Utterly Moderate Network

Today’s Utterly Moderate podcast episode focuses on the positives and negatives of President Trump’s first 100 days in office in this his second term. We are joined by Jim Swift, a longtime Republican and senior editor at The Bulwark. If you aren’t familiar with the work that they do over at The Bulwark, it is an online publication founded by longtime Republicans from the now-defunct Weekly Standard magazine. They aim to provide good faith, intelligent, center-right and center-left perspectives on the news of the day in the form of articles, newsletters, podcasts, and YouTube videos. Above all they aim to defend America’s democracy, put country over party, and oppose tribalism and polarization—just like us here at the Connors Institute at Shippensburg University. Enjoy the conversation! ------------- Episode audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive), "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive), "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive), and “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

This episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast deals with liberal bias in higher education and what to do about it, with a specific focus on the field of sociology. According to Gallup, a strong majority (68%) of Americans believe that higher education is headed in the wrong direction. Barely more than a third (36%) of Americans express a high level of confidence in U.S. colleges and universities, down from 57% only a decade ago. Americans give the following reasons for this low confidence: political agendas, wrong focus/teaching the wrong things, and cost/expenses. Is this concern about “political agendas” warranted? Let’s first take a look at the politics of American professors. In a 2016-2017 survey, UCLA researchers found a liberal-to-conservative (L:C) ratio of 5:1 among American college professors. Other studies show a much larger gap. When Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens analyzed the voter registrations of college professors, for instance, they found a Democrat-to-Republican (D:R) ratio of 8:1. Among the same sample, they found the D:R political donor ratio to be a whopping 95:1. A discrepancy between the public—American voters are about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans—and the professoriate is not a problem by itself. It becomes a problem if it impacts the teaching and research being done at American colleges. On this count, it seems to have become a problem. Many academics blur the line between activism and research, letting their leftist beliefs and values skew their work. This includes a number of big claims about systemic racism, police shootings, implicit bias, microaggressions, free markets, sexism, sex differences, transgender issues, single parenthood, IQ, and more. It is of course not the case that all or even most of the teaching and research happening on college campuses is corrupted by ideology. But far too many academics—perhaps most notably in fields in the humanities, social sciences, and education—make high-profile claims about social phenomena that go well beyond what the evidence will support, and these claims frequently align with leftwing ideologies. This can distort the public discourse, workplace practices, and social policy. You can read a much deeper discussion of this in the book, The Poisoning of the American Mind, as well as the documentary of the same name. On this podcast episode, we discuss liberal bias in higher education, why it is a problem, and what we might do about it. Enjoy! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

America is separating into two nations with two different experiences of reality itself: Red America and Blue America. As Robert Talisse, Vanderbilt University political theorist and today’s Utterly Moderate podcast guest, writes: “[O]ur everyday social environments are increasingly segregated along partisan lines. It is no exaggeration to say that in the United States today, opposing partisans live in different social worlds. For example, liberals and conservatives live in different kinds of neighborhoods, shop at different stores, purchase different products, drive different vehicles, express different aesthetic preferences, work in different occupations, and form different kinds of family groups. They eat different foods. They understand words differently and even exhibit different patterns of pronunciation. The familiar narrative of ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states goes far deeper than geography. In the United States today, political affiliation is more of a lifestyle than an outlook on the purposes of government.” Utterly Moderate host Lawrence Eppard has written about similar phenomena: the increasingly distinct epistemologies of left and right. On this episode of Utterly Moderate, Eppard and Talisse discuss the troubling state of polarization in America today, and how each of us might better ourselves in order to better our democracy. Enjoy! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

From all of us at the Connors Institute at Shippensburg University, we thank you for listening and hope you have a truly Happy Thanksgiving! Wherever you spend the holiday and whoever you spend it with, we hope you have lots to be thankful for and good people to be thankful with. On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, social scientist Mark Rank is here to discuss his newest book, The Random Factor: How Chance and Luck Profoundly Shape Our Lives and the World around Us. We hope you enjoy this conversation during a time that you are counting your blessings—and your lucky stars! Don't forget to join our FREE SUBSTACK! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

Before we begin, don't forget to check out Lawrence Eppard's new book, The Poisoning of the American Mind, and to read the newest piece in the Connors Journal on single parenthood in the U.S. Now on to the podcast. . .  Kimberly Wehle, a constitutional law expert at the University of Baltimore's School of Law, joins the Utterly Moderate Podcast to discuss her new book,  Pardon Power: How the Pardon Power System Works—and Why. Wehle and host Lawrence Eppard discuss a variety of topics, including: How the pardon power looms large in the current presidential election. Why Wehle believes the pardon power is necessary to retain. The constitutional limits of and possible reforms to the pardon. Both good and bad historical examples of the pardon's use. Whether it might be used (appropriately or inappropriately) to help the Jan. 6 rioters, Hunter Biden, or to self-pardon Donald Trump (and whether a self-pardon is even constitutional). Enjoy the conversation and please consider JOINING OUR MAILING LIST! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

Single parenthood has risen dramatically in the United States over time. Today, 34% of all children live in a single parent household, up from 9% in 1960. There are regrettable negative consequences of these statistics, as The Bulwark’s Mona Charen notes: “[C]hildren in mother-only homes are five times more likely to live in poverty than children with two parents. And children in father-only homes were twice as likely to be poor as those in married-couple homes. Poverty is not conducive to thriving, but even for kids who are not poor, those who grow up with only one parent fare worse than others on everything from school to work to trouble with the law. And the consequences of fatherlessness are more dire for boys than girls. Boys raised without fathers and/or without good adult male influences in their lives are less likely to attend college, be employed as adults, or remain drug-free.” And as the Manhattan Institute’s Kay Hymowitz writes: “Kids in single-parent homes have lower educational achievement, commit more crime, and suffer more emotional problems, even when controlling for parental income and education. Not only do young men and women from intact families (regardless of race and ethnicity) get more education and earn higher earnings than those raised with single mothers; they also do better than children who have a stepparent at home. Children growing up in an area where single-parent families are the norm have less of a chance of upward mobility than a child who lives where married-couple families dominate (regardless of whether that child lives with a single parent or with married parents). The evidence that the prevalence of single-parent households poses risks to individual children and communities goes on and on.” There are large variations in single parenthood rates by race/ethnicity, with 63% of Black children, 50% of Indigenous children, 42% of Latino children, 24% of non-Hispanic White children, and 16% of Asian American children living in single parent households. University of Maryland economist Melissa Kearney has published important research on how family structure impacts American children, including her new book, The Two Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind: “The most recent research, much of which incorporates advanced statistical techniques, continues to show that children who are raised in single-mother households tend to have lower levels of completed education and lower levels of income as adults, even after statistically accounting for observable demographic characteristics (for example, where the family lives or the mother’s level of education)” (p. 52). In Table 1, Kearney shows how children of single parents differ in their life chances compared with children of married parents. For children of college-educated mothers, for instance, 57.0% have a college degree by age 25 if their mother was married, but only 28.6% of those raised with a college educated single mother.   In Figure 1 you can see, as Mona Charen alluded to, the strong correlation between the dominant family structure in a neighborhood and the upward mobility rate of children raised there. Even for children who themselves are raised in married parent households, they are statistically more likely to struggle in adulthood if they are raised in a community where there is widespread single parenthood. If you want to dive deeper into this subject, this paper from the Connors Institute has got you covered. Table 2 shows the large variations in poverty rates between American families with different structures. Taken together, all of these data strongly suggest that parents really matter. We discuss rising single parenthood and its consequences for children on the most recent episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast. Joining us in this discussion is Kay Hymowitz, a research fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She writes not only on family issues and childhood, but also poverty and cultural change in America. Hymowitz is the author of the books The New Brooklyn: What It Takes to Bring a City Back (2017), Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys (2011), Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age (2006), and Liberation’s Children: Parents and Kids in a Postmodern Age (2004), among others. Don't forget to sign up for our FREE NEWSLETTER! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, the authors of the brand new book, The Poisoning of the American Mind, talk about the book and its implications for America.  So what is their argument? A significant amount of research suggests that most people seek out news and information sources that mirror their worldviews, avoid ones that don’t, and interpret information using cognitive filters that force an alignment with what they already believe. As social psychologist David Dunning writes, “Each of us possesses certain foundational beliefs—narratives about the self, ideas about the social order—that essentially cannot be violated. . . And any information that we glean from the world is amended, distorted, diminished, or forgotten in order to make sure that these sacrosanct beliefs remain whole and unharmed.”  As they document in their brand new book and their free online documentary of the same name, the evidence suggests that this problem afflicts both conservative and liberal Americans. Conservative Americans tend to place their trust in very few sources of news and information, and those sources tend to be low-quality, like the openly partisan Fox News. Conservatives also tend to cocoon themselves within a partisan media ecosystem of like-minded low-quality outlets, an “internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenge[s] it.”  Liberal Americans are more likely than conservatives to trust legitimate journalistic outlets, but those sources often unknowingly spread misleading claims that they truly believe are backed by “the science.” Why do they believe this? Sometimes it’s because the outlet doesn’t fully grasp the preponderance of the evidence on the issue at hand. But too often it is because irresponsible experts, who news outlets should be able to trust, said “the science” backed their claims when it didn’t. Consider the following statements that many on the left assume are backed by “the science”: Discrimination is a primary cause of the gender pay gap (this is more than likely not true in America today). Gender affirming care reduces suicide risk for gender dysphoric individuals (the weight of the empirical evidence does not support this claim at the moment). Police officers kill a disproportionate number of African Americans due to racial bias on the part of officers (this is a claim being vigorously debated and without a clear answer at the moment). We can reliably identify microaggressions, whether they are motivated by racial bias, and whether they cause harm (the evidence for this claim is extraordinarily weak). None of these claims are backed by strong evidence. At best, the research is mixed, not clearly pointing in one direction or the other. At worst, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. But many on the left believe these statements are backed by “the science” because prominent academics have made big, irresponsible claims that go far beyond what the preponderance of the evidence supports.  In Poisoning, the authors give equal attention to epistemic failings on both sides. They believe the evidence shows that Americans across the political spectrum fall for questionable assertions from sources that they believe to be trustworthy and authoritative, sources which often present the information in a manner that appeals to the sacred beliefs of consumers’ in-groups.  They make no assertions about which side’s epistemic failings are “worse” due to their honest inability to quantify such a thing—and they are not sure it matters as much as some may think. Both red and blue America face epistemic crises that act like serious illnesses that sicken American society—even if you could measure which one makes us feel “worse” as a nation, the reality is that either one would make our country seriously ill, and experiencing them simultaneously is a nightmare. In Poisoning the authors discuss not only the misleading information that is hurting American, but a variety of possible ideas for how to get ourselves out of this mess. You can buy the book, watch the free documentary, and read the other work they have published on this topic. And of course don’t forget to sign up for our FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER in just one click! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

We want to express our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family of Corey Comperatore. He was killed during the attempted assassination of former President Trump.  According to NBC Philadelphia, Comperatore raised two daughters with his high school sweetheart and spent his final moments shielding his family that he loved so much from the gunfire. May he rest in peace. His family is in our prayers. We also want to wish a quick recovery to those who were injured in the assassination attempt, including former president Donald Trump and rally attendees David Dutch and James Copenhaver. And lastly our condolences to all others impacted by this political violence. Violence has absolutely no place in a civilized society. Given how much our democracy and country have been through, we thought on this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we would lighten things up a bit and talk about something that perhaps we all might have some positive feelings about: one of our founding fathers.  It is July after all, America’s month of celebrating our independence. In the spirit of July and America and trying to find some positivity right now, on this episode we bring you a replay of our conversation with George Washington University historian Denver Brunsman. He previously joined the show to share his insights on the life and career of George Washington, as well as his general reflections on the study of history and its place in the modern university.  Enjoy the conversation and don’t forget to sign up for our free email newsletter in one click! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission) "Washington Post March" by the U.S. Marine Band (publicly available on YouTube)  

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, host Lawrence Eppard and Connors Institute co-director Jacob Mackey discuss techniques and shortcuts that you can use to spot real expertise in a world where people with expert credentials are sometimes frauds and where people without expert credentials are often very knowledgeable. They also discuss crucial techniques for examining your personal biases and the limits of your own knowledge. This conversation is based on two really good readings, and we hope you will not only listen to this episode but go to these websites and read these short but very illuminating pieces: “Spotting Real Expertise” by Spencer Greenberg in the Connors Newsletter (click HERE to read). “Strategies for Consuming News” by the Connors Institute (click HERE to read). Enjoy the episode! And PLEASE subscribe to our newsletter in just one click! ------------- ------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

Before we talk about this episode, we hope you didn’t miss the latest research from the Connors Institute on the gender pay gap. Check it out now! We talk quite a bit on this podcast about some of the things that many liberal and conservative Americans believe that just ain’t so. In fact, we just released a free online documentary about this titled The Poisoning of the American Mind.  On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by Wilfred Reilly, political scientist at Kentucky State University, to talk about misleading claims that have made their way into educational curricula in the U.S. Friend of the show Jacob Mackey joins the conversation as a special guest cohost. Our guest, Dr. Reilly, is the author of several books, two of which are particularly informative in this discussion: Taboo: 10 Facts You Can't Talk About (2020), which addresses such things as: The fact that, contrary to many current claims, men and women are different. There is no epidemic of police murdering unarmed Black Americans. “Pay gaps" between big groups, when several important variables are controlled for, are very small. Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me: Debunking the False Narratives Defining America’s School Curricula (June 2024—preorder now!), which includes the following chapters:  Lie #1: “Brutal ‘True’ Slavery Was Virtually Unique to America and the West”  Lie #2: “The ‘Red Scare’ Was a Moral Panic That Caught No Commies”  Lie #3: “Native Americans Were ‘Peaceful People Who Spent All Day Dancing’”  Lie #4: “Hippies Were the Good Guys, the Sexual Revolution Was Great for Women, and the Vietnam War Was Unpopular and Pointless”  Lie #5: “The Founders Counted Slaves as Three-Fifths of a Person and the Only Victims of Lynchings Were Black” Lie #6: “European Colonialism Was—Empirically—a No-Good, Terrible, Very Bad Thing” Lie #7: “American Use of Nukes to End World War Two Was ‘Evil’ and ‘Unjustified’” Lie #8: “Unprovoked ‘White Flight,’ Caused by Pure Racism, Ruined America’s Cities”  Lie #9: “‘Southern Strategy’ Racism Turned the Solid South Republican” #10 Bonus Lie: The Continuing Oppression Narrative   Enjoy the conversation, and don’t forget to subscribe in just one click to our FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER!   ------------------- ------------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

Before we talk about this week’s podcast episode, don’t forget to check out the Connors Institute’s new documentary, The Poisoning of the American Mind, an illuminating film about how conservatives and liberals in America regularly fall for misinformation and disinformation. On this week’s episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, we are joined by everyone’s favorite astrophysicist, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Dr. Varoujan Gorjian, to discuss a number of science-related topics, including: The looming problem of space junk, man-made objects littering low-Earth orbit that are bound to cause problems in the future—like when one piece of space junk fell to Earth recently and smashed through the roof of a home in Florida. How freaked out Utterly Moderate host Lawrence Eppard was by an asteroid that recently came too close to Earth for Eppard’s liking. Whether Dr. Gorjian has seen any famous scientists get embarrassingly drunk at academic conferences (will he name names?). The ongoing search for Earth-like planets. The recent solar eclipse that swept the nation and whether an esteemed astrophysicist like Dr. Gorjian gets excited by them anymore (spoiler: he really does!). The awesome discoveries of the James Webb Space Telescope. The interesting scientific puzzle of the Hubble Tension. And of course, Barbenheimer. Enjoy, and thanks for listening!   ------------------- ------------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

We’ve talked a lot on the Utterly Moderate Podcast about how both liberals and conservatives in America are bombarded with misleading information on a regular basis. On the left, unfortunately, a lot of this bad info comes from an academic research community which is overwhelmingly liberal. A recent study found the least imbalanced discipline to be engineering, which was still 62% liberal professors. Political science was 89%, psychology 94%, and sociology 98%, while some disciplines had no political conservatives at all.  This significant one-sidedness means that the people doing the research as well as the people checking to make sure that research is high quality before it is published all have similar ideological blind spots, and this is allowing too much misleading information to make it into the public discourse, where it is often perceived by average citizens as being backed by solid evidence when that just isn’t so.   On this episode host Lawrence Eppard is joined by anthropologist Michael Jindra from Boston University’s Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs to talk about this problem and hopefully offer some ways to save the social sciences from themselves. Check out just some of the great insights Jindra has to offer in his article in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled, “When Ideology Drives Social Science.” And don’t forget to sign up for our CONNORS NEWSLETTER! It’s just one click and it’s FREE! ------------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

It is extremely hard for the average citizen to understand what the “state of the science” is on many issues. We can all type our queries about a particular topic into Google but, when we get the flood of results, most of us are not trained to be able to (a) understand the complicated statistical methodologies employed in many research studies, (b) compare studies and evaluate their strength relative to each other, or (c) assess what the preponderance of the evidence is across tens or even hundreds of studies. On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, we are joined by Dr. Sallie Baxendale to help us think about how we might make such judgements. She also goes into detail about ways in which the scientific process can go wrong, as it has been in some areas of gender-affirming care in recent years, as Joshua Cohen discusses in Forbes: “In the U.S., a politically partisan divide is shaping up between states that allow for and guarantee access to youth gender-affirming care and states that ban such treatment altogether. Twenty-two states have passed bans on the use of cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and surgery in minors. In Europe political divisions on this topic aren’t nearly as conspicuous as they are in the U.S. Rather, the debate is much more fact-based. An increasing number of countries have conducted systematic reviews of evidence to determine the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. And the findings from these reviews—that the certainty of benefits is ‘very low’—have informed changes in policy regarding treatment of gender incongruence in minors. . . All things considered, according to European health authorities and medical experts, there isn’t yet a medical consensus for the use of pharmaceutical and surgical interventions in gender dysphoric minors. And so authorities are ‘tapping the brakes,’ shifting from care which prioritizes access to pharmaceutical and surgical interventions, to a less medicalized and more conservative approach that addresses possible psychiatric comorbidities. . . In the U.S., on the other hand, talk of introducing guardrails like the ones being incorporated in Europe is sometimes met with being branded ‘transphobic’ or a ‘science denier.’” You can read about Dr. Baxendale’s own troubling experiences with this field of research in her recent UnHerd article. Dr. Sallie Baxendale is a professor of clinical neuropsychology at the University College of London’s Institute of Neurology. She has over three decades of clinical experience working with people with epilepsy in London and Oxford, is the current chair of the International League Against Epilepsy Diagnostic Methods Commission, and serves on the Board of Governors for the International Neuropsychological Society. As you listen to this fascinating episode, also make sure to subscribe to our FREE NEWSLETTER! ------------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by Jacob Mackey to discuss two big gender-related stories in the news. The first story is positive, and we have covered it in the Connors Newsletter—a big new research study shows that we have made great progress combatting sex discrimination in the labor market. This is great news! Then there is a difficult and troubling story. According to leaked internal files from WPATH, a leading global organization which advocates for transgender health care, WPATH has not been completely forthcoming about their internal concerns about the evidence behind gender affirming care for minors as well as the ethical issues surrounding informed consent for such care. The first part of this conversation is really positive, while the second half is a difficult subject that we hope we treat fairly and with an appropriate level of concern. Thanks for taking a listen. ------------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined again by Lisa Selin Davis, a writer who covers issues related to gender and gender affirming care. Davis joins the program to discuss a recent UnHerd article “Why did three journals reject my puberty-blocker study? Trans children deserve to know the facts,” written by Sallie Baxendale, a clinical neuropsychologist at University College London. Baxendale details an academic article she wrote about the state of the research on whether puberty blockers are harmful to people’s cognitive function. Baxendale argues that the responses that she got from peer reviewers suggest that ideology is clouding the judgement of the experts responsible for making sure that the best science is available to transgender children and their families when they are making life-altering decisions. Lisa Selin Davis discusses this article and its broader meaning within the larger conversation about whether some sciences are allowing ideology to get in the way of doing the best research possible. Enjoy the episode and don't forget to sign up for our FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER! ---------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we discuss recent controversies at and concerns about colleges and universities in the United States—from highly publicized instances of campus unrest to a lack of intellectual diversity among faculty to hypocrisy on free speech. This episode’s guest is Jacob Mackey, associate professor at Occidental College and coeditor with host Lawrence Eppard of The Poisoning of the American Mind, which is due out later this spring. Check out the podcast episode and also check out two reports that were recently released from the Connors Institute, the “Connors Institute Media Report Card” and “Place Matters.” In the media report card Connors researchers take a rigorous look at numerous news and information sources in the U.S. and evaluate their bias and accuracy. Check it out yourself to see which outlets made the grade and which ones missed the mark. In “Place Matters” Connors researchers examine the impact of neighborhoods and communities on American children’s chances of success. The efforts and choices of the individual children themselves of course matter for their success, as do the efforts and resources of their families. But this research shows that the neighborhoods and communities where children are raised matter a great deal for their success as well—take a look at the report yourself and also take some time to examine your own neighborhood! And don’t forget to subscribe in just one click to our FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER! ----------------------------------- Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

Before we get to today's episode, check out this article about the Connors Institute in The Sentinel newspaper! On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by Robert VerBruggen from the Manhattan Institute to discuss a new documentary which claims to disprove that George Floyd was killed by Derek Chauvin, as well as a new research study which claims to disprove that income inequality in the U.S. has been rising since the 1960s. The documentary in question, The Fall of Minneapolis, was produced by Alpha News, an organization that has a history of low-quality journalism that is often inaccurate, biased, and misleading. Podcast host Lawrence Eppard and guest Robert VerBruggen will discuss the claims in the documentary and why they fall short. They also discuss a new and important research study which calls into question whether income inequality has really been rising since the 1960s like we have all been led to believe. While this new paper does not completely disprove the argument that inequality has in fact been increasing, it raises serious concerns about how certain we can be about the dominant narrative that inequality has been rising out of control. Don't forget to subscribe to our FREE email newsletter in just one click! Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from the Connors Institute at Shippensburg University! Since this Utterly Moderate episode is both our Christmas program and our 100th PODCAST EPISODE, we thought we would try to be as uplifting as possible. In that spirit, we are being joined by Johan Norberg, author of a number of books including Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future. In that book, Norberg presents extensive data documenting how the world has gotten much better over the centuries across several measures, including freedom, life expectancy, poverty, violence, hunger, sanitation, the environment, literacy, and more. The book helps us not only to avoid being so doom and gloom about the state of the world, but to identify the reasons why we have made so much progress in the first place, avoid derailing those efforts, and help us build on them for a better tomorrow. Enjoy this conversation, and very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. Sign up for our FREE NEWSLETTER in one click at ConnorsInstitute.org. Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Remedy for Melancholy" by Kai Engel (Free Music Archive) "Silent Night" by Piper Kull (used with artist's permission) "O Holy Night" by Piper Kull (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jim Swift from The Bulwark joins the Utterly Moderate Podcast to discuss the fraught nature of the immigration debate in the U.S. Both sides in the immigration debate have important points to bring to the table, and good faith discussions and compromises are badly needed. Unfortunately, such efforts often get sidetracked by misinformation and disinformation about this thorny issue. Swift discusses a story of his that had a number of important issues—legal immigration, unauthorized immigration, and disinformation—all wrapped into one. Enjoy the conversation! And don't forget to subscribe to our FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER in just one click at ConnorsInstitute.org! Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Leading American poverty researcher Mark Robert Rank joins the Utterly Moderate Podcast to discuss his Poverty Risk Calculator, the record-low poverty rates that the U.S. saw in 2021, Dr. Rank's research on the risk Americans face of experiencing poverty throughout their lives, a new book he has coming out on luck, and more! Rank has spent his career studying poverty, economic inequality, and social policy in America and teaching about these topics at Washington University in St. Louis, where he has been a faculty member since 1985. Much of his research has focused on the life course risk of poverty in America. Using data from hundreds of thousands of Americans taken from a longitudinal study that began in the 1960s, Dr. Rank and his research collaborators have been able to estimate the likelihood that the average American will experience poverty at some point in their lives. This research shows that around 59% of Americans will experience at least one year under the official poverty line at some point in their lives. While Rank has published his research findings in a number of academic articles and books over the years, it occurred to him that it might be possible to use this body of poverty research in order to develop a tool that would allow individuals to estimate their own risk of poverty. The idea is similar to a doctor's ability to predict your risk of heart disease. Using several pieces of information (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.), your doctor can make a reasonable estimate of your chances of having a heart attack in the next decade. These numbers are based on statistical patterns derived from a very large sample of families that make up the Framingham Heart Study, the longitudinal study of cardiovascular health that began in 1948. Could this be done with poverty data? Working with his colleagues over the course of hundreds of hours of programming and designing, Rank developed the Poverty Risk Calculator. You can try it for yourself. Using the calculator, individuals enter background information on five dimensions (age, race, gender, education, and marital status), and receive a 5-, 10-, and 15-year probability that they will experience at least one year of poverty during these time periods. Individuals can also calculate their odds of experiencing near-poverty and extreme poverty. The calculator is designed so that individuals can also easily compare their profile with others' side-by-side in the same graph to examine how the risk of poverty varies by different characteristics. The impact of each variable is profound, and one can readily see how poverty is affected by, for example, changes to one's race, education, or marital status. This allows users to observe the impact of key social dimensions on life chances. Try it for yourself and see how even a single change can drastically alter your personal risk of poverty. By utilizing the calculator you can see that the risk of poverty for many Americans is significant. While the likelihood of poverty may be low during any single year, across multiple years, individuals observe that their risk can rise substantially.  Visit us at CONNORSINSTITUTE.ORG and sign up for our free newsletter! Episode Audio: "Air Background Corporate" by REDCVT (Free Music Archive) "Please Listen Carefully" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Friend of the Connors Forum and frequent Utterly Moderate guest, Lee McIntyre, has a new book out titled On Disinformation: How to Fight for Truth and Protect Democracy, a “powerful, pocket-sized citizen's guide on how to fight back against the disinformation campaigns that are imperiling American democracy, from the bestselling author of Post-Truth and How to Talk to a Science Denier.” McIntyre argues that there is an effort in this country to destroy facts and make America ungovernable. In the book, he walks through how the war on facts began, how bad actors deny obvious realities and wield disinformation to manipulate American citizens, and ten everyday practical steps that we can take as ordinary citizens to combat disinformation. He also addresses the important steps our government must take to fight what McIntyre calls a “scourge” of disinformation that is now threatening the very fabric of our society. This episode features highlights from a previous conversation we had with both Lee McIntyre and frequent Utterly Moderate guest Tom Nichols, author of the great book The Death of Expertise. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: "Cloudbank" by Podington Bear (Free Music Archive) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (Free Music Archive) “Algorithms” by Chad Crouch (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) Mitt Romney January 6th speech (publicly available on YouTube)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we discuss both the pros and cons of nuclear power, especially as it pertains to combatting global climate change. The international community is attempting to keep the world from warming no more than 1.5-2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. While there have been incredible efforts to achieve this—efforts that have likely taken the worst-case warming scenarios off the table—we are still on track for closer to 3.0 degrees warming by 2100 instead of 2.0 degrees. Some would argue that the expansion of nuclear power would go a long way toward closing that gap. Friend of this show and frequent guest, The Bulwark's Mona Charen, has written that: “The world's demand for energy is not going to diminish, but only increase in the coming century. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates world energy demand will increase 50% by 2050. . . The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries cannot in conscience deny development to the world's poorer nations. Nor can we delude ourselves that renewables, at the current state of technology, can take up all the slack created by giving up fossil fuels. Amazingly, there is an existing technology that can produce the energy the world needs without harming the climate. And yet we hesitate. Nuclear power is the key to limiting climate change and hobbling some of the world's worst aggressors. If we're serious about both problems, we'll clear the air of superstitions about nuclear power. Nuclear power plants cannot explode like nuclear bombs. They require much less land than solar or wind. Nuclear waste can be safely buried. The U.S. Navy has been powering ships with nuclear reactors since the late 1950s. According to the Naval Post: ‘U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health or had an adverse effect on marine life.' Nothing is perfect. One death from radiation exposure at the Fukushima power plant has been noted by the Japanese government: a worker who died of lung cancer in 2018, seven years after the tsunami and meltdowns. But if we are in a new hard-headed era, we will evaluate trade-offs like adults. Are we serious about choking off the source of Putin's power or not? Are we serious about combating climate change without illusions that wind and solar will do the job? Nuclear power can be a major part of the solution to both challenges.” Our guest on this episode, Robert Zubrin, has written a new book on this topic titled The Case for Nukes. We hope you enjoy this conversation about an important issue facing our world. And don't forget to subscribe to our FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Algorithms” by Chad Crouch (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) Episode transcript Note: The following transcript was created by Headliner and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically: On today's program, we discuss both pros and cons of nuclear power Speaker A: Utterly moderate is the official podcast of the Connors forum. Visit us at connorsforum.org and be sure to subscribe to our free email newsletter while you are there. Please listen carefully. Carefully, carefully. Hey. Speaker B: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to the program. This is the utterly moderate podcast. And I'm your host, Lawrence Eppard. On today's program, we are talking about both the pros and the cons of nuclear power, especially when it comes to tackling climate change. So if this isn't something that you pay a lot of attention to and you're not really familiar with what the international agreements are, basically what countries around the world are trying to do is by the end of this century. We are attempting to keep the world from warming no more than 1.5 to two degrees Celsius above where we were before the Industrial Revolution. And it's pretty amazing how much work has been done in the international community to tackle climate change. It's been pretty amazing. And the worst case scenarios, it looks like, are off the table because of international cooperation. But there's still a lot of work to be done. We're still closer to three degrees of warming rather than two degrees of warming, and we really need to close that gap. And there are many who would argue that nuclear power is one really important tool in our arsenal to help us close that gap. Mona Charon, who you probably know is a frequent guest on this show, and a friend of this podcast. She has written the following about nuclear power quote the world's demand for energy is not going to diminish, but only increase in the coming century. The US. Energy Information Administration estimates world energy demand will increase by 50% by 2050. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries cannot in conscience deny development to the world's poorer nations. Nor can we dilute ourselves that renewables at the current state of technology can take up all the slack created by giving up fossil fuels. Amazingly, there is an existing technology that can produce the energy the world needs without harming the environment. And yet we hesitate. Nuclear power is the key to limiting climate change and hobbling some of the world's worst Aggressors. If we're serious about both problems, we'll clear the air of superstitions about nuclear power. Nuclear power plants cannot explode like nuclear bombs. They require much less land than solar or wind. Nuclear waste can be safely buried. The US. Navy has been powering ships with nuclear reactors since the late 1950s. According to the naval Post us Nuclear powered warships have safely operated for more than 50 years without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health or had an adverse effect on marine life. Nothing is perfect. One death from radiation exposure at the Fukushima power plant has been noted by the Japanese government, a worker who died of lung cancer in 2018, seven years after the tsunami and meltdowns. But if we are in a new, hard headed era. We will evaluate trade offs like adults. Are we serious about choking off the source of Putin's power or not? Are we serious about combating climate change without illusions that wind or solar will do the job? Nuclear, power can be a major part of the solution to both challenges. End quote. Robert Zubrin has written a new book on nuclear power Speaker B: Our guest today, Robert Zubrin, has written a new book on this topic titled The Case for Nukes, where he argues that, quote, the bottom line is this we are going to need to produce a lot more energy, and it will need to be carbon free. The only way to do that is with nuclear power. In my book, I go into great detail about how nuclear power is generated, new technologies coming online, and what all of this will mean for the future of humanity, including space exploration. End quote. Robert Zubrin, we are so happy to have you on the show today. Thank you so much for joining us. Speaker A: Thanks for inviting me. Speaker B: No problem. You have a new book called The Case for Nukes about global warming Speaker C: So you got a great new book out called The Case for Nukes how We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, open and magnificent Future. So let's start with what's your background? What's your training? What brought you to write this book? Speaker A: Well, I actually have a doctorate in nuclear engineering. I've only worked, a fraction of my career in the nuclear industry. Mostly I've worked aerospace. But, now we have this whole global warming alarm. There are people who are pushing solutions which are basically reactionary, essentially rigging up fuel prices to, deter people of limited income from using fuel or electricity. That's what it amounts to. And, I think that's unethical. And furthermore, it hasn't worked. We've doubled our carbon emissions in the past 30 years, just as we did in the 30 years between 1960 and 1990. We doubled it. We doubled it between 1930 and 1960, and we doubled it between 1990 and then 2020 because people don't want to be poor. And not using fuel essentially amounts to poverty. and the answer is straightforward. It's nuclear power. And, it's very unfortunate that the groups who are, making the greatest alarm about global warming are fighting against nuclear power. Speaker C: All right, so you, propose the answer, at least in terms of a bridge technology, until we do something like fusion or whatever in the future, might solve this problem. One of the disadvantages of nuclear power is it has been made expensive Speaker C: So let's talk about advantages and disadvantages. Let's start with disadvantages, and you can tell me what you make of it. So, one of the disadvantages is it has been expensive to build. Correct? Speaker A: It's been made expensive. the first nuclear power plant we built in this country took three years to build. Now, it takes 16. And, this has been the result of hostile regulation. and if you look at the numbers, and I present them in my book, the Cost to Build a nuclear power plant has gone up precisely in proportion to time squared. Okay? Construction time squared is the cost of the nuclear power plant. Anything can be made, prohibitively costly. If the FAA were run like the NRC, there would be no airlines. If a city government banned parking in the city, they would say it was impossible to park. Or they would say you can only park in places where it's $100 an hour to park. And they say, well, gee, parking costs $100 an hour. Well, you can make anything cost, excessive amounts through regulation. And that's what we've had with nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only power which has such a small amount of waste Speaker C: Another disadvantage people point to, and I want you to tell me if I'm making too much of it, not enough of it. You give us your take on the problem of nuclear waste. So what's the problem? And do you think it can be overcome? Speaker A: Well, it's ironic that they single out nuclear waste as a problem because nuclear power is the only power which has such a small amount of waste that you actually can store it. The idea of sequestering and storing the waste from coal fired power would be absurd. And of course, fossil fuel in any kind, it sends its waste right into the atmosphere. and the waste products from making photovoltaics are enormous in the way of, ah, fluorine compounds. It caused massive fish kills and damage to public health in China, where these things are made. nuclear power, on the other hand, the amount of waste is, minuscule, and we could reduce it still more by reprocessing the waste. Ah, but of course, the, anti nukes have been first in line to, prevent that. But there's no technical problem with disposing of nuclear waste. The French reprocess and then store their waste. The US. Military, the nuclear navy, stores its waste in salt caverns in New Mexico. the, anti nukes have had no effect on implementing that solution because the Navy needs nuclear submarines and they're just not willing to have their program sabotaged. So the anti nukes have focused on preventing any storage of civilian nuclear waste. And they claim they're interested in safety. How can that be when they are saying, we would prefer to have nuclear waste stored at nuclear power plants in the suburbs of major cities rather than under a mountain in the middle of the desert? Nevada. One of the fears about nuclear waste is the possibility of a meltdown Speaker C: All right, so you say nuclear waste can be solved. You say that, the cost can be brought down with changes to regulation. One of the fears, and I want you to talk about this fear and how we should contextualize it, is, of course, the danger of a meltdown. So tell us, is that a reasonable fear? How should we think about that danger? Speaker A: Okay, meltdowns are possible. That is, while a pressurized water reactor, which is pretty much all the reactors we have in the United States, cannot, have a runaway chain reaction because it needs the water in order to sustain the chain reaction. And if the water boils too much, the reaction shuts down. There is still waste heat left in the reactor, that is from radioactive, waste particles in the fuel. And they continue to give off heat whether the reactor is running or not. And so if the water is gone, you'll have heat and there's no cooling, the fuel will melt down. And the anti nukes said, well, gee, it will melt down. It'll melt down right through the steel pressure vessel, which is eight inches thick, and then through the concrete containment, vessel, which is 8ft thick. we actually had, ah, a meltdown at Three Mile Island. And what happened was the core did melt down and it hit the steel pressure vessel and it melted its way about one inch into the steel, and then it stopped. It didn't penetrate the steel pressure vessel. It never even reached the containment building, let alone China. So this is, a, greatly, overhyped, situation. it is an engineering concern. The Three Mile Island reactor was lost. It was a loss of investment, but there was no harm to the public. Speaker C: One of the examples, people point to is Chernobyl. But, that was very different technology and very different, political and leadership context, right? Speaker A: Correct. Chernobyl was not a pressurized water reactor, as I mentioned. you, see, to make the chain reaction work, you got to slow the neutrons down. It's called moderating the neutrons. They're going too fast. They go right by nuclei without splitting, okay? So you got to slow them down. So we use water to slow down the neutrons. And, the advantage of that is, if the reactor gets too hot, the water turns to steam, it can't slow the neutrons down anymore, and the reaction shuts down. So it's physically impossible to have a runaway chain reaction in a water moderated reactor. Chernobyl was not a water moderated reactor. It was a graphite moderated reactor. And graphite doesn't turn into vapor. it's solid. And so, it didn't have, this negative feedback. And in fact, the reactor operators did a crazy experiment in which they set off, a runway chain reaction. and then furthermore, another thing that Chernobyl reactor didn't have, which all, reactors in the civilized world have, is a containment building, okay? So all it had was an ordinary, building. And so when the reactor had a runaway chain reaction, it blew a hole in itself and a hole in the side of the building. And now you had the hot graphite exposed to air. And, so the graphite caught fire. And so this reactor was not only unstable, it was flammable, which is crazy. so you had the whole reactor literally go up in smoke and scattering, radioactive waste products, all over the landscape. the firefighters that were brought in to put the fire out were exposed directly to this cloud of radioactive material being, turned to radioactive smoke right at the reactor. And so about 80 of them were killed. then the fallout came down over a wide area. There's no documented, fatalities from that fallout. but a large area was evacuated and, has turned into an incredibly, flourishing wildlife reserve. but also, the response the Soviet authorities was completely incompetent. And, more could be said about that. But basically, the people who died at Chernobyl were not victims of nuclear power. They were victims of the Soviet Union. Speaker C: Now, this is, totally anecdotal. I don't have any data to back this up, but when I speak to environmentalists today, I do see their perspective on nuclear softening a bit. Do you see that happening in the US. Or am I overstating that? Speaker A: Well, you have a certain faction in the Democratic Party. It even has an organization called the Third Way. say, well, why aren't we going to nuclear? it's clean energy. It's the common sense answer. if you actually believe that global warming is an existential crisis that is, one that threatens the existence of the human race, it should take a lot of convincing to tell you that the hazard from nuclear power no nuclear power plant in the United States or, actually anywhere outside the Soviet Union has ever killed anyone. Not even at Fukushima, where, several nuclear power plants were destroyed by an earthquake and tidal wave. there was still no one, who got a harmful radiological dose outside of the plant gate. So here you have a situation where you've had over a thousand nuclear reactors on land or sea for the past. Speaker C: 60 years not harming anyone now, beyond the benefits. So, no pollution, no greenhouse gases. you write in your book that also, could help opening the space frontier. So tell us what your argument was there. Speaker A: Well, I mean, look, here's the thing. All the chemical elements that you need to make anything are on Mars, for example. But as is usually the case on Earth, with some exceptions, they're there in a useless form. In other words, you have iron, but it's in the form of iron oxide, silicon in the form of silicon dioxide and so forth. well, those can all be turned into useful resources if you have energy. Okay, now, what's the energy? Well, they don't have fossil fuels on Mars. You can make them, but it would take energy to do it. There's no waterfalls. the air is too thin for wind power to do much. You can do solar power on Mars, but it's only 40% as strong as it is on Earth. And on Earth, it's not terribly attractive. so it's significantly worse on Mars. So what are you going to do for power? Nuclear power. And if you look at the universe, the vast majority of it is far away from any star. so, the vast majority of the universe is dark. so whether you want to develop Mars or do interstellar travel or anything, you're, in general going to be operating out of range of effective solar power. It will take nuclear power to, develop space. Robert Zubrin says fusion is a doable thing Speaker C: Does, Robert Zubrin watch movies? Did you happen to see Oppenheimer by any chance? Speaker A: Yes, I did. And in fact, I wrote a review of Oppenheimer, favorable, for the, online magazine Quillette. they actually had two reviews, one by another person who focused on the artistic merit of the movie. I focused on, they asked me the question, is it, realistic? And, my answer was fundamentally yes. There's only one significant technical error in the film and that's its obsession over this question of whether people were worried that the first atom bomb would ignite the atmosphere. there was no such concern. I mean, Edward Teller did bring it up that we should do that calculation to make sure that that would not happen. But once the calculation was done, he was quite satisfied. and in fact, there was no chance whatsoever, that that could happen. fission of nitrogen would not release any energy at all. And fusion of nitrogen, occurs so slow that the various loss mechanisms would quench the reaction virtually immediately. what people were worried about at Trinity was whether it would work. Because you got to realize this is an incredibly complex thing and they're testing it for the first time. I ran an R and D company for 27 years and it's pretty rare that something new works the first time, but it did. Speaker C: before I let you go, the future, is it going to be fusion? Speaker A: Well, eventually, yes. I, think we will have improved, versions of fission. I think we'll have breeder reactors, I think loth thorium reactors. These things are on the way. but definitely fusion, is a doable thing. and right now, really, as a result of the success of SpaceX demonstrating, entrepreneurial approaches to reusable space launch vehicles, in other words, doing the impossible, so to speak investors have taken a look at advanced vision and fusion and said, maybe the reason why we don't have it is the wrong people are doing it. maybe the problem is institutional. And so you have both advanced fission and fusion entrepreneurial companies getting large amounts of funding from investors and these people are moving ahead on very fast timelines. So while, fission has stagnated, since its initial golden age of the think, we're going to have new kinds of fission reactors and we're going to have fusion as well. Speaker C: Robert Zubrin. He's got a new book. It's called The Case for Nukes how We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, open and magnificent Future. Robert, thank you so much for joining the program. Speaker A: You are most welcome.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are going to be talking about something called the “replication crisis.” Most people will not be familiar with this since it has been happening in academia but we promise it is not only quite intriguing and full of juicy details but it also has some pretty big implications for the larger society. So what is the replication crisis? In the past 15 years or so it has been discovered that many research findings in major academic journals actually don't hold up to scrutiny. When an academic publishes a study they are required to describe their research methodology in detail. If another researcher tries to conduct the same study using the same methodology, this is an attempt at “replication.” If the replication finds the same results, this is further evidence that the original study was on to something. If they don't find the same results, it suggests that the original study may not have found the thing that it had claimed to find. In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article that got a lot of attention titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” In it he wrote that: “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. . . this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” Then, in 2011, there was a significant controversy over a paper by social psychologist Daryl Bem that claimed that people can have “precognition,” or ESP, and backed up this claim using the accepted methods of his field of psychology. This led many researchers to question dominant research methods, how the peer review process could fail so miserably, and whether this problem was much bigger than a few papers. In 2015, researchers published an article in the prestigious journal Science in which they detailed their attempts to reproduce 100 psychology studies. Alarmingly, they found that they were only able to successfully replicate 39 of those studies. Other similar efforts since then have also shown that many major published studies that have become accepted facts cannot be replicated and should be called into question. Over the past few years, academic fields have been grappling with the replication crisis and debating ways to strengthen the guardrails in academic research and publishing so that fewer flawed studies become accepted knowledge. On this Utterly Moderate episode we are joined by Rutgers University psychologist and friend of the show Dr. Lee Jussim to discuss all of this. Don't forget to subscribe to our FREE NEWSLETTER! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “By Grace” by Podington Bear (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this Utterly Moderate Podcast episode we tackle a sensitive issue that is hard to find a clear, definitive answer to: does race play a significant role in fatal shootings of civilians by law enforcement in America? Our guest, Robert VerBruggen, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has done important work on this topic, including his March 2022 report: “Fatal Police Shootings and Race: A Review of the Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research.” Based on the best available evidence, he finds the following: “The data certainly rebut the most extreme versions of the Ferguson narrative, which originated in the aftermath of Michael Brown's death in that city in 2014. In surveys, many people say that they think American cops kill 1,000 unarmed Black men every year, but the real number averages out to more like 20, and it's even lower than that if you just look at suspects who weren't attacking someone when they were shot. About a quarter of people shot by the cops are Black, which is about double the Black share of the overall population—but it's in line with many other benchmarks you might compare it to, such as the Black share of arrestees, or cop-killers, or homicides. In other words, the overall racial breakdown of people shot by police isn't surprising, given the demographics of crime. But these are just simple numbers, and there are more complicated methods you can use to try to find bias. That's where the story gets more nuanced. For example, it's worrisome that the Black share of unarmed people shot and killed by police is a bit higher than the overall Black share of police killings. And one study I found especially troubling showed that, in one city, White cops are several times as likely as Black cops to fire their guns when they're sent to 911 calls in Black neighborhoods. As a whole, these data don't support the extreme narrative—and that's important—but we still have much to learn.”   In summary: When you take into account how often the police will respond to crime calls involving different racial groups, the weight of the evidence does not suggest, nationally at least, that Black Americans are being targeted by law enforcement for fatal shootings. It is important to remember that (a) we need much better data and the evidence is not conclusive, (b) there may be more or less racial bias depending upon the area of the country that you look, and (c) there are many examples of unjustified police killings of Black Americans, regardless of the national trends, and those of course deserve scrutiny.   VerBruggen goes into much more detail about his work in this area and others in this episode. To see Robert VerBruggen's full portfolio of research with the Manhattan Institute, follow this link.   The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Moonlight Reprise” by Kai Engel (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are going to tackle a very sensitive topic, the debate and controversies surrounding gender affirming care for minors who display signs of distress at an incongruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. In several countries, including places like Finland, Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand, governments and clinics are either banning or placing new limits on the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-affirming surgeries for children. We will discuss the reasons why they are reconsidering the medical approach to gender dysphoria. Some links related to this episode: Lisa Selin Davis, “Trans Matters: An Overview of the Debate, Research, and Policies” Harper's Magazine, “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” Amber Alt, It's Not Transphobic to Say Your Daughter Is a Girl: The Wise Lesbian Guide for Progressives And don't forget to subscribe to our free email newsletter in just one click   We know that many listeners will have strong feelings one way or another about this episode. We want to state at the outset that if you disagree with anything in our discussion, know that nothing we say here was said in bad faith or with ill intent. This is a good faith effort to explore the various controversies surrounding this very sensitive and important societal issue. You may not agree with the podcast participants, and they may not agree with you, but know that everyone came to this discussion seeking truth while upholding the dignity of the human beings on all sides of this issue, whatever the truth may be. We believe that we all must truly follow the facts on this issue, and we cannot shut down good faith and rigorous debate about a very unsettled issue that can have such major, life altering consequences for children. In segment one we are joined by journalist Lisa Selin Davis, author of Tomboy: The Surprising History and Future of Girls Who Dare to Be Different. In segment two (around the one hour mark in the episode) we are joined by Amber Alt, author of It's Not Transphobic to Say Your Daughter Is a Girl: The Wise Lesbian Guide for Progressives. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Did you know that President Joe Biden was bussing unauthorized immigrants to a hotel near Orlando, Florida and giving them pre-loaded credit cards, hotel rooms, and clothing—all on your dime?!? You say you didn't know? Good, because the story was a complete fabrication. On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by good friend of the show Jim Swift from The Bulwark to discuss the mechanics of how a modern conspiracy theory like this goes viral. Swift covered this story over at The Bulwark in a piece titled, “The Bogus Protest, the House Race, and the MAGA Grocer.”  We talk about this viral conspiracy theory and more on this episode. Enjoy! And don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter! It's INSTANT and FREE! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Crazy Lazy" by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Before we get to today's episode, GREAT NEWS for American democracy! The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the independent state legislature theory in Moore v. Harper. If they had not ruled this way, it could have opened the door in presidential elections for state legislatures to ignore the votes of their residents and simply decide to give their state's electoral votes to the legislature's preferred candidate. This would have been a nightmare, so the SCOTUS decision is a win for American democracy! On this episode of Utterly Moderate we talk to The Bulwark's Mona Charen about avoiding climate change “doomerism.” Climate change is of course a very real problem. Humans are pumping too much carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere through a variety of means, most notably things like burning fossil fuels for energy production and transportation. Climate scientists believe that it is necessary for us to keep the Earth from warming no more than 2° C above preindustrial levels to avoid a variety of problems like sea level rise, agricultural problems, water shortages, habitat destruction, and others. The global community has done an incredible amount of work to change this, and because of these efforts, the worst future climate catastrophes have likely been averted. The problem is that projections have the Earth warming closer to 3° C, not 2° C, above preindustrial levels by the end of the century. This will not end human civilization, but it is going to create some serious societal strains and economic costs that we would be wise to prevent now. Mona Charen joins us today to discuss why it is not only important to take this issue seriously, but also not to catastrophize the issue and make it seem worse than it is. She believes it is important to keep both of these things in mind. Charen writes that: “The unremitting catastrophism of much climate talk by major institutions (universities, foundations, entertainment companies, non-profits, and others) flies in the face of the scientific consensus. Even Professor Michael Mann (of the famous “hockey stick” graph) has cautioned that ‘doomism' is more of a problem now than denial, and hysterical warnings about global collapse are wrong and unhelpful because they lead people to despair. Any amount of mitigation is good, he urges, adding that ‘Two degrees of warming would be far worse than 1.5 degrees of warming, but not the end of civilization'. . . Climate change is a big problem, but it is not an extinction-level event. No respected scientific body, including the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], says that climate threatens to end human civilization. Not even close. . . Adapt, improvise, and innovate. Switch to nuclear as fast as possible, and stop terrifying the kids. Climate change is a problem. It's not the apocalypse.” The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Crazy Lazy" by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER! On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are going to discuss a topic that was back in the news recently with the debt ceiling negotiations: Social Security. A number of politicians and elected representatives have recently suggested that we make major changes to the Social Security program, changes which could have a substantial (and I think likely negative) impact on American seniors. We will all eventually age, so this means it will impact us. A few quick notes on Social Security before you dive into this podcast episode: It is important to note that this is not a partisan issue (at least among voters). Surveys show that strong majorities of Americans—whether old or young, high-income or working class, Republican or Democrat—believe that it is crucial for the U.S. to preserve full Social Security benefits for future generations, even if it means increasing payroll taxes. Social Security is the biggest source of retirement income for most retirees. Social Security is arguably America's most effective poverty-fighting program, bringing elderly poverty down from almost 38% to less than 10% (lower than the national poverty rate). Social Security is a social insurance program. This means it will continue to pay benefits regardless of whether or not you live long enough to use more benefits than you paid for—which a typical American retiree likely will. Some argue that you could personally invest money in the stock market, instead of putting it into Social Security, and get a better return on your money for retirement. While this is no doubt true for some, millions of Americans would not likely be able to save as much on their own as they would through the “forced retirement planning” of Social Security. Social Security will never “go broke.” It will always receive money from current workers, every two weeks, to pay for current retirees. Due to falling fertility rates, however, the program will only be able to afford to pay 77% of promised benefits beginning in the 2030s. According to Social Security expert Kathleen Romig, the guest on this episode, full benefits can continue beyond this point if we remove the taxable earnings cap (currently around $160,000) and increase payroll taxes on employees and employers from the current 6.2% to somewhere around 7% each. On this episode, we play clips of a summer 2021 podcast conversation we had with Social Security expert Kathleen Romig from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Enjoy! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) FDR on Social Security (publicly available on YouTube) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by Lee Jussim, Rutgers University distinguished professor of psychology. He is here to discuss the questionable science behind microaggressions. If you are unfamiliar with the term, microaggressions are claimed to be “acts, often facially innocuous, that convey subtle animus or bias against someone in a traditionally marginalized group.” Our guest, Dr. Jussim, has written multiple excellent articles detailing the problems with microaggression research. According to Jussim, research on microaggressions is mixed, unsettled, and “in its infancy, and is most definitely not ready for applications in the real world.” Many of the claims made by progressives and academics about microaggressions have weak (and oftentimes nonexistent) empirical support. As Jussim and his research collaborator Edward Cantu note: “Many would assume that the social scientists who study and publish scholarship on [microaggressions] have already answered these questions to a degree that makes the current microaggression construct valid. But have they? The answer should inform the degree to which legal scholars and university administrators can responsibly incorporate the current microaggression construct into legal scholarship or diversity training materials.” Cantu and Jussim, like many other scholars, argue that social scientists have not adequately answered these questions: “After reviewing scholarship in which psychologists attempt to confirm the legitimacy of the [the prevailing microaggression perspective], and in which they debate the issue with dissenting psychologists, we conclude that the current operationalization of [microaggressions] in social justice discourse, legal scholarship, and education administration is significantly unwarranted.” The authors add, quite scathingly, that it appears “to be ‘methodological activism' that drives much of the debate over the legitimacy [of microaggressions]” and that the prevailing microaggression perspective “appears to be designed primarily to reinforce a critical race theory narrative about social reality.” They go on to say that, based on their analysis, “[Researchers'] claims about microaggressions are without adequate scientific basis.” If the research is this unsettled, it would be paramount that any credible news commentary or policies that flow from this research should be extremely careful in what they claim to be factual. Unfortunately, much of it fails to be: “[E]ducators, scholars, and administrators have accepted [the prevailing microaggression perspective] as valid even though psychologists have not established its scientific legitimacy. The possible reasons for this are manifold. First, academics and administrators may have a willingness to accept a claim at face value because they deem the concept to be useful—ideologically, for example—such that confirmation bias cancels vigilance. More charitably, many people outside the field of psychology simply make the mistake of assuming that peer-reviewed publication of a social science idea means the idea has by definition been thoroughly vetted scientifically. This mistake is easy to make. But psychologists have a long and embarrassing history of canonizing claims that have turned out to be false, a situation that has come to be known in psychology as ‘the replication crisis.' In short, it is a mistake to believe that, merely because an idea appears frequently in academic publications, it constitutes scientific fact. Often, it is only after withstanding decades of skeptical vetting that a new scientific claim can be established with a reasonable level of certainty.” The authors go on to argue that: “We are also concerned about how the current propagation of the [prevailing microaggression perspective], given its lack of adequate bases and therefore its limited utility, might have the primary effect of proving socially caustic—and therefore counterproductive in the quest for social justice—without countervailing benefits. Therefore, we recommend that scholars and administrators— and everyone else for that matter—generally refrain from relying on commonly propagated lists of microaggressions as reflecting anything meaningful, at least until psychologists perform the significant amount of empirical work left to be done to render the [prevailing microaggression perspective] scientifically valid and useful.” Yet many on the left nonetheless treat the prevailing microaggression paradigm as settled fact: writing about them in news stories, teaching about them in classrooms, and creating university and workplace policies around them. Here are some of the main problems that Jussim notes about microaggression research: Researchers state that several acts are microaggressions simply by claiming them to be so, without a proper scientific basis. No scientifically rigorous method exists for identifying whether many microaggressions have or have not occurred. Proof that a microaggression has occurred often largely depends on the subjective experience of the victim, leaving the researcher (a) no way to verify what took place and (b) no way to verify the intent of the perpetrator. Microaggression researchers argue that microaggressions cause harm, but in many instances this has not been empirically demonstrated. No evidence that most racial minorities consistently consider several microaggressions offensive. No demonstrated link exists between many microaggressions and racial bias on the part of the perpetrator. For some microaggressions identified by researchers, it is claimed that even though the person who committed the act did not intend harm, the microaggression itself was designed by somebody else with the intention of doing harm and/or upholding racial inequality. These researchers argue that microaggressions are a “manifestation of the aggressive goals of the dominant group, taught to unwitting actors through. . . social mechanisms.” Yet these same researchers have not provided empirical support for these claims. Many supposed microaggressions have multiple interpretations but are determined to be microaggressions by researchers because the researchers themselves privilege a particular interpretation. Some researchers claim that microaggressions occur with a frequency that they have not empirically demonstrated. Much of the microaggressions research depends on small or unrepresentative samples and/or has not been replicated—meaning the field itself is in its infancy and is nowhere near ready for real-world application. The term “microaggression” itself seems to be an example of concept creep. To the layperson, “aggression” suggests hostility and intentionality, but microaggression researchers maintain that hostility and intent are not required for something to be categorized as a microaggression. Priming people to look for microaggressions in every social interaction could plausibly (a) be more damaging to racial minorities and socially corrosive to society than the infrequent experience of microaggressions in the first place and/or (b) not achieve any meaningful reduction in racial inequality in America. Microaggression researchers frequently respond in intellectually dishonest ways to good faith critiques of their work. Jussim will help us unpack a lot of these critiques in this episode. Enjoy! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (Free Music Archive) "Algorithms" by Chad Crouch (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Another massacre in America. It feels like we are living in a nightmare—and we should refuse to become numb to it. Instead, we should use our anger and sorrow and demand that our leaders do the things that most Americans support to stop the carnage. I include links to some *extremely* graphic images of Emmett Till's corpse as well as the corpses of the recent mass shooting victims in Allen, Texas below. If you believe that you will not be able to handle seeing these images, I strongly urge you not to click on them. These images are not included to sensationalize the topic or to disrespect the deceased. They are included here because I do not believe that America can grapple with the problem of gun violence without viewing and truly confronting the devastation that it causes. In 1955, Emmett Till—an African American teen—was kidnapped and brutally murdered by White racists. His mother, Mamie, insisted on an open casket funeral, forcing the world to see the consequences of racism in America. Photographs of Till's mutilated corpse were circulated around the country by Jet Magazine and The Chicago Defender and generated intense public reaction, contributing to progress in the Civil Rights Movement. You can click here to see them. I have no idea whether being confronted with the very graphic images of mass shootings in America will rouse the kind of reaction that might lead to meaningful change in the same way that Till's helped further the Civil Rights Movement. But I believe we owe it to our children to try: You can click here to see them. It is not radical to say that, nationwide, we should: Ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines Enact a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales Enact red flag laws Enact better and uniform background checks Raise the legal age at which people can purchase firearms Improve our mental health system I know this is not radical because a majority of Americans support everything on that list. You can read the Gallup surveys yourself. There is consensus in America on what needs to be done. The problem is not with the citizens, but our leaders. There is no excuse to wait any longer. Contact your elected representatives and demand a better world for our children. The best research suggests we can make a serious dent in this problem if our leaders would only implement the reasonable preferences of a majority of Americans. Visit us at ConnorsForum.org and subscribe to our newsletter The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Hibernation" by Ibi (publicly available on YouTube) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by Michael Shermer from Skeptic Magazine to discuss the rise of conspiracy theories in America.  Make sure to check out Shermer's new book on the subject, Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational.  The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we discuss the difficult tasks of reducing extremism and radicalization in the U.S. as well as improving our political discourse. In segment one we are joined by Pasha Dashtgard, Director of Research for American University's Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL). In segment two we are joined by friend of the show Jay Jackson to discuss his book, Decent Discourse, as well as his website of the same name. Don't forget to subscribe in just one click to our free email newsletter for more of our content! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (Free Music Archive) Bruce Springsteen commercial publicly available on YouTube.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Longtime Connors Newsletter subscribers and Utterly Moderate Podcast listeners know how concerned we are about post-truth America—that is, the fact that we now live in a time where objective facts are becoming less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. We've spent a lot of time talking about how American conservatives are regularly lied to by Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN about a variety of issues, whether it is supposedly stolen elections or climate change or immigration, among other topics. But on this podcast episode we want to turn a critical eye toward those who feed American liberals misleading information. Many in the leftwing bubble tell “virtuous lies,” a concept created by this episode's guest, Jacob Mackey. These are empirically-flawed claims—espoused as empirically-sound and authoritative by those who propagate them—that further a social justice agenda made by some academics, activists, and partisan media outlets on the left. People make these claims without realizing or acknowledging the weak, unsettled, or even sometimes nonexistent empirical support behind their assertions. Liberal audiences believe these claims because they fit their worldview, make them feel good, and come from credentialed people who they trust. Additionally, for a liberal to oppose a virtuous lie would be to align oneself with “bad” people on the other side (supposed bigots, know-nothings, etc.). Jacob Mackey argues that to correct a virtuous lie is to oppose the noble goals of one's tribe and/or to signal that one does not take the problem seriously. The left tells a number of virtuous lies, particularly about issues related to race and gender, including claims regarding the gender pay gap, gender identity, racial inequality, microaggressions, and implicit bias, to name a few (here is a great discussion of the very unsettled research regarding microaggressions). This of course doesn't mean that these are not real issues, or that everything the left says about them is false. But many claims made by academics and partisan media outlets on the left about social justice issues present biased analyses of topics as if they are the settled, authoritative consensus. The misleading information being fed to liberals and conservatives within their ideological bubbles is contributing to feelings and beliefs becoming more important than facts for many Americans on empirical matters, people becoming increasingly comfortable bending reality to their beliefs (instead of adjusting their beliefs to match the preponderance of the evidence), and millions of people losing faith in notions of facts and expertise. As post-truth scholar and friend of the podcast Lee McIntyre argues, “[W]hat seems new in the post-truth era is a challenge not just to the idea of knowing reality but to the existence of reality itself.” We need to work together as a country fix this! We hope you enjoy our conversation exploring this issue in this episode.   The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) Mitt Romney speech and Bruce Springsteen commercial publicly available on YouTube.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by friend of the show, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory astrophysicist Varoujan Gorjian, to discuss NASA's plans for taking humans back to the Moon, setting up a Moon base, and then going to Mars. We also discuss other exciting developments in the world of science, including breakthroughs in nuclear fusion and artificial intelligence. And of course, as always, there is the obligatory discussion of ALIENS. Subscribe to our FREE NEWSLETTER TODAY! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, we answer your mailbag questions! Our podcast listeners and newsletter subscribers (subscribe for free instantly!) have been sending their questions to our website and today is the day that we answer them on the air! Visit us any time at ConnorsForum.org and subscribe to our FREE email newsletter in one click while you are there! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are discussing women in fields related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in the U.S. According to the AAUW: "Women make up only 28% of the workforce in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), and men vastly outnumber women majoring in most STEM fields in college. The gender gaps are particularly high in some of the fastest-growing and highest-paid jobs of the future, like computer science and engineering." There has been a push for some time to increase these numbers, so we thought we might spotlight a very promising female college student majoring in STEM, Brighid Cantwell, a student of Lawrence Eppard's (podcast host) at Shippensburg University. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) "Last Dance" by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the fall of 2022 the Connors Forum invited our newsletter subscribers to a free live taping of this show where we talked to conservative heavyweight Bill Kristol about a variety of topics, including the meaning of conservatism today, the state of the Republican Party and its future, the health of American democracy, and more.  Because it was a live show, listeners were able to pose questions to Kristol during the show. Subscribe for free in just one click to make sure you don't miss these opportunities in the future! On today's show we are going to hear highlights from that conversation for anybody who may have missed it. If you are unfamiliar with Bill Kristol, he has long been considered a major voice in the world of conservative politics. He is currently editor-at-large of The Bulwark. Before that he was a founder of The Weekly Standard, served as chief of staff to Education Secretary William Bennett in the Reagan Administration, served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle in the George H. W. Bush administration, and taught politics at both the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University. If you want to listen to the unedited Trump/Raffensperger phone call referenced in this episode, click here. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) "Ethereal" by Polkavant (creative commons) “Tumbling Tumbleweeds” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Connors Forum would like to extend both Christmas and holiday greetings to all our podcast listeners and newsletter subscribers. We hope you have a very meaningful celebration with family and friends! On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, host Lawrence Eppard is joined by David Beckemeyer, host of the brand new Connors Forum podcast Outrage Overload. David joins the show to talk about all of the media commentators and politicians who make up the outrage industry, an industry which thrives by gaining attention through stoking their audience's fear, anger, and indignation. As stated in the show's description, “The baseline of constant and chronic outrage, a persistent background level, weighs on us, creating constant stress and anxiety individually and on society as a whole.” Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays again to you and yours! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Silent Night" by Maya Solovéy (creative commons) "Carol of the Bells" by Audionautix (royalty-free)   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're back with another episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast! But first things first—if you missed it, on November 29th our Connors Newsletter subscribers got to take part in an exclusive live podcast taping with heavyweight political commentator Bill Kristol from The Bulwark. Our subscribers were able to pose their questions to Mr. Kristol live and be a part of the show! Don't miss out in the future—subscribe for free in one click to join our community! On this podcast episode we are exploring the work of editorial cartoonists who draw cartoons that provide political or social commentary on the important news of the day. Joining us to discuss this are editorial cartoonists Adam Zyglis (Buffalo News) and Phil Hands (Wisconsin State Journal). The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) "By Grace" by Podington Bear (creative commons) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thank you for being a valued member of our wonderful Utterly Moderate community of reasonable Americans. We hope you have a joyous Thanksgiving celebration with those closest to you! Happy Thanksgiving :) The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While you listen, don't forget to subscribe to our free email newsletter! It takes only seconds! This is our Thanksgiving episode! Here at the Connors Forum we are deeply grateful for YOU, our wonderful community of subscribers we have built over the last few years with our podcast and newsletter. We care deeply about doing our small part to bring Americans back together again, and we are overjoyed that so many people agree with this mission and have joined us in it. We hope each and every one of you has a wonderful Thanksgiving celebration of family, friends, and all that you hold dear. On this episode we are joined by George Washington University historian David Silverman, an expert in early American and Native American history, to help us understand the complicated history of Thanksgiving. Our discussion includes why the English colonists and Wampanoags formed that initial alliance and feasted together in the first place, to how that alliance violently came apart, to why this complex understanding of history is important for Americans. Happy Thanksgiving again to you and yours! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) “Moonlight Reprise” by Kai Engel (creative commons) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, Shippensburg University political scientist Lonce Bailey joins the show to discuss the midterm elections: Which party will likely control the House of Representatives? Which party will likely control the Senate? Which issues do voters say are most important in this election? Lonce is a friend of the show and works at Shippensburg University with podcast host Lawrence Eppard. As you will no doubt be able to tell by listening to Dr. Bailey in this episode, he is indicative of the wonderful faculty and students at Ship. If you're looking for an affordable and student-focused option for your high school graduate, give Ship a look! You can follow along with the FiveThirtyEight election predictions discussed in this episode here and the Gallup polls about voters' concerns here. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) “Last Dance” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Tumbling Tumbleweeds” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, host Lawrence Eppard is joined by University of Texas historian Jeremi Suri to discuss his new book, Civil War by Other Means: America's Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy. In addition to helping listeners understand the failures of reconstruction, their discussion focused on topics such as: How Nazi Germany used Jim Crow as a model for their own policies The important ties between the election of 1876 and today Just how fragile American democracy really is, both then and now While you listen, make sure to subscribe to our free nonpartisan email newsletter! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) “Last Dance” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast. . . Segment One: The Life and Times of George Washington George Washington University historian Denver Brunsman joins the show to share his insights on the life and career of George Washington, as well as his general reflections on the study of history and its place in the modern university. Segment Two: The Importance of Teaching Kids Financial Literacy True Tamplin, who runs the digital marketing agency UpDigital and created the finance website Finance Strategists, joins the show to discuss the importance of teaching children a solid foundation in financial literacy. And Before You Go. . . Subscribe to our awesome free email newsletter! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) “The Last Ones” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Last Dance” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast. . . Segment 1: Ukraine Momentum Shift? Paul Poast, an international relations expert at the University of Chicago, joins the program to assess the current state of the war in Ukraine. Segment 2: How Do Neighborhoods Impact Children? Utterly Moderate host and Shippensburg University scholar Lawrence Eppard is interviewed on the Bold Dominion Podcast about his research concerning the powerful ways that neighborhoods influence the lives of the children who grow up in them. Don't forget to subscribe to our free email newsletter today! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) “The Last Ones” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Last Dance” by Jahzzar (creative commons)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, host Lawrence Eppard is joined by Garen Wintemute for a nonpartisan explanation of the research on reducing gun violence in the U.S. Wintemute is the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. He is a renowned expert on gun violence and a pioneer in the field of injury epidemiology and prevention of firearm violence. He has testified before Congress and served as a consultant for the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, after a brief discussion of President Joe Biden's plan to forgive some student loans, host Lawrence Eppard and his guests discuss the drying up of the Great Salt Lake in Utah. You'll remember from our previous article in our free email newsletter on the subject that satellite photos show the Great Salt Lake is much smaller than it was only a few decades ago—in fact, it has now reached its lowest point on record since measurements began in 1875. Dr. Bonnie Baxter, director of the Great Salt Lake Institute, and Dr. Robert Gillies, director of the Utah Climate Center, join the show to discuss what is happening to the GSL, why it matters, and what can be done to save it. And don't miss Oregon State University graduate student Chloe Fender reading a moving obituary that Dr. Baxter wrote for the Great Salt Lake at the end of this episode. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) "Blue Blanket" by Podington Bear (creative commons) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (creative commons)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join the Connors Crew by subscribing to our free email newsletter TODAY! On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, host Lawrence Eppard discusses the threat of political violence, America's slide toward autocracy, and more with guests Rachel Kleinfeld and Ken White. Articles/other stuff referenced in this episode: “The New Era of Political Violence is Here” from Tom Nichols at The Atlantic “Trump Supporters' Threats to Judge Spur Democracy Concerns” from Fields & Riccard at the Associated Press Bulwark Podcast episode with guest Dana Milbank Ken White's podcast and newsletter The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (creative commons) “When” by Stephan Siebert (creative commons) “Cloudbank” by Podington Bear (creative commons) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join the Connors Crew and subscribe to our email newsletter today! On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, host Lawrence Eppard is joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning Brown University scholar David Kertzer to discuss his newest book, The Pope at War: The Secret History of Pius XII, Mussolini, and Hitler. Kertzer's book is based upon his work with the newly opened Vatican Archives documents on Pope Pius XII. He provides groundbreaking insight into the Pope's actions during World War II, including how he responded to the Holocaust. Kertzer reveals “how the Pope came to set aside moral leadership in order to preserve his church's power.” Harvard University scholar Kevin Madigan wrote that: “This remarkably researched book is replete with revelations that deserve the adjective ‘explosive'. . . The Pope at War is a masterpiece.” Hope you will have a listen to this very interesting discussion! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe to the free Connors Newsletter instantly at ConnorsForum.org. What do you get in return? Super informative original newsletter articles and podcasts about the important issues of the day sent directly to you. Everything is vetted by our experienced nonpartisan researchers—we don't have time or patience for spin or political agendas, and we know you don't either. Also, it's mailbag time again! Go to the Connors Forum contact page and send in your questions for us to answer on the podcast. Better yet, RECORD YOURSELF asking your question and we will play your voice on the air!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join the Connors Crew now by subscribing to our newsletter in just one click! American democracy is in serious trouble. We may be on the verge of the “greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War” and quite possibly the “suspension of American democracy as we have known it,” in the words of Robert Kagan. Michael Gerson laments that recent developments in the U.S. are “revealing the frightening fragility of the American experiment.” And Jonathan Last warns, “America faces an authoritarian peril.” The problems are numerous, including: Election subversion efforts by leading political figures, including the attempted coup in 2020, the threat of a coup in 2024, and ongoing anti-democratic trends among elected officials at the state and local levels. Widespread misinformation/disinformation disseminated by partisan media outlets on television, the internet, and radio. Erosion of political and popular support for democracy and growing support for authoritarianism. Deep polarization, negative partisanship, and tribalism. Government gridlock and dysfunction. Threats of violence toward elected representatives and election officials. I asked a friend of mine who worked on Capitol Hill for years the following question: What percentage of members of Congress really have no principles and are just desperate to stay in the thrill of the game, acquire and maintain power and status, and stay relevant, regardless of whether what they did in Congress helped or hurt our democracy? This person's honest answer? At least 51% and maybe as high as 80% or more, and an alarmingly high number are probably sociopaths. There is ample evidence that this may very well be true throughout the recent books by Mark Leibovich and Tim Miller. Here is a major problem with that: Weaknesses in our system that were exploited for a near coup in 2020 remain unfixed to be exploited by these numerous less-than-honorable people in the future. As University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wehle explains: “There are massive holes in the Electoral Count Act. It is stunning that there is nothing requiring states to count the popular vote. . . That is not democracy. If this is not addressed, state legislatures and/or Congress can steal the next election. The future of our republic is at stake.” Just this week, The New York Times obtained emails showing that those attempting the massive multi-state Electoral College fraud in 2020 knew what they were doing was wrong, unethical, illegal, and “fake,” as one put it in an email. . . . . . but they did it anyway: “We would just be sending in ‘fake' electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake' votes should be counted.” This is not democracy. Crossing our fingers and hoping is not going to fix this. We must get serious as a people and fix this through reforms to our system. Yet time is running out. And if American democracy dies, it cannot just be turned back on like a light switch. I promise that all of us, regardless of political orientation, will miss it when it is gone. The Bulwark's Will Saletan writes: “Americans like to think our country is immune to authoritarianism. We have a culture of freedom, a tradition of elected government, and a Bill of Rights. We're not like those European countries that fell into fascism. We'd never willingly abandon democracy, liberty, or the rule of law. But that's not how authoritarianism would come to America. In fact, it's not how authoritarianism has come to America. The movement to dismantle our democracy is thriving and growing, even after the failure of the Jan. 6th coup attempt, because it isn't spreading through overt rejection of our system of government. It's spreading through lies.” On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast, host Lawrence Eppard is joined by Jonathan Last, editor and writer at The Bulwark, and Tom Nichols, writer at The Atlantic, to discuss whether American democracy is going to survive. Strap in, this episode gets really dark. Related links: The New York Times shows that those coordinating fraudulent Electoral College electors knew it was wrong, unethical, illegal, and fake. They did it anyway. “A Five-Alarm Fire for American Democracy” by Lawrence M. Eppard. The Death of Expertise and Our Own Worst Enemy from Tom Nichols as well as his writing at The Atlantic. Check out Jonathan Last's writing at The Bulwark. Why We Did It from The Bulwark's Tim Miller. Mark Leibovich article referenced in this episode. The “independent state legislature theory” explained. Former President Donald Trump pressures/threatens Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn Georgia's election results. The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (creative commons) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “When” by Stephan Siebert (creative commons) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.