Podcasts about apparently american

  • 6PODCASTS
  • 6EPISODES
  • 54mAVG DURATION
  • ?INFREQUENT EPISODES
  • Nov 12, 2021LATEST

POPULARITY

20172018201920202021202220232024


Latest podcast episodes about apparently american

The SaVeg Podcast
Joe Rogan Hates Paternity Leave, Funeral Photo Shoots & More (Ep 101)

The SaVeg Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 12, 2021 73:43


Grab a FREE audiobook from Audible (Affiliate link): www.audibletrial.com/thesavegpodcast OUR PATREON: www.patreon.com/thesavegpodcast YOUTUBE: www.youtube.com/thesavegpodcast INSTAGRAM: www.instagram.com/thesavegpodcast The first story we discuss in this weeks episode is about instagram model posing next to her fathers open casket- what do you guys think about this, is it appropriate is it cringe? Apparently American politicians hate any type of paternity leave, which we try to wrap our heads around- America has no mandated paid period of leave for parents! Our last story, and probably the scariest is the issues going on with our global supply chain. What is going to happen if it continues to get worse?

What We Do
Episode 18: Kira on Public Speaking, Nervousness, and Confidence #Musings

What We Do

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 25, 2018 24:42


This week, Kira is mixing it up from her regular interview content and releasing another episode on a topic that she finds very relevant to our lives: public speaking. At some point or another, either for your job or an event or a competition, you will be forced to speak in front of an audience of more than one person. Regardless of if you’re comfortable with that or not, tune in to the podcast for Kira’s musings on public speaking, tips and tricks, ways to build your confidence, how to manage nervousness, her pet peeves and personal struggles with nerves. Apparently American’s number 1 fear is public speaking, let’s fix that.

New Books in Public Policy
Austin Sarat, “Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty” (Stanford UP, 2014)

New Books in Public Policy

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2014 56:31


When we discuss the death penalty we usually ask two questions: 1) should the state be in the business of killing criminals?; and 2) if so, how should the state put their lives to an end? As Austin Sarat shows in his fascinating book Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty (Stanford University Press, 2014), these two questions are intimately related. The reason is pretty simple: if the state can’t find a legally and morally acceptable way to execute malefactors, then perhaps we need to ask seriously whether the state should be killing criminals at all. If the means cannot be found, then the end may well be unachievable. In Gruesome Spectacles, Sarat analyses hundreds of executions in an attempt to assess the degree to which we can kill criminals in legally and morally acceptable ways. What he discovers is that about three in a hundred American executions over the past century or so have gone badly wrong. Criminals who were supposed to have been put to death in a humane way were strangled, decapitated, set on fire, suffocated, and slowly poisoned. Apparently American authorities—however laudable their intentions—have found it quite difficult, practically speaking, to avoid “cruel and unusual punishment” when executing wrongdoers. It’s important to note that Gruesome Spectacles is not an anti-death penalty book. Sarat’s presentation of botched executions is balanced by consideration of the horrible crimes for which the ultimate penalty was imposed. What Sarat does–and we should thank him for it–is provide hard evidence on a crucial question: can we, realistically speaking, put criminals to death humanely? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New Books in Law
Austin Sarat, “Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty” (Stanford UP, 2014)

New Books in Law

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2014 56:31


When we discuss the death penalty we usually ask two questions: 1) should the state be in the business of killing criminals?; and 2) if so, how should the state put their lives to an end? As Austin Sarat shows in his fascinating book Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty (Stanford University Press, 2014), these two questions are intimately related. The reason is pretty simple: if the state can’t find a legally and morally acceptable way to execute malefactors, then perhaps we need to ask seriously whether the state should be killing criminals at all. If the means cannot be found, then the end may well be unachievable. In Gruesome Spectacles, Sarat analyses hundreds of executions in an attempt to assess the degree to which we can kill criminals in legally and morally acceptable ways. What he discovers is that about three in a hundred American executions over the past century or so have gone badly wrong. Criminals who were supposed to have been put to death in a humane way were strangled, decapitated, set on fire, suffocated, and slowly poisoned. Apparently American authorities—however laudable their intentions—have found it quite difficult, practically speaking, to avoid “cruel and unusual punishment” when executing wrongdoers. It’s important to note that Gruesome Spectacles is not an anti-death penalty book. Sarat’s presentation of botched executions is balanced by consideration of the horrible crimes for which the ultimate penalty was imposed. What Sarat does–and we should thank him for it–is provide hard evidence on a crucial question: can we, realistically speaking, put criminals to death humanely? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New Books in American Studies
Austin Sarat, “Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty” (Stanford UP, 2014)

New Books in American Studies

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2014 56:31


When we discuss the death penalty we usually ask two questions: 1) should the state be in the business of killing criminals?; and 2) if so, how should the state put their lives to an end? As Austin Sarat shows in his fascinating book Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty (Stanford University Press, 2014), these two questions are intimately related. The reason is pretty simple: if the state can’t find a legally and morally acceptable way to execute malefactors, then perhaps we need to ask seriously whether the state should be killing criminals at all. If the means cannot be found, then the end may well be unachievable. In Gruesome Spectacles, Sarat analyses hundreds of executions in an attempt to assess the degree to which we can kill criminals in legally and morally acceptable ways. What he discovers is that about three in a hundred American executions over the past century or so have gone badly wrong. Criminals who were supposed to have been put to death in a humane way were strangled, decapitated, set on fire, suffocated, and slowly poisoned. Apparently American authorities—however laudable their intentions—have found it quite difficult, practically speaking, to avoid “cruel and unusual punishment” when executing wrongdoers. It’s important to note that Gruesome Spectacles is not an anti-death penalty book. Sarat’s presentation of botched executions is balanced by consideration of the horrible crimes for which the ultimate penalty was imposed. What Sarat does–and we should thank him for it–is provide hard evidence on a crucial question: can we, realistically speaking, put criminals to death humanely? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New Books Network
Austin Sarat, “Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty” (Stanford UP, 2014)

New Books Network

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2014 56:31


When we discuss the death penalty we usually ask two questions: 1) should the state be in the business of killing criminals?; and 2) if so, how should the state put their lives to an end? As Austin Sarat shows in his fascinating book Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty (Stanford University Press, 2014), these two questions are intimately related. The reason is pretty simple: if the state can’t find a legally and morally acceptable way to execute malefactors, then perhaps we need to ask seriously whether the state should be killing criminals at all. If the means cannot be found, then the end may well be unachievable. In Gruesome Spectacles, Sarat analyses hundreds of executions in an attempt to assess the degree to which we can kill criminals in legally and morally acceptable ways. What he discovers is that about three in a hundred American executions over the past century or so have gone badly wrong. Criminals who were supposed to have been put to death in a humane way were strangled, decapitated, set on fire, suffocated, and slowly poisoned. Apparently American authorities—however laudable their intentions—have found it quite difficult, practically speaking, to avoid “cruel and unusual punishment” when executing wrongdoers. It’s important to note that Gruesome Spectacles is not an anti-death penalty book. Sarat’s presentation of botched executions is balanced by consideration of the horrible crimes for which the ultimate penalty was imposed. What Sarat does–and we should thank him for it–is provide hard evidence on a crucial question: can we, realistically speaking, put criminals to death humanely? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices