maybe we should let wall street come in and run the city of flynt.aking. you worked in the financial sector. you are a democrat. >> if that parking contractor can do a better job, we friep resources. john: why can the contractor do a better job. >> they apply technology. john: why can't the city apply technology. >> the city was in financial distress. john: private companies go out of business if they don't do a good job. i'll let the jersey city mayor answer that. what if they screw up? >> they are toast. we'll give the contract to somebody else. there is nothing like the prospect of a hanging. >> these men worked for jersey city water when the department said it couldn't be done. now they do what couldn't be done. >> are you working harder? yes, you are always on the go, every date many something different. john: were you goofing off before? >> occasionally. >> government workers, many of them are hard workers, but you can't fire the bad ones. it creates a culture where people don't work that hard. >> there are certain challenges involved with deal

lot a first amendment cases, larry flynt or gawk are it's hard to defend the specifics of this particulare. a lot of people within silicon valley are saying, this isn't any different from the aclu or greenpeace funding suits that they think are going to end up having a greater social good. this case greater special good is punishing and deterring people from publishing the stuff that gawker does. the corn, of course, is who is to determine what should be punished. and iep if we all agree. i'm not saying that we do. if we agree what gawker published shouldn't have been publickished you could say i don't like the way they're talking about theranos i think that has b unfair and untoward. there for i'm going to punish the "wall street journal" for publishing that. one of those slippery slope arguments that you get in to. >> jason tanz from "wired." >> thanks for having me. >> yang: much of the focus on latinos throughout this election cycle has centered on the divisive and often heated questions about immigration and its effects. but a bipartisan non-profit group is trying to change that. the