reasons I decided to get the master's in public health.
Dave: Okay. And it's
Garland: Funny because I said I was teaching at the time when I was actually going to school at Berkeley for the master's program.
Dave: Okay. I understand that very well because I had an economics degree and a master's in business and I began running a large clinic and the clinicians kept coming in and telling me, "You can't do that. You can't do that. " So I went back and I got another master's in community mental health counseling. Then I got licensed as a clinician again so we could speak the same language.
Garland: Yes.
Dave: Oh, so I understand that very well. Now, where'd you go to high school?
Garland: Oh, Sacramento, California. The
Dave: High school
Garland: I went to was Norde Del Rio, which is now a junior high.
Dave: Okay. What took you to Berkeley? You did well in high school, so you just naturally went to the premier state school?
Garland: Well, actually, no. Well, what happened was after I graduated from high school, I worked for the state of California for 20 years, and I worked my way up there, and I reached a point where I had to have a degree to go higher. And so that's when I went back to school. And so I went back to school when I was like 30, in my 30s. And after I finished college, my bachelor degree, it's like I like to go to school. That beats working for a living. And so that's when I went to the PhD program at UC Davis, and that's where I got my PhD in economics. You're missing
Patricia: Something.
Garland: What am I missing?
Patricia: The state paid for your education. You didn't have any loans.
Garland: I know. So no loans at all. Oh, probably. Time I paid for my education was like
A TB class at the very beginning. That's the only time I paid for it. The state paid for all the classes I took and the books and reimbursement there. And then when I was teaching at Berkeley, after I got my PhD, I was funded when I was getting in the PhD program as a research assistant or a teaching assistant. And then I went to Berkeley with a master's in public health and I actually had a grant to do that. So I actually wrote grants too. So I had a grant funding, my master's in public health. So
Patricia: He had no student loans at all?
Dave: None. Ravo. And again, more how you and I are similar, I got my economics degree in the 80s, the mid 80s. I went back and got my MBA in the 90s. In the 2010s, I got my community mental health master's. And then in the 2020s, I got my doctorate degree. So I too love learning. And although I had a student loan for my first baccalaureate degree, which was ... At the time, I got a $1,500 region scholarship for having a high SAT score. And I got the rest with a student loan that I had to pay off over 10 years. And I remember writing that check for 10 years, but I was so happy and I felt so accomplished when I paid it off, but I'm grateful that all my subsequent education I was able to have covered in some way or another. And I'm happy not to have student loans now.
Garland: Yeah. In my economics background, I have three major fields, and this is what I took the preliminary exams in. So it's like you can say I'm certified or qualified in that. The main one is economic history and UC Davis is actually rated number in the world. It goes back and forth with Harvard on the rating for that, for that- That
Dave: Discipline.
Garland: That discipline. And then under that, I have international trade and economic development. And so in the international sense with tariffs and what's going on in different places of the world, I'm very familiar with that. Or I can do a good analysis of that. I'll put it that way.
Dave: Well, off the cuff, I hear that our tariffs have been mitigating our trade deficit. Do you think the tariffs from a outsider's view, has that been good policy or bad policy?
Garland: Let me say, I think it's been good. Anyone though, the way Trump initiated the tariffs, and we had lots of experts tell us how bad it was or good or whatever. It's like no one could actually say that because no one has ever done that before. When we do analysis, we do small country tariffs and large country.
And small country is because if you put a tariff on a good, you can't change the international price. A large country, you put a tariff on you can. And like I said, no one has ever done that before the way Donald Trump did. No one. So anyone telling you that they know what's going to happen is dishonest, I'll put it that way, or they have some kind of agenda. So had you asked me six months to go up as any good? I'd say, "I don't know. We just don't know.
And tariffs generally, I would say, tend to be good. Otherwise, all the other countries would not have tariffs on American goods.
Patricia: And the other thing is that tariffs were used up until the mid 1900s when the, I think it's the 16th amendment instituted income tax. And so before then, tariffs are also used during the time of the Civil War. So I mean, it's just something that if people read their history, they would know about.
Garland: Well, tariffs are fun to collect because goods coming into the country tend to come through ports, and so there's very few places. So it's like trying to track down income tax as everyone's, all the paperwork and stuff. A terrific, it's actually much easier to do and much less costly in a governmental sense to collect.
Dave: Oh, these are some really good points. And I thank you for illuminating my worldview because while I'd studied economics, I didn't understand that there needs to be a large country versus a small country effect. Now I understand that having an oligopic relationship with trade that the United States has, that they need to be studied and measured differently than a small country. So that's a very helpful perspective. And I guess we'll continue to watch what's happening and see if this was good or bad.
Garland: Absolutely. And it's like overall, I think the effects are positive and we see a lot of investment into the US so that people, or I should say foreign companies or even domestic companies can avoid the tariffs. So we've had a huge amount, illegal dollars of investment here in the US because of it. All
Dave: Right. Well, that sounds good too, especially because as an economist, I worry about the size of our national debt. And to me, it's one of my primary criticisms of Donald Trump, our current president, is that I don't want to see that national debt grow. What's your sense on the debt?
Garland: As long as our economy grows faster than the debt, we're fine.
Dave: Right. Okay.
Garland: Okay. So it's like, because in an individual sense, we go into debt, we buy our house, and the house we buy is far more than what our annual income is, if you will.
Dave: Right. Yes.
Garland: And that I think 37 trillion is like one and a half times, not even one and a half times our national income. So it's at the point where we should worry about it. A lot of things the government can do to, I'll say, reduce the debt. I'm careful how to say debt because what happened in the last administration with the inflation, it's called monetizing the debt. So it's like basically the debt is not worth as much as it was. So it's like we actually got rid of a lot of, how do you say, in real terms, what we owe on it.
Dave: Right. But by utilizing inflation, essentially printing more money and reducing the real cost of that debt. I mean, that does sound from an outsider like one way to help address that.
Garland: Yeah. Well, it's funny because with inflation, it helps some people and hurts others. And so if you own real assets, a house, a factory, things like that, real things, that increases in value. If you owe nominal debt, inflation helps with that too. So you bought a house for 500,000, the mortgage was 500,000, you have a lot of inflation, the value of the house goes up to say a million, but you still only owe 500,000. So you just made a nice substantial gain on that. Inflation actually hurts banks more than anyone else. The people that are loaning the money out, the lenders.
Dave: Yeah. Which is why they do most of their lending based on inflation adjusted on adjusted variable rates it seems to do business.
Garland: Well, the Federal Reserve System tries to, how I say, have a growth, if you will. They want the money supplied to increase by about 2.5% a year, and that's just to help grease the skids of commerce. And so you'll find mortgages will be that two and a half built in to handle the interest rates or the inflation, and then like four or 5% more than that.
Dave: Now we've gotten a little bit into the economic side and I dig that. Yes. Now it seemed like you also were looking at mental illness, alcohol consumption, and the cross section with economic outcomes. Was it just on DUIs or was there other analysis that you did?
Garland: Well, there's other analysis. And this was, I also spent three years with the, I'll say United AAA at two of their nationally funded centers.
Dave: Oh wow, okay!
Garland: And so I worked mostly on drunk and driving there in different ways, but there's a couple other things I worked on. One thing, because I'm an economist, I tend to see more, I'll say numbers. Oh, how do I put this? I worked on identifying this, how do I say, the center of an epidemic. I'll put it there. That's the easiest way to put it. So it's like if an epidemic happens, where does it start? And the way we do that currently is what they call shoe leather costs. We go around knock on doors talking to people. "Okay, when did you get sick? What happened? "We do that with food poisoning at different restaurants and so on. I wrote software where I could look at the cases of people that came down with whatever the disease was and determined where it was based upon spatial statistics and time statistics.
Dave: Wow. Okay. So you found out an empirical way to track what I would usually call balancing lived experience with data driven decisions. You actually stayed in the data driven mode by utilizing this spatial analysis.
Garland: Yes.
Dave: That's fascinating.
Garland: So my sample that I actually used and demonstrated with was the color epidemic in London in like 18 something and it was a broad Street pump. So when I plugged in the spatial statistics, I actually identified the center of the epidemic, which was three feet away from the Broad Street pump.
Dave: Wow.
Garland: And so if you just run the model and you go there and say," Okay, I'm here where the center is, what's around here? ""Oh, we have a pump here, a water pump."
Dave: So you are telling me that we have data analytic tools that I could tell us where COVID started?
Garland: Yes.
Dave: Have they been employed?
Garland: Not that I know of.
Dave: All right.
Garland: Not that I know of.
Dave: Right. And I understand that the People's Republic of China doesn't have a reputation of transparency, so being able to get data for that area probably makes it harder, but it's great that we're able to see where Callara started, but it's very important to get kind of closer to real time and real diseases and illnesses. Do you know if that happened with either bird flu or swine flu?
Garland: Not that I know of. Again, it's like there's a lot of, not lag, I don't want to call it that, but investment into doing things the way we're doing it. You have the investigators going out and knocking on doors. Suddenly it's like, "Oh, we don't need you anymore."
Dave: Right.
Garland: And not to say that I just use this spreadsheet and I determine things. It's not quite that simple, but pretty much, but you do it sitting in front of a computer in a college lab or something, you can still miss things. So it's like I ... Yeah.
Dave: Okay. That's amazing. And at another time, I'm going to introduce you to my sister who is the senior professor at Yale University. She runs their geospatial center.
Garland: Oh,
Dave: Wonderful. And I think the two of you would have some great conversations. Even though my sister is as far left as I am right. And it's very funny to me because we grew up in the same household with the same upbringing, the same chance for outcomes. But I went to a state school, she went to Oregon and when she came out school- Yeah, we took this divergence and it's my belief that social media is deepening the divide.
Garland: I agree. Well, the media, if you will, they thrive on advertising and they get advertising by making people divisive, upset, watching it, the clicks and things like that. So it's like we avoid using like TV. Anything on TV, we really don't watch TV at all. I mean, there's a couple minor things we watch, but nevermind. And so it's like most of what I look at to find out about the world, like with China, what's going on there or the Ukraine or something like that, there's only a few people I listen to that I know they give the best analysis they can and they've been accurate. And so that's why I listened to them.
Dave: We all need to be vigilant and discerning what information we're consuming since there's all different perspectives, real and unreal being pandered nowadays.
Garland: Absolutely.
Dave: Can you share ... I know you've already talked about what you did in Stockton, California, where your data had a policy improvement. Do you have any other examples?
Garland: That's probably the best one. Well, that's a different story. The dissertation I did in economics was about hookworm disease in the American South.
Dave: Cookworm?
Garland: Hookworm.
Dave: Okay.
Garland: Americanas. And this is actually a parasite that came over basically from Africa with the slaves.
And my dissertation, I looked at that and look at the spread during the Civil War is essential. Now, hookworm was not identified until about 1900, 1910. And actually the Rockefeller Foundation, how do I say it? The initial Rockefeller Foundation was a Rockefeller Sanitary Commission for the eradication of hookworm disease. It was a foundation of the Rockefeller Foundation. So I looked at that because there was a narrative going on that slavery was efficient or productive. And they based that upon the output of the American South before the Civil War and then after, because there was a huge drop in agricultural output. And so I looked at that and I said it wasn't from the abolition of slavery, it was actually from the spread of disease.
Dave: Was that a parasite, that hookworm?
Garland: Yes. Yeah, it's a little worm. I got some neat stories about it. I won't tell you about those, but basically it latches onto you, burrows into your skin, goes through the lymphatic system, comes down to your intestines, and sucks your blood out. It's called the Vampire of the South.
Dave: Wow. But that's fascinating that you heard a case being made against or pro- slavery as preposterous that sounds, from an economic lens and you got to show the fallacy of it when it was really a disease that was not truly diagnosed until much later.
Garland: Exactly.
Dave: Well, that's beautiful and fantastic and bravo.
Garland: It was actually very fun because I actually ended up, I won't say contradicting some giants in the field, if you would, the economic history field.
Dave: Yeah.
Garland: That's what it was. There's a narrative about slavery being brutal and that's why it was productive. We just beat them all the time. And it's like, I actually grew up on a farm, and if I didn't want to hold cotton or hold weeds or stuff, I could take care of that real easy, just hold the plant and it's supposed to pick later. I just don't see someone working harder for a tax master than they would for their own family.
Dave: I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. I think he fundamentally got it right.
Garland: Oh, no argument there. And that's why it's 1776 is really important because actually when he published Wealth of Nations.
Dave: Oh, was that really the dates?
Garland: Yep.
Dave: So we're at the 250th anniversary of the wealth of nations.
Garland: It's
Dave: Amazing. That is amazing. Well,
Garland: I'd ask the students in econ classes, it's like, why is that a date important? Econ, remember? And they come up with other things like some war that happened and stuff like that.
Dave: Country that was formed.
Garland: Fundamental change in how we view the world, if you will, or how we become productive Because before that the Industrial Revolution is kind of, how do I say, dated from 1780 to about 1850.
Then it's like that's when we became much more productive than we were before. It's like thousands of years before that, same amount of output per person, same amount of everything. After that, boom. And it's more to do with the structures of the economy and the rules that we had than anything else.
Dave: Well, I'm grateful that you focused on economic history and studied that because if we don't study it, we're bound to repeat it.
Garland: Absolutely.
Dave: I'm curious, if you could redesign one system in today's society to better support us humans, what would it be?
Garland: It would have to do with information, exchange, communication, something like that, because I come across people that are delusional or self-delusional, and they insist on things that just aren't true. One example I know is that people I know, they insist that there's six police officers killed on January 6th, and it's like that didn't happen. There was not Six police officers killed. And they refused to listen to that. And there are some politicians that will actually repeat that.
And it's like use the Wall Street, not Wall Street Journal, but New York Times to refute that. And then that's called propaganda by some of the left wing liberals. It's like New York Times, I would not consider propaganda for the right. But it's like, I don't know how you can make people see or evaluate. I'd love to see a lot more critical thought in school or in the media or anything anywhere.
Dave: Boy, you picked a good one.That was great. I liked that I stumped you at first and you thought about it, but a testament to you, you nailed that one.
Garland: Well, Renee DeCart basically said that it's like our beliefs are like a basket of apples. And you got to take them out because if you get a bad apple, they're just going to affect all the other ones. So you periodically have to take it out and put the apples back in one by one looking and making sure they're good. And so that's something I try and do periodically. It's like, okay, this is my beliefs. Okay. I'm alive. I know that because I feel things. I believe in God because there's plenty of evidence around for that. And just keep going with that. Do I believe this? And this is why I do and I have good support for it. So it's like you go through that process periodically to make sure that I'm going to believe this because I want to. It's like not a good idea.
Dave: Agreed. And I love the Decarte reference. I also, I'm a big fan of the Socratic method and Socrates who felt that through discourse, that truth could be achieved. And I find sitting in my office looking at my computer day in and day out, I will start developing a bad apple of thought. But when I hang out and I go to you and Patricia's conservative meeting, when I go out and I talk to other people and I'll say things, sometimes they'll question me and stop me. And that helps me ascertain if I have a bad apple of thought that needs to be examined. So it's partly why I like doing this podcast. I was honored to be on your podcast. It's also frankly why I'm grateful I'm running for office because I'm getting to talk to lots of people who are challenging all different beliefs. Should we have inspections on everybody's septic tanks?
These are questions that I'd never thought about before, but recognizing that some of the people I'm talking about, talking to are engineers who've been studying this for a career. And I can't walk in and tell them what's the right way to handle septic inspections. So to me, that's a beautiful thing about the running process is that it dramatically increases the amount of contact that we have with other humans and then the truth that rises out of that from that experience.
Garland: Absolutely. And I think the more people you can talk to, and I mean, have a dialogue with and not just have someone yell at you or whatever, the better off we are.
Dave: Agreed. Now, I think you saw the name of my podcast is Human Up. And I'm going to put you both on the spot. And I'm going to say ladies first. Patricia, could you tell me what does Human Up mean to you? Well,
Patricia: I'm looking at the little logo and it looks like it's a brain. And so to me, that would mean engaging people, getting them to get involved with a discourse about different topics. And particularly because you're using the brain, I'm thinking it's more of a psychological, but it could be anything. Using the brain is very important because if you don't use it, you lose it. And like Garland was saying, I think he said this, but we have to have more critical thought. We have to teach it to people because we don't see a lot of it around. And so, and that's why people are so easily manipulated. But if you were able to utilize your brain and make an analysis of the situation, maybe that would be more helpful, but people can't do that if they weren't taught that. And so I think that's what Human Up is about in a nutshell.
Dave: Thank you, Counselor.
Patricia: You're welcome.
Dave: And Garland, what does human up mean to you?
Garland: Pretty much it's like being human and being better than human, or as we advance as a species, it's the difference is that we think better. So that's what we want to do. If a Congress of AIDS got together and designed a super ape, they wouldn't design a person that'd have longer fangs and bigger muscles and things like that, but it's like being human and being more than human or going forward is to think better. And that's what we're good at and that's what we need to be better at.
Dave: Which takes focus. Yeah, that's beautiful. To me, I have alcoholism and I respond different to alcohol and drugs than normal people. And I'd had people tell me I should man up and just stop. And to me at the time, I did not have the ability to. It wasn't until I got help. And I realized that it's not man up. We all need to human up. And it's something that all of us should do as a species. We should elevate. And you're both right. It's through critical thinking and discourse that we could all work together to help us human up.
Garland: Absolutely.
Dave: I appreciate you both being on the Human Up podcast today. If I may, I love you both, and this has been an honor. Thanks so much.
Garland: Thank you. We love you too.
Patricia: We feel likewise days.
Garland: Yes.
Dave: Thank you.
Garland: Do we have any questions for you? Oh
Dave: Yeah. Fire away if you got one, because Katie hasn't cut us off yet.
Garland: Oh, I know. No. Because I know you're very active with your ... Well, not just with social media, because I see all your posts, but also in the community. And I know how much fun that is talking to people. That's probably the most fun. One not difficulty I heard I had was talking to enough people. Now that's hard to reach out to people and talk to them. Do you have any good ways to do that?
Dave: Primarily. Well, there's several good ways that I'm doing it. One is we've just started the shoe leather portion of the campaign and myself and a team are going to knock 10,000 doors. And the way I do it is I'm in my truck, the knockers are there. When somebody answers the door, they notify me and I try to zip over there so I can maximize the amount of people that I could talk to.
Garland: Absolutely.
Dave: There's also ... Last month, I got 17,000 Ward six residents to watch one of my videos.
Garland: Wow.
Dave: I'm able to target social media in a way to be able to dramatically expand my breath. My campaign people tell me, "It's all in the mailbox. You got to write to them." And I don't buy it. So I'm actually not. I'm going to write one letter to all the residents telling me who I am with a link to come hear about me, but I'm not going the traditional way of filling your mailbox with junk mail. I'm going to try to catch your eyeballs on your phone and I'm going to try to meet you at the door. And as you know, I have a coffee and a dinner every month, and I've been getting between 40 and 80 people to come. About half of them are new people, which is really my objective, is to meet people. And then one of my ACEs that I still have in my back pocket is I've been in Vegas for 37 years.
I've helped over 10,000 people in our valley get off drugs or alcohol. So I'm getting a lot of reach out from patients, clients, friends, family members who I've had contact with, which is enabling me to depth in my scope of communicating with Ward six residents.
Patricia: And don't forget, you come to our monthly town hall meetings.
Garland: Yes. And we appreciate that.
Dave: Oh, and I appreciate as well. And I'm coming on your talk show as a backup- A
Patricia: Special guest co-host.
Dave: Special ghost co-host. So I look forward, I know that's coming up and I look forward to seeing you both there. This has been the Human Up podcast. Thank you so much and good day.
Patricia: Thank you.