Queer Voices
Queer Voices
January 21st - Davis Mendoza Darusman for JP, Tim Stokes on Credit, and HEATED RIVALRY VS STRANGER THINGS
This week's show includes three distinct segments! First up is Davis Mendoza Darusman, who is running for Justice of the Peace in Precinct 5. Then we have Tim Stokes, a banking compliance consultant, and he speaks about what to watch out for now that the government no longer regulates lenders. And finally, R. Lee Ingalls and Brett Cullum talk about how queer television is getting thanks to HEATED RIVALRY and STRANGER THINGS! We hope you are not here just for "basic Sci Fi!"
Queer Voices airs in Houston Texas on 90.1FM KPFT and is heard as a podcast here. Queer Voices hopes to entertain as well as illuminate LGBTQ issues in Houston and beyond. Check out our socials at:
https://www.facebook.com/QueerVoicesKPFT/ and
https://www.instagram.com/queervoices90.1kpft/
This is KPFT 90.1 FM Houston, 89.5 FM Galveston, 91.9 FM Huntsville, and worldwide on the internet at KPFT.org.
Brett:Welcome to Queer Voices, a radio show and podcast on KPFT 90.1 in Houston that has been on the air for five decades. I am Brett Cullum, and this episode has three interviews. Up first, executive producer Brian Klavinka talks to Davis Mendoza DeRuzman, who is running for West Houston's Justice of the Peace. Davis has been a part of our show, so we're excited to see him out there. Next up, author R. Lee Ingalls talks to Tim Stokes about changes to the banking industry that could impact our community. Finally, R. Lee Ingalls and I take on the Queering of TV by looking at two streaming phenomena: Heated Rivalry and Stranger Things. Queer Voices starts now.
SPEAKER_06:This is Brian Lovica, and today I'm speaking with Davis Taruzman about his activity in the community. How's it going, Davis? Hi there.
SPEAKER_05:Doing very well, busy on the campaign trail. But it's very fun and fulfilling and exhausting, but I love it.
SPEAKER_06:So why are you doing this now?
SPEAKER_05:Yeah, so Justice of the Peace. I'm running for Harris County Justice of the Peace, Precinct 5. Precinct 5 is West Harris County, everywhere outside of 610, from the gallery all the way out to Katy, everything in between south of 290 and north of 288. Really, it's seeing the amount of power that this court has in terms of supporting our community members. So 94% of cases that go through the courts are either evictions, debt collection, or traffic offenses. This is the People's Court, people like to call it. It's of the people, by the people. Because of that accessibility, it's also one of the courts that doesn't require a law degree. It requires a vision for justice and supporting really our most struggling neighbors. I bring that vision. I have a lot of plans, a lot of experience connecting resources to residents. Currently, the the incumbents isn't doing anything to support our most struggling residents. Currently, Precinct Five actually has the most evictions out of any other county, out of any other court in Harris County, and more evictions actually than the bottom seven courts combined. He doesn't have any programs to support. He doesn't allow for the full operation of pro bono legal aid in his courts. And I'm running to change that.
SPEAKER_06:So have you received any endorsements?
SPEAKER_05:Not yet, but this Saturday is the caucus endorsement meeting. This Sunday is the Houston Progressive Caucus meeting. Yesterday I participated in a round robin endorsement screening from the AFL CIO with nearly 90 uh trade union organizations in the Gulf Coast region. My primary opponent was not there. I was the only one. I was the only person in this race that was there that speaks volumes about the people I'm working to support.
SPEAKER_06:Now tell me your background. You're an activist, I would say.
SPEAKER_05:I definitely would consider myself a nonprofit leader and a community organizer. Through my nonprofit work, I've over the past two years helped raise and secure over a million dollars in funding for grassroots and local nonprofits to serve marginalized communities, whether that is through hosting community events, town halls, listening sessions, social media outreach. It is about meeting community where they are, whether that is physical and in person or, you know, digitally.
SPEAKER_06:Which politicians do you analyze or look up to?
SPEAKER_05:Last year I was honored to participate in and help coordinate the LGBTQ Plus, now called the Greater Houston LGBTQ Plus community summit at the Montrose Center. Just hearing Judge Phyllis Fry speak and how awe-inspiring her story is and her work. That is that is this one politician, one judge, one person that I deeply admire and hope to continue that legacy of inclusiveness and fairness, due process while still supporting and representing the community.
SPEAKER_06:So how did you pick this position to run for?
SPEAKER_05:I was convinced to run by people who are close with JP Courts, people who have run for office, hold office, are close with office holders because they were looking for a more progressive alternative to the primary opponent that I have right now. They know about my experience in grassroots organizing, whether that was from the Rainbow Crosswalk in Montrose, or in terms of fighting against re redistricting, mid-decade redistricting that disproportionately impacted our black and brown communities. I was convinced to run for this seat because there's a lot of a lot of reform that's needed in this court. And we can't afford four more years of the status quo.
SPEAKER_06:It's great that a younger generation is getting involved with politics and kind of taking office and trying to make a difference. So I applaud that. I appreciate that.
SPEAKER_05:It's I've been having a lot of conversations with both people of my generation and the elders who I really look up to. During the endorsement screening last night, I was paired up with Judge James Horowitz, who is unashamed to be holding elected office over the age of 75, but he knows what he's doing and he treats he leads his court with empathy and compassion. And he he runs a probate court, which he jokes that everyone's going to go through probate court one day, and because they deal with wills and life or death matters. I've just been receiving a lot of support across generations.
SPEAKER_06:So you mentioned the Rainbow Crosswalk. Tell me about that and how you got involved and what did what did you learn from that experience?
SPEAKER_05:Governor Abbott's government overreach in terms of what we can and can't do with public arts as it pertains to roadways. It was a mask-off moment. We all knew that this was not about public safety, but it was about removing visibility of our career and trans community. And it wasn't something that I nor my peers or community was going to let go without a fight. So while, you know, Mayor Whitmeyer ultimately folded, Governor Abbott gave us 30 days, he had it removed in 12. Mayor Whitmeyer did, but we didn't let it let it go away without a fight. You know, there were protesters who were arrested who literally laid their lives down on the crosswalk to prevent it from being removed because this was a symbol of visibility and a beacon of love and hope for so many in our community. And to just try to take it away, it really did backfire because following that, we organized events called Pride Chalk on the Sidewalk with the message that they could take away our crosswalk, but we're not going anywhere. We'll just take to the sidewalks. And so we had dozens of community members come out and chalk the sidewalks with messages of love and belonging and letting LGBTQ residents know that this is your home. You belong here. And we hosted uh a banner painting where we we painted a giant banner with a bunch of smaller signs and stood over I-59, the freeway, and hung the banner and let people know that this is home. Instead of saying here to stay to stay, our banner said queer to stay and a couple of honks of appreciation and you know, a few slurs, but that that comes with the territory. And then to cap off that that organizing moment in our history in our city's history is Governor Abbott came to town to announce his re-election uh a few weeks after the removal of the Rainbow Crosswalk. And we were at the very front, at the doorsteps of his, well, at the on the sidewalks, ironically, to protest and let his supporters know that we're not going anywhere. And so we we didn't let it go without a fight. The message was to our community members that we belong, despite what the the top of the government says and our governor and president says, you are loved, you belong, and we're gonna fight like hell against these acts of government overreach.
SPEAKER_06:Absolutely. Now, if we have potential voters listening, what do they need to know about you that they may not already know?
SPEAKER_05:If you live in West Harris County, so west of 610 between the Galleria and Katie and everything in between, um, and you're not registered to vote yet, February 2nd is your deadline is to register to vote. Early voting is next month from February 17th to February 27th, and election day is March 3rd. It's really important when we talk about Justice of the Peace courts. It's often Houstonians' first and only interaction with the government. Currently, there are other courts that offer social safety nets and programs that don't cost the taxpayers any additional dime because they're grant funded. I come with grant writing and grant management experience, um, such as an eviction diversion program, which hires a coordinator to call people ahead of their court dates to connect them with rent and utility assistance. So if they're falling behind on rent, that helps them finally make that payment. And they can connect and facilitate settlements between tenants and the landlords. Maybe they needed additional time. And so that just removes their case from the docket and provides a little bit more breathing room. It also connects them with free pro bono legal aid and representation, which currently the Republican incumbents in this seat does not allow for, say, the Houston Eviction Advocacy Center to actually intake new clients in his courts. They're allowed in other courts, just not in precinct 5-2. And that's actually one of the reasons why more evictions are filed here than any other courts in the count in the county, because they like working with Bob Wolfe. They like that he does not offer those same protections and support systems as other courts do. So they'll they'll shop around and they'll send it right to his courts. Um, but that's not going to happen with me. And I also want to recognize that Harris County has the second largest immigrant community in the country and also one of the highest ICE presences in the country. And because of that, when our undocumented neighbors and family members get their day in court, they often don't show up because they are very validly afraid of ICE in the courts. I don't think having access to justice and having one's day in court should ever risk detention or deportation. I'm promoting and I am advocating for and will implement universal virtual court access, virtual court for all, basically. Currently, you need to request special permission in order to get the Zoom link. And I don't believe that's access to justice. I think that's permission for justice. I think that's gatekeeping justice because put yourself in the shoes of an undocumented resident. You're not going to send a letter to the court that says, hey, I'm not a citizen, I'm afraid of ice. Can I have the Zoom link? I strongly believe in removing that barrier. And it doesn't just support our undocumented residents. In Texas, state law requires only six days from notice to vacate to receipt their day in court. And so for a lot of people struggling to pay rent, that's not enough time to call off from work. That's not enough time to arrange for childcare, which is super expensive. And it's also not enough time to arrange for reliable transportation. I was talking to a constituent who said that they couldn't even afford the 25 to get from the bus to court. And so there's no reason why we need to have this barrier to Zoom. We've seen it during COVID that it works. And so I'm pushing for the full implementation of universal Zoom access.
SPEAKER_06:If people want to find out more about you and your race, where can they go?
SPEAKER_05:I have a website at Davisforjustice.com and I'm on social media at Davis for Justice TX. I post a lot about um uh about things that people should know about Justice of the Peace Courts, things that they should know about my campaign. I posted a video today, actually, that shared that Harris County has never had an Asian American Justice of the Peace uh judge. And so I would be the first Justice of the Peace judge in our 189-year history of being the first Asian American judge in Harris County. Also, in terms of this specific court, I'd be the first Hispanic, I'd be the first son and child of immigrants, and I'd also, very relevant to this show, I'd be the first openly LGBTQ plus judge to sit in this court. And so I think representation matters. And I don't just rely on my identity to uh win this race because I bring the proven and needed reform to to really bring about the change that this precinct needs.
SPEAKER_06:Is there anything else you want our listeners to know before we go?
SPEAKER_05:Um definitely register to vote by February 2nd if you aren't registered yet. Early voting is something that we definitely encourage. So February 17th or February 27nd. You can go to harrisvotes.com to find your nearby polling location and verify your sample ballot to see if I'm even on your ballot. And election day itself is March 3rd. Really, our our our our county and our residents can't afford another four years of the status quo. And I'm the candidate to challenge that.
SPEAKER_06:If you're joining us, we're speaking with Davis DeRuzman about his candidacy for Justice of the Peace of Harris County. Thank you for coming on, Davis.
SPEAKER_05:Thank you so much. This has been a pleasure.
SPEAKER_06:Thank you. This is Queer Voices.
SPEAKER_02:Part of our Queer Voices community listens on KPFT, which is a nonprofit community radio station. And as such, KPFT does not endorse or hold any standing on matters of politics. If you would like equal airtime to represent an alternative point of view, please contact us through KPFT.org or our own website at queervoices.org. This is Queer Voices.
Lee:And joining me today is Tim Stokes. Tim is the managing director of regulatory compliance. And so, Tim, tell us a little bit about yourself, what you do, and why you decided to go into the banking financial industry.
SPEAKER_04:Thanks for having me, Lee. I have been in the banking and financial services industry for about 25 years now. And I have worn several hats. One as a banker, obviously, I've worked in various banks, credit unions, and in financial technology companies. And I've also worked for regulatory agencies with the U.S. government. And most recently, in about the past eight or 10 years, I've been working with consulting firms, working with financial institutions of all sizes on specific things regarding consumer regulatory compliance. And when we talk about consumer regulatory compliance, I think one of the things that I want to let the listeners know is that you can immediately think about all those documents you get when you open a new account or when you close on a home or do anything like that that has a lot of the fine print. That's what we're talking about today in the world of consumer regulatory compliance. You know, how I got into that, Lee, that's a very interesting question. I get asked that a lot because it's such a niche thing. Uh, and uh, and I kind of fell into it by accident. My degree is in psychology, which has become oddly helpful uh in my industry. But uh I was in banking and I I found that I had a penchant for the rules and being fascinated by them. And that's how I got into the regulatory compliance space, making sure that banks are holding themselves accountable and being and doing the right things for their customers.
Lee:And that you're exactly right. The reason that we ask you to come in and talk uh to us is so that you could explain to us what it means uh when those consumer protections are impacted or or go away. So working inside the financial systems, uh, can you explain a little bit about who decides who gets credit, the fees, the approvals, the denials? How does that process work?
SPEAKER_04:Who makes the decision is the banks themselves, the banks, the credit unions, the financial technology companies. The US government, regulators, state regulators, no one dictates to these companies what they must do as far as how they must loan their money, open their accounts, their business practices. Those things are all things that they can control. What the government does, however, is provide guardrails that banks and financial institutions must operate within. And these guardrails in the way of consumer protections are through regulations. So we like to call it the Alphabet Soup. We've got Regulation B for Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation E for financial funds transfers. And all of these regulations offer protections and they provide these guide uh guardrails that banks must operate within. And some of these guardrails say things like, okay, bank, you can loan money all you want to. That's great. Do it responsibly, safety, soundness, that's all very important. But from a consumer uh protection standpoint, the government says to banks, you cannot be discriminatory in your lending practices and you cannot engage in unfair or deceptive practices in your, you know, banking of consumers. So the decisions do lie with the companies, with the banks. The government provides these guardrails that is what actually protects consumers. And these guardrails, unfortunately, have proven to be necessary based on past behavior and things we saw banks do going all the way back. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act originated in 1965.
Lee:I totally hear you. I get that. Um is the process then uh subjective? Does it help to know someone in high places?
SPEAKER_04:Unfortunately, it can uh because there is some subjectivity. You know, I think that the regulations, by and large, have done a good job of making sure that banks do things consistently. Let's just talk about lending right now, because that's a that's a big thing, right? Equal credit opportunity, fair lending, those things um have historically been very important. Unfortunately, we're seeing a shift in priorities, but these safeguards that ensure fair lending have done some things to take that subjectivity out. Uh it at a minimum, it says, okay, from a fair lending law perspective, you at least have to be consistent in your lending practices, right? You cannot have disparate treatment or things that result in disparate impact amongst consumers that are similarly, similarly situated, as we say. That's a bit of a mouthful, but uh, you know, you have to treat like borrowers in the same manner. When you don't do that, you get what's called disparate treatment. And that honestly is discrimination.
Lee:So in our community specifically, there are many times that by intent or happenstance, it doesn't matter, we are marginalized and we are not treated the same for a variety of reasons. A lot of times it is that subjectivity that causes that. Do you see that in the financial industry? Are we still a marginalized community?
SPEAKER_04:To the extent that banks know about us, right? You know, to the extent they know about uh, you know, us being part of the queer community, right? Us being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, et cetera, uh, you know, obviously that's not a question you'll see on a loan application, right? But there are things that could be used. We call these things proxies. Uh, let's say marriage equality, when it wasn't legal, if you use traditional marriage standards as an underwriting criteria or something along those lines, it could be a proxy for our community. Uh, there are other things that can be used. Um, this can become also problematic if names are used as proxies when you know gender-specific names are used in some cases to determine a sex. Can that be considered? Yes, and we have seen it considered. Ethnically sounding names. We've seen it in that aspect as well. So that absolutely can happen. And again, these controls that we've historically been able to rely on, the regulators going in and doing fair lending examinations and focused examinations and looking for these instances of. Discrimination, uh, you know, what concerns me, quite frankly, is that the shifting in the priorities is it could potentially make that less impactful and less effective.
Lee:Who actually regulates the financial organizations?
SPEAKER_04:So banks are regulated across many different levels. So there are state and federal regulators. Federal regulators, we all have probably heard of the FDIC, right? People know what that is. You see that, you hear that in advertisements. What you may not be as familiar with is something called the CFPB or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB was put in place as a result of the financial crisis that we saw back in the 2000, 2008, I believe. The difference between the CFPB and the FDIC, for example, is that the CFPB's sole purpose is consumer protection, right? Whereas the FDIC might be worried about a bank's balance sheet and, you know, credit risk. The CFPB has been focused on consumers and protective of consumers up until this point.
Lee:Um, the difference between keeping the banks safe and keeping the consumers safe or protected. Can you talk about that a little bit?
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. So the we call them the prudential regulators. So that's going to be the FDIC and the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comp control of the Currency. They are primarily responsible for the safety and soundness of the banks. And so we talk about liquidity risk and credit risk. They that's not to say that they don't have any focus on consumer protections. They do. A lot of them have consumer protection, you know, divisions within their agencies. But when you look at compared to the CFPB, whose sole purpose is that of protecting the consumer, that's the difference. So you do find banks that are dual regulated, right? They're regulated by the FDIC and the CFPB because they're always going to have a prudential regulator. And then the CFPB has been focused historically on the larger institutions. So institutions with over 10 billion in assets would definitely be under the CFPB's purview. Um, you know, with some of the smaller banks kind of creeping in there as they grow. That's that's the main distinction between those two types of regulators. State regulators, they do both. They look at the safety and sound up soundness operations of the bank as well as consumer protection and compliance with federal protection laws.
Lee:I hear all that you're saying, but from the street level, what does that mean? Or why should that be important to me?
SPEAKER_04:And what should be important to you is that we're we're in a world right now, um, you know, with political administrations changing and Democrats being in power and Republicans being in power. That's a pendulum in the banking regulation world, right? So we have historically seen Republican administrations focus less on consumer protections, and Democratic administrations focus more on consumer protections. Right now we're in a Republican administration, and it's not to be unexpected that some drawing back of these consumer protection regs would happen. What is concerning to me right now is we're seeing almost a complete shift away from it. So the CFPB has been defunded, right? So, you know, it it is uh things are tied up in the courts right now, like a lot of other things. It's its future is very uncertain right now. But from an industry perspective, we know that the CFPB is is not operating. They've been their budget and staffing's been slashed. So at the street level, maybe you don't know what the CFPB is, and maybe you're not aware of, you know, these shifts when the political administrations are in power. What you are going to start to see, though, is things that you used to be protected from at the bank, you may not be protected from anymore.
Lee:The next logical question then is what should we look for as an early sign these things are crumbling or no longer existent?
SPEAKER_04:I used to advise my clients don't do anything that won't put you on the front page of the newspaper. But in the digital age, we don't say that anymore. I tell my clients, don't do anything that'll get you on TikTok. So one of the first indicators is going to be consumer dissatisfaction. I am thankful that consumers have that voice now, even though sometimes it's not necessarily used in the best way, but there is that voice. I think you're going to see an indicator of an increase in consumer complaints. You're going to see consumers being a little more vocal about, hey, you know, last time this happened to me at my bank, I got my money back. I was defrauded and I got my money back. And it happened again. And now they're telling me they're not going to give me my money back. And that's what you're going to start to see happening. You know, you may start to see things like two years ago, I applied for a loan, paid that loan off. Two years later, everything is the exact same. I applied for the same loan and I'm not getting it. What's going on with that? So that's where you're going to start to see things. The consumer's going to start to feel it in certain ways. And we're also going to start to see it come through in the form of complaints and consumer dissatisfaction.
Lee:One thing that uh I keep seeing come up, and to me, it looks like an industry term. I have no idea what it means. FinTechs.
SPEAKER_04:FinTechs, yeah. So I bet you have an account with a fintech. You may just not know it. So financial technology companies are very interesting. They are um, they've they've been around for a while. You can think of them as a market disruptor. So fintechs came into the banking space. They feel tech first, financial second. So, you know, buy now pay later companies. So if you've ever used Afterpay or Klarna or Zell or any of those, those are fintechs. A lot of these companies, the difference between them and banks is not all that much. They operate through banks still, but they tend to be a little bit more innovative with their products and fast moving. The banks recognize the fintech threat. It does create competition in the market, which is, I think, is a good thing. But it has also kind of spurred the banks along in getting them to think in a little bit more innovative manner as well. The average person may not know that they're banking with a fintech or with the bank because they're going to get the same services. FinTechs also tend to be a more progressive and um with their credit models in some ways as traditional banks. They tend to be maybe they all use alternate credit criteria for determining credit worthiness, whereas the banks typically rely on your FICO score, your income, those kind of things.
Lee:We talked a little bit about modeling uh to determine credit worthiness and want to talk about a little bit more because there are unexpected outcomes of those models. Can you talk about that and how it's used both from intent and maybe non-intentional?
SPEAKER_04:Models have been used for a while in determining credit worthiness. And the way that they work is that you know you put your uh your information into the loan application system and it runs a lot of checks in the back. So it'll ping against all these different attributes. And then the model will say this person is credit worthy or not credit worthy. The problem with that is that all those attributes were put in by a person. It's not that the models are biased, but the way the attributes are pinged against could create bias based on the way they were built. Marital status is a prohibited basis, meaning the bank cannot make a credit decision based on whether you are married or unmarried. But say someone building a model put in marital status as an attribute, and there was not good model governance or audit, or that attribute could make it into that model and no one know. It just happened to get there. And we've seen that happen in the past. And it can be used for marketing models. That's that's where those things can happen within those models and how that unintended bias can happen. Now, Lee, I've seen bad actors too, but for the most part, we find it to be a little bit unintentional.
Lee:So you're saying then in this regulatory breakdown, then that things like that are more likely to happen and not get caught. And if they are caught, nothing is done about it.
SPEAKER_04:So let's say that the CFPB was the consumer watchdog that would go into banks and say, okay, banks, lift up the hood on that model. Let me look underneath it and I'm gonna check your attributes out. And if I find something in there, I'm gonna make you fix it. Well, if no one's lifting the hood anymore, if no one's looking, then these things are gonna happen unintentional, intentional, they're gonna happen. Um, there's there there is, you know, if the Bureau truly does completely go away, as a lot of lawmakers on one side of the aisle have said they want to happen, then then there's not gonna be that consumer-focused watchdog checking to make sure that those models are not just being discriminatory in nature.
Lee:Yeah. And what do you see as the most impacted products that are coming out to consumers will be in this new unprotected environment?
SPEAKER_04:I think the most impacted products are gonna be your lending products, right? That's that's where banks and all lenders hold the most risk. You know, use of models takes out, reduces that human element. So you have a machine looking at a file and not a person. Right. Machine's not gonna say, this name sounds like a woman's name. I'm gonna price this loan differently. Or it's not gonna say that, uh, whereas a person could. So, you know, I think that that they're good, but I'm worried what worries me is the lack of oversight that we're gonna see. You know, a lot of times when there is not that lack of oversight, innovation unintentionally becomes an enemy of ours because we want to do things faster and be better. If you run too fast, you could end up with these attributes that end up being discriminatory in nature.
Lee:We've all seen the news stories about bad actors at companies or or uh industry segments that are kind of flying under the radar screen. They're small enough that they don't hit the regulators uh radar. Uh, and they do they have really bad business practices and they prey upon people that are most susceptible to that type of activity. They feel like they need the money, uh, they really don't have the the financial depth to to pay it back. And then they get hooked in this cycle or this loop of debt that they just don't seem to be able to come out of. Can you speak to that and what you see as the impact of that?
SPEAKER_04:Getting caught up in this loop. The problem is it's gonna, it's gonna come to the same thing of where once there was that watchdog to say, okay, you know, title lending companies were notorious for that practice that you just described, where people would take their car title in and then borrow money over and over again. To your point, these are already marginalized borrowers. These are people who need a$500 loan. These are people who are in not the best financial position and they're being preyed upon by these companies. The CFPB did a great job of stepping in and saying these unfair products, these deceptive products, these abusive products, right? These abusive financial products are illegal. You can't do that. And when that goes away, there's nothing to stop or check these companies from re-engaging in those unscrupulous practices. As we see the CFPB withdraw, get eliminated, unfortunately, potentially. Um, those unfair practices are going to creep back up. It just traps people into this cycle of perpetual debt, and then the debt collection practices become very ruthless. This was not a good world before we had the Bureau kind of stepping in and saying, hey guys, time out on these deceptive and abusive products.
Lee:So one uh term that I've uh I've heard you use before is the black box economy. Can you kind of explain what that is and why that's important?
SPEAKER_04:Give people We may not have heard that term in this context, but I think most people know what a black box is on an airplane. If you've seen any kind of movie or disaster documentary, it's a black box, is is a box where data gets locked into, right? And it's sealed in there and you can't see it, touch it, feel it, know what's in there, right? Unless you have the keys to that box. So think about a black box economy in the same way. Think about your data. So your data, your name, date of birth, social security number, income, whatever, going into a box. And then that information and data being used for something that you have no idea what it's being used for. Is it used to market products to you? Is it used to make decisions about your credit worthiness? Is it used to do anything, make any decision about you? Uh, so think about all your data going into this black box, being used for things, and you have no control. You don't have any control over what data is in there, what data is not in there, what the data is being used for. That's what I'm referring to when I say a black box economy. We could do an entire another interview on the data that people have on us and how it's being used. And and, you know, one of the things, you know, during the last administration at the CFPB was stronger data governance controls, but that stopped. So now this black box economy is a very real thing. We're going to see consumers have a lot of data out there without knowing where it is, what it's being used for, and things like that.
Lee:We talked a little bit about uh what steps uh could be taken, uh, what we should look for, but I'm gonna ask you to be a little bit of a fortune teller here. In your view, do you think there will still be remedies available and what will they look like?
SPEAKER_04:We are going, as we see maybe the focus at the federal level shift and the supervision and enforcement withdrawal, we are seeing several states step up and do more in the way of consumer protection. The former director of the CFPV is actually working with several states in tandem to do just this thing, to, I don't want to call it a mini CFPV, but you could call it a mini CFPB at the state level. It's gonna depend on what state you live in as to whether or not you're gonna be able to get those protections. Now, if they live in the state of Texas like you and I do, I can just tell you that state's not part of that coalition of consumer protection, right? So, but we are also going to see is an increase in class action lawsuits. If we do see an increase in instances of discrimination or unfair banking practices, you know, you can definitely see uh, you know, attorneys finding opportunity there to step in and protect consumers, uh even if it's maybe not rooted in law or a violation of law. Uh, attorneys are very good at at making sure that um they hold accountable institutions that harm consumers. There are law firms that specifically do that very thing. Lastly, I you know, you're gonna see the consumer's voice be heard a lot more in this digital age and the age of TikTok and in the age of you know social media. That is gonna be something consumers can do and can use that voice as well to try to protect themselves. So, what should people take away from this conversation? I want people to take away that they really need to be an informed consumer. And I know that that phrase has been thrown around a lot, but it's especially important now when we're seeing the potential erosion of protections that we've historically been able to rely on that we may not be able to rely on in the future, in the very near future. So know the products and services that you have, know the features of those products and services, make sure you're holding your bank or your fintech, your financial institution accountable. Make sure that if they say they're gonna do something, that they do it. And when they don't, call them out on it. Make sure you know the current rules, current protections that you have. This is especially important in fraud protections and in um, you know, protections regarding money transfers and debit cards, know those protections now and then be able to recognize when they're not there anymore. We can make our voice heard. Obviously, I'm gonna say the most important thing we can do is vote, right? We can all go to the ballot box and cast our vote. But in the meantime, understand your rights as a consumer, understand what you are supposed to be getting and make sure that you get that. Stand up for yourself. Um, you know, even though the federal regulators may not be as aggressive as they once were, talk to the state regulators, contact an attorney if you feel you need to go to other consumer protection watchdog groups, but the Bitter Business Bureau is still around, so we do have them, as well as the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorney General's office. The one thing would be to know your rights and be able to recognize when those rights are not there anymore. And I do think that unfortunately we're going to see this in real time as protections that we once had are not going to be there anymore. Know who to contact if you see those rights getting eroded. There are other avenues, not as many, and not maybe not at the federal level, but know your rights and know who to contact.
Lee:Well, thank you for being here today again. My guest today is Tim Stokes, Managing Director of Regulatory Compliance.
SPEAKER_04:Lee, thank you again for having me. I just want to uh say the views and opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent those of my employer or any organization I am affiliated with. Thank you. Thank you, Tim.
Deborah :This radio program, Wear Voices, has existed since the 1970s on KPFT. We have this little crew of folks working every week to produce what's no longer unique because we're almost mainstream now, but we're still an important voice that might not otherwise get heard because it's not on that many places. So KPFT is very important to give voices to those who might not otherwise have voices. So as Glenn always says, you participate by listening, you should also participate by supporting the station. So please go to KPFT.org and make your donation right away.
Brett:Hey there, it's Brett Cullum and author R. Lee Ingalls. And one thing that we have noticed lately is that LGBTQIA plus characters are back on TV, or rather back on streaming channels, if you will. You have HBO's Heated Rivalry, which is getting a ton of attention from both gay men and straight women, and it has become gosh, a sensation, wouldn't you agree? It's it's everywhere. Yeah. And then you also have Netflix's Stranger Things, also a phenomenon. It reached its finale with the character Will Byers finally coming out as gay, officially. Yes. And uh there were two distinct reactions to these series and their queerness, so I was thinking let's contrast them, right?
Lee:Yeah, yeah, surprisingly. Uh the uh reactions to both of those were so different, and I'm I'm just kind of scratching my head as to why that would be the case.
Brett:Well, first up, let's do heated rivalry. I can't go anywhere without people talking about it. So the basic premise of this show is that Shane Hollander, the Canadian captain for the Montreal Voyager, finds a nemesis and a lover. Get that. And this cocky Russian captain of the Boston Bears, Ilya Rosanov. It's on Facebook. It's on every social media platform. It seems like it's all we are talking about. It has critics raving. It almost got a perfect score from Rotten Tomatoes, which is crazy. IMDB, the users are giving it perfect scores. And it is a big hit for Crave TV. It is a Canadian streaming network that cranks out things like Canada's Drag Race, by the way, and Letterkenny. And uh it's done really well for them. And now HBO Max has found it as one of their best performers of 2025. What do you think is is so what is it about this show that makes it so popular, so beloved?
Lee:Yeah, so I think it's a storyline. You know, we've seen it often. However, all the characters, the lead characters, are gay or bisexual, one of the two. Um, and it's just the way that the show is delivered in such a unique way that I mean that's what resonated with me. You know, the I'm more the the love guy. So the relationship between Scott and um Kip, you know, my hook for the the series, but the the relationship between the other two uh young men as well was, you know, equally interesting. Yeah, uh its acceptance was surprising.
Brett:Yeah. No, and let's let's back that up a little bit. You mentioned Scott Hunter and Kip, which is the subplot of Heated Rivalry, the television series, but in the books, game changers written by a woman in Canada named Rachel Reed, it's actually a pen name for Rochelle Gogan. She wrote these books as a protest against the National Hockey League's toxic masculinity. It's got a macho kind of attitude that our NFL has. There's not any gay out sports people in Canada, just like here in the US. So she really wrote this as kind of a fantasy of what if people started coming out in the National Hockey League book called Game Changers was about the relationship you mentioned, Scott Hunter and Kiss, which is probably a little bit more romantic than the start of Shane Hollander and Ilya Rosanov's relationship, which really kind of starts off as just messing around and goes from there, right?
Lee:Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean it is very reminiscent of what I remember back in the day where uh, you know, public uh you had a uh a public facing persona and then you had your private persona as well. So it totally has that. Yeah. Do you think that heated rifle break could be made in the U United States? Not the way that they did it, no, for sure not. There was a lot of nudity, uh, although it was uh a little bit pulled back, but there was a lot. So I I just don't think the American audience would have been as accepting of that. They couldn't you know, I don't know that Hollywood would have done it in the same way.
Brett:Well I think what's interesting about the nudity is that if this were a heterosexual couple, there is nothing that they show other than butts. Okay. We get butts. Right. Butts, butts, butts. That's it. There is no frontal nudity. There are no uh we don't even see breasts with the women, even there's some sex scenes with women, we don't really even see that. Um it would be tamed if it were straight, I think. And I think that the softcore porn accusation about it, I mean but they really were reserved in a lot of ways. But I think they they held that back a little bit.
Lee:They could have gone that way, but it did feel very steamy and very it did only because we're unaccustomed to seeing that in that volume on our small screen. Yeah. So and I you know that says something about the society that we live in and us too. Like, you know, me too. I'll I'll own that. That you know, I it's something I don't see that often. So yes, it's gonna make me sit up and take notice.
Brett:And how interesting that we don't see that as often. Yeah. So definitely.
Lee:But I think that's the power of it too. Yeah, the more that people see that, the less sensitive they become to that kind of imagery. Yeah.
Brett:Well, Jacob Tierney is an out gay man in Canada, and um, he had a huge success with his series Letter Kenny, uh, previously. And he was the one that wrote, directed, he created this whole thing. He took the books, kind of convinced them, and he called it Heated Rivalry, which is obviously the second book and concentrated on that, but threw in the first book by Rachel to kind of have as a subplot. But it was interesting because he is very much an out figure in Canada, and he is very proud of that. Rachel Reed not as much. There's uh rumors going around that she's bisexual and that her husband is bisexual, and that that's how they kind of navigate writing these male-male romances, but there's been no confirmation of that at all. That is speculation at this point. Right.
Lee:Um I wonder if that matters at all. I don't be able to be a good writer. Do you do you have to try that community or not?
Brett:Well, it's definitely a question for you because I noticed there were a lot of romance elements in Heated Rivalry that seemed almost feminine in a way, the way that they approached each other. And there is a very deep respect for women in the show that make them very smart about the sexualities of uh Ilya and Hollander. They definitely do that. It it it does have a romance novel sense about it. Yes. For sure. And I always remind people this was written as source material by a woman. This is a very common phenomenon that's going on today where women write gay love stories, which I think is interesting that that is what we've come to. And it's because of women like to read this kind of novel, and it's become a popular forum.
Lee:Yeah. Uh and then I like it as a TV show.
Brett:Well, one thing it's interesting, we talk about Jacob Tierney being out, but the cast only really had two officially out actors. You have Francois Arnault, who came out as bisexual in September of 2020, and we have Harrison Brown, who is a real life trans hockey player, although he's in a very small role as the player Connor. But the two gentlemen that play Hollander and Rosinoff uh Connor's story and Hudson Williams have not come out as anything at this point, and neither has Robbie G.K. or Robbie Graham Kunst sometimes. So they've kind of kept it very hidden. And Jacob has been very protective of that and saying, what does it matter? But what do you think that means politically? I mean, what do you think that that means to the general conversation?
Lee:Yeah, so I know a lot of people would like to see them take a stand on that. I don't know, do maybe feel like they're owed that that bit of knowledge. I don't know. I personally don't think it adds or detracts from the story itself. It doesn't matter to me whether they are, I'm probably not gonna meet them, but maybe we will. So I don't know. I don't know that it matters.
Brett:Yeah. Well, it was a big thing when uh Queerus Foe came out in the UK and also in the US in the early 2000s. They cast a lot of straight actors to play gay and they were sort of criticized for that. But I think a lot of people said, Well, you're not giving opportunity to actual LGBTQIA plus people that are working in the industry and you're making this series about us, you should probably give them an opportunity. And I think the producers of those shows, if both teams were gay, said, you know, hey, we're artists and we're gonna cast whoever we think is best in the role and we're gonna ignore the rest of it. And so should it really matter?
Lee:Yeah, and if I recall correctly, weren't there some comments made by the actors themselves about that that was you know, the kissing scenes and that kind of stuff were difficult? Um queer as book, yeah. So you know that I if you're gonna play that kind of role, um, you have to understand that that's gonna go on, that's gonna be part of the role. And um if you if you're not liking it, maybe you should not talk about it.
Brett:So it's wild that this is just I I mean, I have friends that are watching this thing repeatedly. They're like going back and forth, watching it five, six times. Yes, I'm surprised. Posting about it all on Facebook. What do you think that as a gay man, what do you think that that connection to heated rivalry is? It's like, is it just kind of like a wish fulfillment thing or what?
Lee:I think it is, yeah. I mean, it's a romance novel kind of thing. So you have these characters that are deeply committed to everything that they do. So they're they're staying in the closet, they're deeply committed to that, their passion between them is deeply committed, and the love between uh Scott and Kip is deeply committed, and there there is no question about those things, and it's rare that you see that with gay men on the screen. So I think that's why it makes you feel good in every way and hopeful.
Brett:And I think you're revealing your bias towards Scott and Kip because you have mentioned their names more than you have Hollander and Rosenol.
Lee:No, no, no, no, and in my defense, that we became uh familiar with Francois Arnault in the Borges. That's the first time we saw him, and I liked him in that. That was before he came out as uh bisexual. But so and so I liked him, and I've seen him in several other things since then, and I thought he's done a a great job. Uh he does kind of look like you, so well thank you for that.
Brett:I don't see the resemblance there, but yes, thank you. We both kind of have a dark thing. I think that's about it. They're built like amazingly all all cast of heat and rivalry. Their gym memberships are huge. I can I can't imagine what happened. Uh but uh spoiler alert, the guy that plays Kip um actually was going to be Scott Hunter. They were considering him the cast until Vencois got cast. That's right. So there's a reason why they both all of them look so good in the clothing optional scenes. Yeah. But you know what? Another huge phenomenon this year was the series finale of Stranger Things that wrapped up a decade of running on Netflix, and Will Beyer came out. Yeah much like actor Noah Schnapp did in January of 2023. And reaction on that was a little bit divided.
Lee:Oh yeah. Yeah, that was not very good. And I think it might be because of the audience that each one of them was uh written for. You know, the uh uh heat arrival was written for gay men and and women, whereas Stranger Things is is more the gamers kind of show. So I I think that might have been part of it.
Brett:Well, I also think part of it is it's a US production, it's a sensation here. Elon Musk kind of ironically led the charge. He went on a tirade on X saying that uh he was just there for basic sci-fi and adding the Will's sexuality was completely unnecessary, and a lot of people felt like Will should have kept it to himself. Yeah. So what did you think about that?
Lee:Yeah, yeah, it kind of takes me back to the 70s and 80s. There used to be a phrase that uh was used that we're okay with them being gay as long as they don't act like it. So I kind of had that sense about it, and I thought, okay, here we are there again. Um but you know, there were a couple of things in that same episode where there was another long dialogue between a couple of opposite gender that nobody really seemed to have a problem with. It was just Will's uh delivery of the gay thing. And yeah, you know, what he said was very heartfelt. I could see him actually saying that in real life, and it does kind of cover what it's like for us. We know that when we come out, the chances of our friendships and families changing is significant. So uh yeah, I think it was I think he did a good job saying it. And and I, you know, gay people are here. You're gonna hear that kind of stuff, you're gonna see that kind of stuff all the time.
Brett:So, you know, well, I think for me it was just it was natural. It seemed telegraphed from season one. I grew up at the same era of these kids that are uh fictionally portrayed in Stranger Things and Hawkins. I was a lot like Will on this show. It reminded me of my group of friends, it reminded me playing DD with them, riding on bikes with them, being that age, and and really having to grapple with that when you are the gay one in the group, I think. And and I really appreciated them finally acknowledging that because they teased it out throughout the whole ten years of it running. I mean, he was always the sensitive one, he was always the one that drew, he was always the one that kind of was isolated whenever they got into relationships. Yeah. Like you know, when they started pairing off. And I just felt a lot of that. So for me it was a very personal thing, and it was kind of ironic that you know, you come out and then you get these like crazy psychic powers. That didn't happen for me, but um unfortunately. But I mean I thought it was a great fantasy thing, and then to see a gay character actually play that part. Because really I felt like Will, a lot of his stuff in the earlier seasons, they kept him so meek. Yeah, they did. I liked that they made him come out and then made him a major player against that big big boss battle against Vecna. It kind of felt like, yay, finally. And and my theory is this anything that has Kate Bush as a big huge song, it's gotta be gay. I mean, come on. Running up that hill, that was I was listening to that. For sure. And my straight friends were not listening to that. So I'm I'm kinda glad on on that front. I don't think that there was as much of an outcry about it. I mean, I think that a lot of people made a big deal out of it because people like Elon Musk and a couple of just kind of haters online really went there. But I think that it made such a wave because Stranger Things is such a cultural phenomenon. Yeah, yeah.
Lee:Yeah, it was a very popular show. Uh and we watched it and I I liked it. Not necessarily my genre, but it was a good it was well done. Very well done. It was a great series from that perspective. It was well well crafted. Yeah, and you know, that last episode I said, even when it was going on that these these uh long dialogues feel like they're just trying to take up time to fill time. And it not only his, but uh the other ones that were in there as well. It just they were too long. I don't really think they added that much to the story, so I I had trouble understanding it. And not just his, but all of them were too long.
Brett:So do you think this will change anybody's mind to include queer characters? Because obviously both of these are huge phenomenons and heated rivalry especially has shown that even a romance between two gay guys can take on kind of a a larger life than they expected. Right, right, right. Do you think that you'll see that continue?
Lee:Not thinking, I think we will. I think that you can't put the toothpaste fast in the in the tube. So it's already out there, there's demonstrated interest in those kinds of shows, and and you know, it's all about people, the industry making money. So where they're going to be able to make money, they're gonna produce shows. And this is proven to be uh an area that they can make money. So I look for it to continue. Um I'm glad to see that. I hope with heated rivalry that uh Hollywood and um the entertainment industry sees that they can make shows like that and make them successful, they will be well well received. So I'm hoping that's a net outcome of this.
Brett:Yeah. I just took a a hockey game and Stranger Things. I know. I I have not seen so many gay men like suddenly into hockey in my life. It's it's really crazy. It's very fun to see that kind of uh juxtaposed against each other.
Lee:But you know, hockey was a much larger sport where I'm from, Minnesota, than it is where we are now.
Brett:Like, yeah, because we don't have anywhere to play hockey in Houston. Come on. Definitely it's it's not a cold weather sport kind of place. But anyway, that was uh very interesting to see that kind of come up lately. So I really wonder are we gonna have like a gay version of sex in the city? Are we gonna have more gay romances? Are we gonna have like gay guys in Paris or lesbians in Rome? Or people like finding love in this thing? Is that gonna be the next thing? So hopefully it will. I mean, because obviously we're hard to be queer voices, so you have been listening to Queer Voices on KPFT. This show is produced by a loose collective of volunteers. Our executive producer is uh Brian Lavinka, Brett Cullum and Deborah Moncrief Bell are also producers, and we have frequent contributors such as Arlie Ingalls, Davis Mendoza DeRuzman, Joel Tatum, and Jacob Newsom. We want to say a special thanks to our guest this week, Tim Stokes. If you want to find out more about us, you can visit our website at queervoices.org. We are always looking for contributors and guests. So go there, ping us. We'd love to hear from you. Don't forget, there is an event coming up at the Montreux Center next month. It is the 2026 Greater Houston LGBTQ Plus Community Summit. This is a free two-day convening uniting more than two dozen LGBTQ plus organizations and hundreds of community members to develop a unified queer agenda addressing key social detriments of health, including wellness, safety, equity, and belonging. It's going to happen Saturday and Sunday, February 7th and the 8th from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. both days. Now, this is going to be at the Montrose Center, which is located at 401 Reinard Street, Houston, Texas, 7706. And you can go to the Montrose Center's website to get more information. Thank you so much for listening to Queer Voices.
SPEAKER_02:We will be back next week.org for more information.
Ghost of Glenn:Some of the material in this program has been edited to improve clarity and runtime. This program does not endorse any political views or animal species. Views, opinions, and endorsements are those of the participants and the organizations they represent. In case of death, please discontinue views and discard remaining products.
SPEAKER_02:For Queer Voices, I'm Glenn Hope.
