Podcasts about arguing

Kankelfritz & Friends chat about how their may be actual benefits to those couples that argue compared to those that don't. Also, Wendy's has new frosty flavors for the summer!

Are you tired of arguing about climate change with your uncle, or your co-worker, or that weird person online?Welcome to the club. Now, if you really want to keep banging your head on that wall, I'm not here to stop you, but I am here to try and give you some facts that might help - because even though you are almost certainly not going to convince those people, it is often worth trying to combat some of that misinformation.You are probably not going to convince the guy who thinks that all scientists are evil and funded by, like, solar - but that's not really why we do it. Misinformation is fricking annoying, and it spreads four times faster than facts. But most importantly, it also stops us doing what we need to do to stop the planet heating up and boiling the oceans. Every fraction of a degree makes a difference. So today, for this episode of Microgreens, I thought I would talk about some of the myths I see quite often in my comment section, parroted by climate change deniers - but also how you can talk about things like climate change a little bit more effectively.Let's talk about: The term 'climate change denier'How the scientific process works and how to know who to trustHow and why climate change became so politicisedHow fossil fuel companies hid the evidence of climate changeThe various myths and why they are falseFind our full podcast via the website here: https://www.nowthatswhaticall.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nowthatswhaticallgreen/You can follow me on socials on the below accounts.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/briannemwest/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@briannemwestLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/briannemwest/For our latest big project, find out more about Incrediballs here: https://incrediballs.com/

In May's expert discussion episode of Super Adaptables, hosts Corey "Pheez" Lee and Jonathan Sigworth are joined by Sheldon Toubman from Disability Rights Connecticut, Kathy Flaherty from Connecticut Legal Rights Project, and Jamaal Johnson from the Law office of JT Johnson (CT) to break down what the constitutional rights of Due Process and Habeas Corpus mean and how they can be jeopardized.This year on Super Adaptables, we're diving deep into social safety net programs - a new topic each month with weekly episodes - exploring how they function, their challenges, and their impact on all our lives.

The guys break down the game 3 of the cup final. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

In his talk, Antón Barba-Kay probes how the logics of the digital world—endless choice, algorithmic optimization, and a veneer of neutrality—quietly erode the habits of judgment and shared reality that democracy depends on. He contrasts two futures: one that doubles down on engineering our information streams for “better” engagement, and another that rebuilds the slow disciplines of literacy, critical reading, and face-to-face deliberation. Arguing that democratic life cannot be outsourced to technical fixes, Barba-Kay calls for cultivating resilient publics capable of resisting the seductive efficiencies of digital culture while reclaiming a richer, more responsible form of self-government. The Morningside Institute hosted a two-day conference on April 4–5, 2025. On its first day, the conference examined some of the radical changes that Western societies are undergoing. On the second day, we explored in greater detail historical examples of how communities have navigated periods of intense cultural change and even devastation. For more information about Living Well at the End of a World, please visit https://www.morningsideinstitute.org/living-well.

This week, the boys are talking about theory and practice, because, as the listener who submitted the question says, "fuck you, that's why."It's true, there's a lot of safety literature out there that's gotten more head-up-its-own-ass. Moralizing about safety is cool until it isn't, and the question is a good one (it was something like wanting to hear more about decision-making and doing things instead of recycling ideas as a career by itself).It can feel like things get way too academic and maybe even elite. That said, the boys argue that people don't need things "dumbed down" for them, either.The whole point of this little podcast is to be able to question things about safety. It seems like an awful lot of discussion, sometimes a little rowdy, is about whether something is "just theory" or if it's actually useful.Being useful is important, but asking who something is useful for is just as important. And being useful isn't something that just happens. It's based on theory, too.  So there's the thing. Dave brings up playing bass with only 2 or 3 strings, which means that even though the guitar company thinks they're important, Dave doesn't. The boys talk about making sure front-line folks have tools that work - but people work in other places, too. That gets back to the "Who is it useful for?" questions.Solid quote from Dave on this one, by the way: "Theory isn't just pontification, like people sitting around on whiteboards just making shit up, proposing stuff."Theory is observing patterns that actually happen in the world, and then trying to come up with models about why those patterns play out, and in what situations it matters. Otherwise, how do we build tools and predict those patterns in a way that's connected directly to work.So principles aren't theory. They're underlying values and guides for understanding.Does theory matter? Do principles matter? Yup.But as important as they are, theories and principles aren't solutions by themselves.Maybe that's the disconnect: treating principles as solutions. If you're into the whole work-as-imagined thing, that's pretty close to describing theory. There's some disagreement between the boys about starting with the theory vs. starting with observations in the organization. Here's where you probably ought to listen in to see how the conversation pans out.Arguing about what punk rock is can sometimes just get in the way of the music. The whole answer is never in the book. It's probably not only at the point of work either. Like the description of this stupid podcast says, do shit that works. DISCLAIMER: You probably shouldn't take anything in this podcast too seriously. Punk Rock Safety is for entertainment only. It's definitely not a replacement for professional or legal advice, and the fair amount of piss-taking, shithousery, and general ridiculousness ought to clue you into the fact that no one - and no organization - is endorsing (or un-endorsing, if that's a thing) any products, ideas, or other things. Except NOFX. We definitely endorse them.Oh, and give your money to Punk Rock Saves Lives. They're a rad organization that works in mental health, addiction, and human rights. And they're awesome people who can use your help to keep on kicking ass at what they do.https://www.punkrocksaveslives.org/Let us know what you think at info@punkrocksafety.com or on our LinkedIn page.Merch at punkrocksafetymerch.com

Are gender roles quietly running your relationship?Do you keep arguing over the same small things with your partner?Is your partner's mess really the problem — or is it what it represents?Are you confusing being strong with being emotionally shut down? In this episode of A Really Good Cry, Radhi shares a funny, heartfelt, and eye-opening story about one couple’s fight over mess—and how it revealed something much deeper. From shoes by the door to unspoken resentment, this solo episode unpacks how the little things we fight about are rarely the real issue. Radhi reflects on her own journey with Jay, explores the emotional weight women often carry at home, and offers practical ways to build healthier communication, better balance, and more compassion in your relationship. In this episode, you’ll learn: How unspoken trauma and conditioning shape the way women handle domestic labor What guilt is trying to tell you—and how to respond to it in your relationship How to hold a weekly “domestic debrief” that keeps resentment from building up The power of daily validation and why micro-acknowledgements matter How to consciously reassign roles so they reflect your real strengths, not outdated expectations What “learned helplessness” looks like and how to stop enabling it Why you might expect your partner to fix everything—and how to let go of that pressure This episode is a heart-opening, honest look at love, triggers, and teamwork. Whether you’ve been together 2 months or 25 years, it’s never too late to have this conversation — and maybe even laugh about it too. Follow Radhi:https://www.instagram.com/radhidevlukia/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWe9A4kMf9V_AHOXkGhCzQhttps://www.facebook.com/radhidevlukia1/https://www.tiktok.com/@radhidevlukiaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Daniel Taub, former Israeli Ambassador to the UK, joins Damian Thompson to talk about his new book Beyond Dispute: Rediscovering the Jewish art of constructive disagreement. In a fast-moving interview, Daniel explains how the art of arguing has shaped Jewish humour and scholarship, and Damian asks him about keeping kosher, life after death – and the influence of the Talmud on Curb Your Enthusiasm. Produced by Patrick Gibbons. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Daniel Taub, former Israeli Ambassador to the UK, joins Damian Thompson to talk about his new book Beyond Dispute: Rediscovering the Jewish art of constructive disagreement. In a fast-moving interview, Daniel explains how the art of arguing has shaped Jewish humour and scholarship, and Damian asks him about keeping kosher, life after death – and the influence of the Talmud on Curb Your Enthusiasm. Produced by Patrick Gibbons. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this special podcast episode we are sharing the opening statements from the Munk Debate on Trump’s America, which took place on May 29th in front of a sold out crowd of 3,000 people at Toronto’s Roy Thomson Hall. The debate resolution was: Be it resolved, this is America’s golden age Arguing in favour of the motion was the political consultant, pollster and senior counselor to President Trump during his first term in office, Kellyanne Conway. Her debate partner was the President of the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, and the architect of Project 2025, Kevin D. Roberts. Opposing the motion was the New York Times columnist, podcaster, bestselling author, and one of America’s most influential commentators, Ezra Klein. His debate partner was Ben Rhodes, who served as President Obama’s senior advisor and is the co-host of the popular podcast Pod Save the World. To watch the full Munk Debate on Trump's America go to our website www.munkdebates.com

Video - https://youtu.be/1zSlb868fHkEver feel like our country is stuck on a broken record?You're not alone. Many of us are scratching our heads, wondering why critical issues like immigration seem trapped in endless debate, especially when some citizens are struggling just to get by. Why does it feel like compromise is a foreign concept, and who can you even trust for the real story? This article dives into the frustrating truth behind the headlines, exploring the hidden forces at play and why finding solutions feels impossible right now. If you're tired of the political merry-go-round and craving some clarity on what's really going on, then you won't want to miss this straightforward, no-nonsense breakdown.I used Copilot 2.5 Flash, ScreenPal, and Pictory.ai to put this information together.If you're interested in trying Pictory.ai please use the following link. https://pictory.ai?ref=t015o

Hour 2: Aaron Rodgers in PIT a disaster? + Arguing over whether Shedeur should start Week 1 + About Last Night full 2262 Fri, 06 Jun 2025 13:46:27 +0000 arRL783c5RE2wOPF5LGT4NJ0vH7HHQo4 sports The Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima sports Hour 2: Aaron Rodgers in PIT a disaster? + Arguing over whether Shedeur should start Week 1 + About Last Night The only place to talk about the Cleveland sports scene is with Ken Carman and Anthony Lima. The two guide listeners through the ups and downs of being a fan of the Browns, Cavaliers, Guardians and Ohio State Buckeyes in Northeast Ohio. They'll help you stay informed with breaking news, game coverage, and interviews with top personalities.Catch The Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima live Monday through Friday (6 a.m. - 10 a.m ET) on 92.3 The Fan, the exclusive audio home of the Browns, or on the Audacy app. For more, follow the show on X @KenCarmanShow. 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. Sports False

Bruce and Gaydos break down the feud brewing between President Trump and Elon Musk.

Our meetings are called Principles in Application, they are held virtually on Zoom.  There is a Principles in Application meeting every day.  All of the meetings are based on 12 steps and start with 20 minutes of meditation. These are meetings based on living by spiritual principles in our lives today right now. For a meeting schedule please visit https://www.randymermell.com/meetings Randy Mermell is an international coach, speaker, and podcaster. Randy helps people live happy and purposeful lives. Drawing from his own experience from 20 years of happy marriage, raising two daughters, and his success as an entrepreneur, he has helped others get through all types of professional and personal challenges, including love, marriage, children, jobs, and finding passion in everything we do. With over 28 years of sobriety, and success in his own life overcoming low self-esteem, addictions to alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, and coffee Randy draws on his real-life experience to lead meditation and recovery retreats internationally. Our meetings are called Principles in Application, they are held virtually on Zoom. There is a Principles in Application meeting every day. All of the meetings are based on 12 steps and start with 20 minutes of meditation. These are meetings based on living by spiritual principles in our lives today right now. For a meeting schedule please visit https://www.randymermell.com/meetings

The next topic in this three part series is working through conflict with the PAUSE principle.Here is a link to Ken Sande's Peacemaker resources

Support the showLet's develop relationship fitness and cultivate fulfilling, secure, and loving relationships. Specialising in relationships, attachment problems and trauma bonding, Dr Sarah is on a mission to help you end negative cycles, create a secure relationship template, improve communication, rebuild trust, and strengthen emotional intimacy. Stop self-sabotaging behaviours now and begin to self-actualise. Working with business leaders, entrepreneurs, high achievers and perfectionists. Whether you are wanting to strengthen your current relationship and save your marriage, or you are healing from heartbreak to start a fresh, set yourself up for relationship success. Get marriage counselling near you in person or online, sign up to one of Dr Sarah's luxury retreats, and continue your path to success. www.relationshipsuccesslab.com Sign up to the exclusive retreat: www.relationshipsuccesslab.com/retreatContact: info@relationshipsuccesslab.com LinkedIn: Dr Sarah (Alsawy) Davies Instagram handle: @dr.sarahalsawy Find resources on: https://www.relationshipsuccesslab.com/relationship-quiz Subscribe to Dr Sarah: Relationship Success Lab on Spotify or Apple Podcasts

Claude AnShin Thomas - Zen Buddhist monk, combat veteran, and author - responds to questions from students in an inspiring manner based on his Zen practice and life experiences. He reminds the listener how to stay awake to life and understand more deeply the traps of a deluded mind.   This episode was recorded during a weekly online meeting of questions & responses. For more information: https://www.zaltho.org If you want to ask Claude AnShin Thomas a question, please feel free to write to info@zaltho.org. Book recommendations: -       Bringing Meditation to Life - 108 Teachings on the Path of Zen Practice (Oakwood Publishing 2021) -       AT HELL'S GATE - A Soldier's Journey from War to Peace (Shambhala Publications 2003) -       On the Edges of Sleep: Poems of War and Memory (Oakwood Publishing 2024) https://www.zaltho.org/books/ To support, donate.  If you are interested in a specific question, this is the list of questions that Claude AnShin responded to and the time stamps for those questions so that you can go directly to the topic that is of most interest to you. Questions and Time Stamps: 1:05 – What impresses you with Fayan Wenyi's teachings? 1:16 – What is your perception of Pope Francis? 1:52 – What do you think of institutions of churches in general? 2:43 – When I remain silent, how can truth be recognized? 3:02  – What would you say is the difference between intellectualization versus study of a teaching? 4:14  – What is your position on dispute and on arguing? 6:13 – When you were on pilgrimage, what was it like to be refused when asking for food, shelter, or basic needs? 8:07 – Have you ever had any conversations with chaplains in the military about their role? 9:46 – How do you keep yourself from feeling superior? 11:38 – What is humanness for you? 12:23 – How has the transition been traveling from New England to Florida this last week? 13:41 – Do you ever talk about others errors and faults and if you always abstain from blaming and criticizing others? 15:23 – How important is it to take a break, relax, or to restore yourself? 16:24 – With getting older have you become more patient or impatient? 17:15 – Have you been inspired by Thomas Merton or Enomiya-LaSalle? And if so, how?

DJ & PK talked about the comments from SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and if his commentary on college football is cause for concern for the future of the sport.

We've had a lot of fun this spring, but a sweet summer scent is on the wind, and so we're going to have to wrap up another successful season of Digging a Hole with today's episode—it's a real clambake. Courts have paid a lot of attention in recent years to what the executive branch can and can't do: non-delegation, major questions, student loans, DOGE. The question of what the federal government as a whole can and can't do, on the other hand, has been settled for a while. Settled, but wrongly, says our guest. Arguing against the weight of constitutional law, history, and memory, we're delighted to welcome to the pod Richard Primus, the Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, to discuss his Straussian reading of the Constitution and new book, The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power.We start off the episode by defining enumerationism, what it is as a theory, and whether or not it works as a matter of practice. Primus tells us about how Congress's enumerated powers are important to both federalism and the separation of powers, but shouldn't actually limit the authority of the federal government. Sam and David jump in with questions about whether a legal theory taught to first-year constitutional law students actually does the work in constraining the exercise of power by the federal government. In response, Primus dives into the structural and historical underpinnings of his pro-federal government argument and ends with his hope for constitutional change. We hope you enjoy.This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review.Referenced Readings“A Question Perpetually Arising: Implied Powers, Capable Federalism, and the Limits of Enumerationism” by David A. Schwartz

Arguing feels automatic—but it's actually a habit. One rooted in fear, frustration, and the need to feel in control. In today's episode, Part 3 of The Habit Turnaround Series, I'll show you how to interrupt that habit and build a new pattern rooted in clarity, peace, and connection.You'll learn:• Why arguments keep repeating• What emotional flooding does to your brain• How to shift from needing to “win” to listening with love• The seven steps to turning an argument into a calm, Christ-centered conversationIf you're tired of going in circles, this episode is your turnaround. Let's go!Ready to change your marriage without the exhausting work of trying to control your husband? Sign up for my FREE mini-course, The 4 Things You Must Do To Become The Happiest Wife. Discover ways to work with me at www.myhappyvault.comQuestions? Email Jill directly at Jill@thehappiestlives.com

We would love to hear from you! Please send us your comments here. --------Thank you for listening! Your support of Joni and Friends helps make this show possible. Joni and Friends envisions a world where every person with a disability finds hope, dignity, and their place in the body of Christ. Become part of the global movement today at www.joniandfriends.org. Find more encouragement on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube.

Secularism and Islam in Bangladesh: 50 Years After Independence (Routledge, 2025) comprehensively analyses the syncretistic form of Bengali Islam and its relationship with secularism in Bangladesh from pre-British to contemporary times. It focuses on the importance of understanding the dynamics between religion and secularism within specific cultural contexts. Arguing that extremist interpretations of Islam, which aim to establish a theocratic state, have not been able to influence the pluralistic religious and cultural life of Bangladesh substantially, the book shows that religious and cultural pluralism will continue to thrive despite the apparent threat posed by increasing religiosity among Bangladeshi Muslims. This book is a timely and significant contribution to the discourse on secularism and Islam, with relevance beyond Bangladesh and the wider Islamic world. It will appeal to scholars and researchers working in the fields of South Asian Studies, Asian Religions, and the Sociology of Religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Secularism and Islam in Bangladesh: 50 Years After Independence (Routledge, 2025) comprehensively analyses the syncretistic form of Bengali Islam and its relationship with secularism in Bangladesh from pre-British to contemporary times. It focuses on the importance of understanding the dynamics between religion and secularism within specific cultural contexts. Arguing that extremist interpretations of Islam, which aim to establish a theocratic state, have not been able to influence the pluralistic religious and cultural life of Bangladesh substantially, the book shows that religious and cultural pluralism will continue to thrive despite the apparent threat posed by increasing religiosity among Bangladeshi Muslims. This book is a timely and significant contribution to the discourse on secularism and Islam, with relevance beyond Bangladesh and the wider Islamic world. It will appeal to scholars and researchers working in the fields of South Asian Studies, Asian Religions, and the Sociology of Religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/islamic-studies

Hour 3 of Baskin and Phelps

Secularism and Islam in Bangladesh: 50 Years After Independence (Routledge, 2025) comprehensively analyses the syncretistic form of Bengali Islam and its relationship with secularism in Bangladesh from pre-British to contemporary times. It focuses on the importance of understanding the dynamics between religion and secularism within specific cultural contexts. Arguing that extremist interpretations of Islam, which aim to establish a theocratic state, have not been able to influence the pluralistic religious and cultural life of Bangladesh substantially, the book shows that religious and cultural pluralism will continue to thrive despite the apparent threat posed by increasing religiosity among Bangladeshi Muslims. This book is a timely and significant contribution to the discourse on secularism and Islam, with relevance beyond Bangladesh and the wider Islamic world. It will appeal to scholars and researchers working in the fields of South Asian Studies, Asian Religions, and the Sociology of Religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Secularism and Islam in Bangladesh: 50 Years After Independence (Routledge, 2025) comprehensively analyses the syncretistic form of Bengali Islam and its relationship with secularism in Bangladesh from pre-British to contemporary times. It focuses on the importance of understanding the dynamics between religion and secularism within specific cultural contexts. Arguing that extremist interpretations of Islam, which aim to establish a theocratic state, have not been able to influence the pluralistic religious and cultural life of Bangladesh substantially, the book shows that religious and cultural pluralism will continue to thrive despite the apparent threat posed by increasing religiosity among Bangladeshi Muslims. This book is a timely and significant contribution to the discourse on secularism and Islam, with relevance beyond Bangladesh and the wider Islamic world. It will appeal to scholars and researchers working in the fields of South Asian Studies, Asian Religions, and the Sociology of Religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

Secularism and Islam in Bangladesh: 50 Years After Independence (Routledge, 2025) comprehensively analyses the syncretistic form of Bengali Islam and its relationship with secularism in Bangladesh from pre-British to contemporary times. It focuses on the importance of understanding the dynamics between religion and secularism within specific cultural contexts. Arguing that extremist interpretations of Islam, which aim to establish a theocratic state, have not been able to influence the pluralistic religious and cultural life of Bangladesh substantially, the book shows that religious and cultural pluralism will continue to thrive despite the apparent threat posed by increasing religiosity among Bangladeshi Muslims. This book is a timely and significant contribution to the discourse on secularism and Islam, with relevance beyond Bangladesh and the wider Islamic world. It will appeal to scholars and researchers working in the fields of South Asian Studies, Asian Religions, and the Sociology of Religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/indian-religions

Secularism and Islam in Bangladesh: 50 Years After Independence (Routledge, 2025) comprehensively analyses the syncretistic form of Bengali Islam and its relationship with secularism in Bangladesh from pre-British to contemporary times. It focuses on the importance of understanding the dynamics between religion and secularism within specific cultural contexts. Arguing that extremist interpretations of Islam, which aim to establish a theocratic state, have not been able to influence the pluralistic religious and cultural life of Bangladesh substantially, the book shows that religious and cultural pluralism will continue to thrive despite the apparent threat posed by increasing religiosity among Bangladeshi Muslims. This book is a timely and significant contribution to the discourse on secularism and Islam, with relevance beyond Bangladesh and the wider Islamic world. It will appeal to scholars and researchers working in the fields of South Asian Studies, Asian Religions, and the Sociology of Religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Secularism and Islam in Bangladesh: 50 Years After Independence (Routledge, 2025) comprehensively analyses the syncretistic form of Bengali Islam and its relationship with secularism in Bangladesh from pre-British to contemporary times. It focuses on the importance of understanding the dynamics between religion and secularism within specific cultural contexts. Arguing that extremist interpretations of Islam, which aim to establish a theocratic state, have not been able to influence the pluralistic religious and cultural life of Bangladesh substantially, the book shows that religious and cultural pluralism will continue to thrive despite the apparent threat posed by increasing religiosity among Bangladeshi Muslims. This book is a timely and significant contribution to the discourse on secularism and Islam, with relevance beyond Bangladesh and the wider Islamic world. It will appeal to scholars and researchers working in the fields of South Asian Studies, Asian Religions, and the Sociology of Religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/secularism

This three part series is the recording of a recent seminar Eric and Leslee did. Part 1- Three ways the gospel helps marriagesPart 2- The PAUSE method in handling conflict Part 3- Five tips for better communication

Arguing over whether Lions' playoff seeding bill would have been a "division-killer" full 584 Wed, 21 May 2025 13:48:54 +0000 tWRnaIDBJwkqS6DG82f4p0JyNGP7YrYk nfl,cleveland browns,sports The Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima nfl,cleveland browns,sports Arguing over whether Lions' playoff seeding bill would have been a "division-killer" The only place to talk about the Cleveland sports scene is with Ken Carman and Anthony Lima. The two guide listeners through the ups and downs of being a fan of the Browns, Cavaliers, Guardians and Ohio State Buckeyes in Northeast Ohio. They'll help you stay informed with breaking news, game coverage, and interviews with top personalities.Catch The Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima live Monday through Friday (6 a.m. - 10 a.m ET) on 92.3 The Fan, the exclusive audio home of the Browns, or on the Audacy app. For more, follow the show on X @KenCarmanShow. 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. Sports False https://

Hour 4: Browns in better spot than Steelers? + Can the Cavs afford to run it back? + Arguing over playoff re-seeding proposal full 2120 Wed, 21 May 2025 14:22:03 +0000 HdqskwG23ZFlAALFTYqKXOJnmhRWoI2k sports The Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima sports Hour 4: Browns in better spot than Steelers? + Can the Cavs afford to run it back? + Arguing over playoff re-seeding proposal The only place to talk about the Cleveland sports scene is with Ken Carman and Anthony Lima. The two guide listeners through the ups and downs of being a fan of the Browns, Cavaliers, Guardians and Ohio State Buckeyes in Northeast Ohio. They'll help you stay informed with breaking news, game coverage, and interviews with top personalities.Catch The Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima live Monday through Friday (6 a.m. - 10 a.m ET) on 92.3 The Fan, the exclusive audio home of the Browns, or on the Audacy app. For more, follow the show on X @KenCarmanShow. 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. Sports Fal

The Bosnian War in the early 1990s was at the time the bloodiest conflict on European soil since World War II. Some 100,000 people were killed and more than 2 million displaced amid widespread ethnic cleansing and massacres. In 1995, the warring parties struck a power-sharing deal in negotiations just outside Dayton, Ohio, in what came to be known as the Dayton Accords. But the deal didn't really resolve the underlying problems. Bosnia continues to be plagued by ethnic division, and the country's political structure is widely seen as ineffective and unstable. Welcome to Counterpoint. On each episode, we look at one pressing question facing world leaders—from two opposing points of view.  In our season finale, we're tackling the question: Did the Dayton Accords set Bosnia up for failure? Arguing that the agreement put Bosnia on a path to perpetual crisis is Jasmin Mujanović, a senior nonresident fellow at New Lines Institute. He is the author of two books, Hunger and Fury: The Crisis of Democracy in the Balkans and  The Bosniaks: Nationhood After Genocide. And making the case that the Dayton Accords were essential to bringing peace and maintaining stability is Chris Hill. A career diplomat, Hill was part of the U.S. delegation that brokered the agreement. Most recently, he served as the⁠ U.S. ambassador to Serbia⁠ under President Joe Biden. Counterpoint is a production of Foreign Policy, in partnership with the Doha Forum. The show is hosted by Sasha Polakow-Suransky. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pastor Jordan shares a challenging message about what we believe, and what we allow to shake our faith and our relationships.

So why did Harris lose in 2024? For one very big reason, according to the progressive essayist Bill Deresiewicz: “because she represented the exhausted Democratic establishment”. This rotting establishment, Deresiewicz believes, is symbolized by both the collective denial of Biden's mental decline and by Harris' pathetically rudderless Presidential campaign. But there's a much more troubling problem with the Democratic party, he argues. It has become “the party of institutionalized liberalism, which is itself exhausted”. So how to reinvent American liberalism in the 2020's? How to make the left once again, in Deresiewicz words, “the locus of openness, playfulness, productive contention, experiment, excess, risk, shock, camp, mirth, mischief, irony and curiosity"? That's the question for all progressives in our MAGA/Woke age. 5 Key Takeaways * Deresiewicz believes the Democratic establishment and aligned media engaged in a "tacit cover-up" of Biden's condition and other major issues like crime, border policies, and pandemic missteps rather than addressing them honestly.* The liberal movement that began in the 1960s has become "exhausted" and the Democratic Party is now an uneasy alliance of establishment elites and working-class voters whose interests don't align well.* Progressive institutions suffer from a repressive intolerance characterized by "an unearned sense of moral superiority" and a fear of vitality that leads to excessive rules, bureaucracy, and speech codes.* While young conservatives are creating new movements with energy and creativity, the progressive establishment stifles innovation by purging anyone who "violates the code" or criticizes their side.* Rebuilding the left requires creating conditions for new ideas by ending censoriousness, embracing true courage that risks something real, and potentially building new institutions rather than trying to reform existing ones. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everyone. It's the old question on this show, Keen on America, how to make sense of this bewildering, frustrating, exciting country in the wake, particularly of the last election. A couple of years ago, we had the CNN journalist who I rather like and admire, Jake Tapper, on the show. Arguing in a piece of fiction that he thinks, to make sense of America, we need to return to the 1970s. He had a thriller out a couple of years ago called All the Demons Are Here. But I wonder if Tapper's changed his mind on this. His latest book, which is a sensation, which he co-wrote with Alex Thompson, is Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, its Cover-up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Tapper, I think, tells the truth about Biden, as the New York Times notes. It's a damning portrait of an enfeebled Biden protected by his inner circle. I would extend that, rather than his inner circle protected by an elite, perhaps a coastal elite of Democrats, unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that Biden was way, way past his shelf life. My guest today, William Deresiewicz—always get his last name wrong—it must be...William Deresiewicz: No, that was good. You got it.Andrew Keen: Probably because I'm anti-semitic. He has a new piece out called "Post-Election" which addresses much of the rottenness of the American progressive establishment in 2025. Bill, congratulations on the piece.William Deresiewicz: Thank you.Andrew Keen: Have you had a chance to look at this Tapper book or have you read about Original Sin?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I read that piece. I read the piece that's on the screen and I've heard some people talking about it. And I mean, as you said, it's not just his inner circle. I don't want to blame Tapper. Tapper did the work. But one immediate reaction to the debate debacle was, where have the journalists been? For example, just to unfairly call one person out, but they're just so full of themselves, the New Yorker dripping with self-congratulations, especially in its centennial year, its boundless appetite for self-celebration—to quote something one of my students once said about Yale—they've got a guy named Evan Osnos, who's one of their regulars on their political...Andrew Keen: Yeah, and he's been on the show, Evan, and in fact, I rather like his, I was going to say his husband, his father, Peter Osnos, who's a very heavy-hitting ex-publisher. But anyway, go on. And Evan's quite a nice guy, personally.William Deresiewicz: I'm sure he's a nice guy, but the fact is he's not only a New Yorker journalist, but he wrote a book about Biden, which means that he's presumably theoretically well-sourced within Biden world. He didn't say anything. I mean, did he not know or did he know?Andrew Keen: Yeah, I agree. I mean you just don't want to ask, right? You don't know. But you're a journalist, so you're supposed to know. You're supposed to ask. So I'm sure you're right on Osnos. I mean, he was on the show, but all journalists are progressives, or at least all the journalists at the Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And there seemed to be, as Jake Tapper is suggesting in this new book, and he was part of the cover-up, there seemed to be a cover-up on the part of the entire professional American journalist establishment, high-end establishment, to ignore the fact that the guy running for president or the president himself clearly had no idea of what was going on around him. It's just astonishing, isn't it? I mean, hindsight's always easy, of course, 2020 in retrospect, but it was obvious at the time. I made it clear whenever I spoke about Biden, that here was a guy clearly way out of his depth, that he shouldn't have been president, maybe shouldn't have been president in the first place, but whatever you think about his ideas, he clearly was way beyond his shelf date, a year or two into the presidency.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, but here's the thing, and it's one of the things I say in the post-election piece, but I'm certainly not the only person to say this. There was an at least tacit cover-up of Biden, of his condition, but the whole thing was a cover-up, meaning every major issue that the 2024 election was about—crime, at the border, woke excess, affordability. The whole strategy of not just the Democrats, but this media establishment that's aligned with them is to just pretend that it wasn't happening, to explain it away. And we can also throw in pandemic policy, right? Which people were still thinking about and all the missteps in pandemic policy. The strategy was effectively a cover-up. We're not gonna talk about it, or we're gonna gaslight you, or we're gonna make excuses. So is it a surprise that people don't trust these establishment institutions anymore? I mean, I don't trust them anymore and I want to trust them.Andrew Keen: Were there journalists? I mean, there were a handful of journalists telling the truth about Biden. Progressives, people on the left rather than conservatives.William Deresiewicz: Ezra Klein started to talk about it, I remember that. So yes, there were a handful, but it wasn't enough. And you know, I don't say this to take away from Ezra Klein what I just gave him with my right hand, take away with my left, but he was also the guy, as soon as the Kamala succession was effected, who was talking about how Kamala in recent months has been going from strength to strength and hasn't put a foot wrong and isn't she fantastic. So all credit to him for telling the truth about Biden, but it seems to me that he immediately pivoted to—I mean, I'm sure he thought he was telling the truth about Harris, but I didn't believe that for one second.Andrew Keen: Well, meanwhile, the lies about Harris or the mythology of Harris, the false—I mean, all mythology, I guess, is false—about Harris building again. Headline in Newsweek that Harris would beat Donald Trump if an election was held again. I mean I would probably beat—I would beat Trump if an election was held again, I can't even run for president. So anyone could beat Trump, given the situation. David Plouffe suggested that—I think he's quoted in the Tapper book—that Biden totally fucked us, but it suggests that somehow Harris was a coherent progressive candidate, which she wasn't.William Deresiewicz: She wasn't. First of all, I hadn't seen this poll that she would beat Trump. I mean, it's a meaningless poll, because...Andrew Keen: You could beat him, Bill, and no one can even pronounce your last name.William Deresiewicz: Nobody could say what would actually happen if there were a real election. It's easy enough to have a hypothetical poll. People often look much better in these kinds of hypothetical polls where there's no actual election than they do when it's time for an election. I mean, I think everyone except maybe David Plouffe understands that Harris should never have been a candidate—not just after Biden dropped out way too late, but ever, right? I mean the real problem with Biden running again is that he essentially saddled us with Harris. Instead of having a real primary campaign where we could have at least entertained the possibility of some competent people—you know, there are lots of governors. I mean, I'm a little, and maybe we'll get to this, I'm little skeptical that any normal democratic politician is going to end up looking good. But at least we do have a whole bunch of what seem to be competent governors, people with executive experience. And we never had a chance to entertain any of those people because this democratic establishment just keeps telling us who we're going to vote for. I mean, it's now three elections in a row—they forced Hillary on us, and then Biden. I'm not going to say they forced Biden on us although elements of it did. It probably was a good thing because he won and he may have been the only one who could have won. And then Harris—it's like reductio ad absurdum. These candidates they keep handing us keep getting worse and worse.Andrew Keen: But it's more than being worse. I mean, whatever one can say about Harris, she couldn't explain why she wanted to be president, which seems to me a disqualifier if you're running for president. The point, the broader point, which I think you bring out very well in the piece you write, and you and I are very much on the same page here, so I'm not going to criticize you in your post-election—William Deresiewicz: You can criticize me, Andrew, I love—Andrew Keen: I know I can criticize you, and I will, but not in this particular area—is that these people are the establishment. They're protecting a globalized world, they're the coast. I mean, in some ways, certainly the Bannonite analysis is right, and it's not surprising that they're borrowing from Lenin and the left is borrowing from Edmund Burke.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean I think, and I think this is the real problem. I mean, part of what I say in the piece is that it just seems, maybe this is too organicist, but there just seems to be an exhaustion that the liberal impulse that started, you know, around the time I was born in 1964, and I cite the Dylan movie just because it's a picture of that time where you get a sense of the energy on the left, the dawning of all this exciting—Andrew Keen: You know that movie—and we've done a show on that movie—itself was critical I guess in a way of Dylan for not being political.William Deresiewicz: Well, but even leaving that aside, just the reminder you get of what that time felt like. That seems in the movie relatively accurate, that this new youth culture, the rights revolution, the counterculture, a new kind of impulse of liberalism and progressivism that was very powerful and strong and carried us through the 60s and 70s and then became the establishment and has just become completely exhausted now. So I just feel like it's just gotten to the end of its possibility. Gotten to the end of its life cycle, but also in a less sort of mystical way. And I think this is a structural problem that the Democrats have not been able to address for a long time, and I don't see how they're going to address it. The party is now the party, as you just said, of the establishment, uneasily wedded to a mainly non-white sort of working class, lower class, maybe somewhat middle class. So it's sort of this kind of hybrid beast, the two halves of which don't really fit together. The educated upper middle class, the professional managerial class that you and I are part of, and then sort of the average Black Latino female, white female voter who doesn't share the interests of that class. So what are you gonna do about that? How's that gonna work?Andrew Keen: And the thing that you've always given a lot of thought to, and it certainly comes out in this piece, is the intolerance of the Democratic Party. But it's an intolerance—it's not a sort of, and I don't like this word, it's not the fascist intolerance of the MAGA movement or of Trump. It's a repressive intolerance, it's this idea that we're always right and if you disagree with us, then there must be something wrong with you.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, right. It's this, at this point, completely unearned sense of moral superiority and intellectual superiority, which are not really very clearly distinguished in their mind, I think. And you know, they just reek of it and people hate it and it's understandable that they hate it. I mean, it's Hillary in a word. It's Hillary in a word and again, I'm wary of treading on this kind of ground, but I do think there's an element of—I mean, obviously Trump and his whole camp is very masculinist in a very repulsive way, but there is also a way to be maternalist in a repulsive way. It's this kind of maternal control. I think of it as the sushi mom voice where we're gonna explain to you in a calm way why you should listen to us and why we're going to control every move you make. And it's this fear—I mean what my piece is really about is this sort of quasi-Nietzschean argument for energy and vitality that's lacking on the left. And I think it's lacking because the left fears it. It fears sort of the chaos of the life force. So it just wants to shackle it in all of these rules and bureaucracy and speech codes and consent codes. It just feels lifeless. And I think everybody feels that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and it's the inability to imagine you can be wrong. It's the moral greediness of some people, at least, who think of themselves on the left. Some people might be listening to this, thinking it's just these two old white guys who think themselves as progressives but are actually really conservative. And all this idea of nature is itself chilling, that it's a kind of anti-feminism.William Deresiewicz: Well, that's b******t. I mean, let me have a chance to respond. I mean I plead guilty to being an old white man—Andrew Keen: I mean you can't argue with that one.William Deresiewicz: I'm not arguing with it. But the whole point rests on this notion of positionality, like I'm an older white man, therefore I think this or I believe that, which I think is b******t to begin with because, you know, down the street there's another older white guy who believes the exact opposite of me, so what's the argument here? But leaving that aside, and whether I am or am not a progressive—okay, my ideal politician is Bernie Sanders, so I'll just leave it at that. The point is, I mean, one point is that feminism hasn't always been like this. Second wave feminism that started in the late sixties, when I was a little kid—there was a censorious aspect to it, but there was also this tremendous vitality. I mean I think of somebody like Andrea Dworkin—this is like, "f**k you" feminism. This is like, "I'm not only not gonna shave my legs, I'm gonna shave my armpits and I don't give a s**t what you think." And then the next generation when I was a young man was the Mary Gates, Camille Paglia, sex-positive power feminism which also had a different kind of vitality. So I don't think feminism has to be the feminism of the women's studies departments and of Hillary Clinton with "you can't say this" and "if you want to have sex with me you have to follow these 10 rules." I don't think anybody likes that.Andrew Keen: The deplorables!William Deresiewicz: Yes, yes, yes. Like I said, I don't just think that the enemies don't like it, and I don't really care what they think. I think the people on our side don't like it. Nobody is having fun on our side. It's boring. No one's having sex from what they tell me. The young—it just feels dead. And I think when there's no vitality, you also have no creative vitality. And I think the intellectual cul-de-sac that the left seems to be stuck in, where there are no new ideas, is related to that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I think the more I think about it, I think you're right, it's a generational war. All the action seems to be coming from old people, whether it's the Pelosis and the Bidens, or it's people like Richard Reeves making a fortune off books about worrying about young men or Jonathan Haidt writing about the anxious generation. Where are, to quote David Bowie, the young Americans? Why aren't they—I mean, Bill, you're in a way guilty of this. You made your name with your book, Excellent Sheep about the miseducation...William Deresiewicz: Yeah, so what am I guilty of exactly?Andrew Keen: I'm not saying you're all, but aren't you and Reeves and Haidt, you're all involved in this weird kind of generational war.William Deresiewicz: OK, let's pump the brakes here for a second. Where the young people are—I mean, obviously most people, even young people today, still vote for Democrats. But the young who seem to be exploring new things and having energy and excitement are on the right. And there was a piece—I'm gonna forget the name of the piece and the author—Daniel Oppenheimer had her on the podcast. I think it appeared in The Point. Young woman. Fairly recent college graduate, went to a convention of young republicans, I don't know what they call themselves, and also to democrats or liberals in quick succession and wrote a really good piece about it. I don't think she had ever written anything before or published anything before, but it got a lot of attention because she talked about the youthful vitality at this conservative gathering. And then she goes to the liberals and they're all gray-haired men like us. The one person who had anything interesting to say was Francis Fukuyama, who's in his 80s. She's making the point—this is the point—it's not a generational war, because there are young people on the right side of the spectrum who are doing interesting things. I mean, I don't like what they're doing, because I'm not a rightist, but they're interesting, they're different, they're new, there's excitement there, there's creativity there.Andrew Keen: But could one argue, Bill, that all these labels are meaningless and that whatever they're doing—I'm sure they're having more sex than young progressives, they're having more fun, they're able to make jokes, they are able, for better or worse, to change the system. Does it really matter whether they claim to be MAGA people or leftists? They're the ones who are driving change in the country.William Deresiewicz: Yes, they're the ones who are driving change in the country. The counter-cultural energy that was on the left in the sixties and seventies is now on the right. And it does matter because they are operating in the political sphere, have an effect in the political sphere, and they're unmistakably on the right. I mean, there are all these new weird species on the right—the trads and the neo-pagans and the alt-right and very sort of anti-capitalist conservatives or at least anti-corporate conservatives and all kinds of things that you would never have imagined five years ago. And again, it's not that I like these things. It's that they're new, there's ferment there. So stuff is coming out that is going to drive, is already driving the culture and therefore the politics forward. And as somebody who, yes, is progressive, it is endlessly frustrating to me that we have lost this kind of initiative, momentum, energy, creativity, to what used to be the stodgy old right. Now we're the stodgy old left.Andrew Keen: What do you want to go back to? I mean you brought up Dylan earlier. Do you just want to resurrect...William Deresiewicz: No, I don't.Andrew Keen: You know another one who comes to mind is another sort of bundle of contradictions, Bruce Springsteen. He recently talked about the corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous nature of Trump. I mean Springsteen's a billionaire. He even acknowledged that he mythologized his own working-class status. He's never spent more than an hour in a factory. He's never had a job. So aren't all the pigeons coming back to roost here? The fraud of men like Springsteen are merely being exposed and young people recognize it.William Deresiewicz: Well, I don't know about Springsteen in particular...Andrew Keen: Well, he's a big deal.William Deresiewicz: No, I know he's a big deal, and I love Springsteen. I listened to him on repeat when I was young, and I actually didn't know that he'd never worked in a factory, and I quite frankly don't care because he's an artist, and he made great art out of those experiences, whether they were his or not. But to address the real issue here, he is an old guy. It sounds like he's just—I mean, I'm sure he's sincere about it and I would agree with him about Trump. But to have people like Springsteen or Robert De Niro or George Clooney...Andrew Keen: Here it is.William Deresiewicz: Okay, yes, it's all to the point that these are old guys. So you asked me, do I want to go back? The whole point is I don't want to go back. I want to go forward. I'm not going to be the one to bring us forward because I'm older. And also, I don't think I was ever that kind of creative spirit, but I want to know why there isn't sort of youthful creativity given the fact that most young people do still vote for Democrats, but there's no youthful creativity on the left. Is it just that the—I want to be surprised is the point. I'm not calling for X, Y, or Z. I'm saying astonish me, right? Like Diaghilev said to Cocteau. Astonish me the way you did in the 60s and 70s. Show me something new. And I worry that it simply isn't possible on the left now, precisely because it's so locked down in this kind of establishment, censorious mode that there's no room for a new idea to come from anywhere.Andrew Keen: As it happens, you published this essay in Salmagundi—and that predates, if not even be pre-counterculture. How many years old is it? I think it started in '64. Yeah, so alongside your piece is an interesting piece from Adam Phillips about influence and anxiety. And he quotes Montaigne from "On Experience": "There is always room for a successor, even for ourselves, and a different way to proceed." Is the problem, Bill, that we haven't, we're not willing to leave the stage? I mean, Nancy Pelosi is a good example of this. Biden's a good example. In this Salmagundi piece, there's an essay from Martin Jay, who's 81 years old. I was a grad student in Berkeley in the 80s. Even at that point, he seemed old. Why are these people not able to leave the stage?William Deresiewicz: I am not going to necessarily sign on to that argument, and not just because I'm getting older. Biden...Andrew Keen: How old are you, by the way?William Deresiewicz: I'm 61. So you mentioned Pelosi. I would have been happy for Pelosi to remain in her position for as long as she wanted, because she was effective. It's not about how old you are. Although it can be, obviously as you get older you can become less effective like Joe Biden. I think there's room for the old and the young together if the old are saying valuable things and if the young are saying valuable things. It's not like there's a shortage of young voices on the left now. They're just not interesting voices. I mean, the one that comes immediately to mind that I'm more interested in is Ritchie Torres, who's this congressman who's a genuinely working-class Black congressman from the Bronx, unlike AOC, who grew up the daughter of an architect in Northern Westchester and went to a fancy private university, Boston University. So Ritchie Torres is not a doctrinaire leftist Democrat. And he seems to speak from a real self. Like he isn't just talking about boilerplate. I just feel like there isn't a lot of room for the Ritchie Torres. I think the system that produces democratic candidates militates against people like Ritchie Torres. And that's what I am talking about.Andrew Keen: In the essay, you write about Andy Mills, who was one of the pioneers of the New York Times podcast. He got thrown out of The New York Times for various offenses. It's one of the problems with the left—they've, rather like the Stalinists in the 1930s, purged all the energy out of themselves. Anyone of any originality has been thrown out for one reason or another.William Deresiewicz: Well, because it's always the same reason, because they violate the code. I mean, yes, this is one of the main problems. And to go back to where we started with the journalists, it seems like the rationale for the cover-up, all the cover-ups was, "we can't say anything bad about our side. We can't point out any of the flaws because that's going to help the bad guys." So if anybody breaks ranks, we're going to cancel them. We're going to purge them. I mean, any idiot understands that that's a very short-term strategy. You need the possibility of self-criticism and self-difference. I mean that's the thing—you asked me about old people leaving the stage, but the quotation from Montaigne said, "there's always room for a successor, even ourselves." So this is about the possibility of continuous self-reinvention. Whatever you want to say about Dylan, some people like him, some don't, he's done that. Bowie's done that. This was sort of our idea, like you're constantly reinventing yourself, but this is what we don't have.Andrew Keen: Yeah, actually, I read the quote the wrong way, that we need to reinvent ourselves. Bowie is a very good example if one acknowledges, and Dylan of course, one's own fundamental plasticity. And that's another problem with the progressive movement—they don't think of the human condition as a plastic one.William Deresiewicz: That's interesting. I mean, in one respect, I think they think of it as too plastic, right? This is sort of the blank slate fallacy that we can make—there's no such thing as human nature and we can reshape it as we wish. But at the same time, they've created a situation, and this really is what Excellent Sheep is about, where they're turning out the same human product over and over.Andrew Keen: But in that sense, then, the excellent sheep you write about at Yale, they've all ended up now as neo-liberal, neo-conservative, so they're just rebelling...William Deresiewicz: No, they haven't. No, they are the backbone of this soggy liberal progressive establishment. A lot of them are. I mean, why is, you know, even Wall Street and Silicon Valley sort of by preference liberal? It's because they're full of these kinds of elite college graduates who have been trained to be liberal.Andrew Keen: So what are we to make of the Musk-Thiel, particularly the Musk phenomenon? I mean, certainly Thiel, very much influenced by Rand, who herself, of course, was about as deeply Nietzschean as you can get. Why isn't Thiel and Musk just a model of the virility, the vitality of the early 21st century? You might not like what they say, but they're full of vitality.William Deresiewicz: It's interesting, there's a place in my piece where I say that the liberal can't accept the idea that a bad person can do great things. And one of my examples was Elon Musk. And the other one—Andrew Keen: Zuckerberg.William Deresiewicz: But Musk is not in the piece, because I wrote the piece before the inauguration and they asked me to change it because of what Musk was doing. And even I was beginning to get a little queasy just because the association with Musk is now different. It's now DOGE. But Musk, who I've always hated, I've never liked the guy, even when liberals loved him for making electric cars. He is an example, at least the pre-DOGE Musk, of a horrible human being with incredible vitality who's done great things, whether you like it or not. And I want—I mean, this is the energy that I want to harness for our team.Andrew Keen: I actually mostly agreed with your piece, but I didn't agree with that because I think most progressives believe that actually, the Zuckerbergs and the Musks, by doing, by being so successful, by becoming multi-billionaires, are morally a bit dodgy. I mean, I don't know where you get that.William Deresiewicz: That's exactly the point. But I think what they do is when they don't like somebody, they just negate the idea that they're great. "Well, he's just not really doing anything that great." You disagree.Andrew Keen: So what about ideas, Bill? Where is there room to rebuild the left? I take your points, and I don't think many people would actually disagree with you. Where does the left, if there's such a term anymore, need to go out on a limb, break some eggs, offend some people, but nonetheless rebuild itself? It's not going back to Bernie Sanders and some sort of nostalgic New Deal.William Deresiewicz: No, no, I agree. So this is, this may be unsatisfying, but this is what I'm saying. If there were specific new ideas that I thought the left should embrace, I would have said so. What I'm seeing is the left needs, to begin with, to create the conditions from which new ideas can come. So I mean, we've been talking about a lot of it. The censoriousness needs to go.I would also say—actually, I talk about this also—you know, maybe you would consider yourself part of, I don't know. There's this whole sort of heterodox realm of people who did dare to violate the progressive pieties and say, "maybe the pandemic response isn't going so well; maybe the Black Lives Matter protests did have a lot of violence"—maybe all the things, right? And they were all driven out from 2020 and so forth. A lot of them were people who started on the left and would even still describe themselves as liberal, would never vote for a Republican. So these people are out there. They're just, they don't have a voice within the Democratic camp because the orthodoxy continues to be enforced.So that's what I'm saying. You've got to start with the structural conditions. And one of them may be that we need to get—I don't even know that these institutions can reform themselves, whether it's the Times or the New Yorker or the Ivy League. And it may be that we need to build new institutions, which is also something that's happening. I mean, it's something that's happening in the realm of publishing and journalism on Substack. But again, they're still marginalized because that liberal establishment does not—it's not that old people don't wanna give up power, it's that the established people don't want to give up the power. I mean Harris is, you know, she's like my age. So the establishment as embodied by the Times, the New Yorker, the Ivy League, foundations, the think tanks, the Democratic Party establishment—they don't want to move aside. But it's so obviously clear at this point that they are not the solution. They're not the solutions.Andrew Keen: What about the so-called resistance? I mean, a lot of people were deeply disappointed by the response of law firms, maybe even universities, the democratic party as we noted is pretty much irrelevant. Is it possible for the left to rebuild itself by a kind of self-sacrifice, by lawyers who say "I don't care what you think of me, I'm simply against you" and to work together, or university presidents who will take massive pay cuts and take on MAGA/Trump world?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is going to be the solution to the left rebuilding itself, but I think it has to happen, not just because it has to happen for policy reasons, but I mean you need to start by finding your courage again. I'm not going to say your testicles because that's gendered, but you need to start—I mean the law firms, maybe that's a little, people have said, well, it's different because they're in a competitive business with each other, but why did the university—I mean I'm a Columbia alumnus. I could not believe that Columbia immediately caved.It occurs to me as we're talking that these are people, university presidents who have learned cowardice. This is how they got to be where they got and how they keep their jobs. They've learned to yield in the face of the demands of students, the demands of alumni, the demands of donors, maybe the demands of faculty. They don't know how to be courageous anymore. And as much as I have lots of reasons, including personal ones, to hate Harvard University, good for them. Somebody finally stood up, and I was really glad to see that. So yeah, I think this would be one good way to start.Andrew Keen: Courage, in other words, is the beginning.William Deresiewicz: Courage is the beginning.Andrew Keen: But not a courage that takes itself too seriously.William Deresiewicz: I mean, you know, sure. I mean I don't really care how seriously—not the self-referential courage. Real courage, which means you're really risking losing something. That's what it means.Andrew Keen: And how can you and I then manifest this courage?William Deresiewicz: You know, you made me listen to Jocelyn Benson.Andrew Keen: Oh, yeah, I forgot and I actually I have to admit I saw that on the email and then I forgot who Jocelyn Benson is, which is probably reflects the fact that she didn't say very much.William Deresiewicz: For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, she's the Secretary of State of Michigan. She's running for governor.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and she was absolutely diabolical. She was on the show, I thought.William Deresiewicz: She wrote a book called Purposeful Warrior, and the whole interview was just this salad of cliches. Purpose, warrior, grit, authenticity. And part of, I mentioned her partly because she talked about courage in a way that was complete nonsense.Andrew Keen: Real courage, yeah, real courage. I remember her now. Yeah, yeah.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, she got made into a martyr because she got threatened after the 2020 election.Andrew Keen: Well, lots to think about, Bill. Very good conversation, as always. I think we need to get rid of old white men like you and I, but what do I know?William Deresiewicz: I mean, I am going to keep a death grip on my position, which is no good whatsoever.Andrew Keen: As I half-joked, Bill, maybe you should have called the piece "Post-Erection." If you can't get an erection, then you certainly shouldn't be in public office. That would have meant that Joe Biden would have had to have retired immediately.William Deresiewicz: I'm looking forward to seeing the test you devise to determine whether people meet your criterion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, maybe it will be a public one. Bread and circuses, bread and elections. We shall see, Bill, I'm not even going to do your last name because I got it right once. I'm never going to say it again. Bill, congratulations on the piece "Post-Election," not "Post-Erection," and we will talk again. This story is going to run and run. We will talk again in the not too distant future. Thank you so much.William Deresiewicz: That's good.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

On his first day in office, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order to change who gets citizenship in the United States. But Executive Orders are not LAW, and his document was immediately challenged in courts across the country. Three Federal Courts blocked Trump's attack on the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship. Trump asked the Supreme Court to stop lower courts from blocking his Executive Orders. Arguing that one or two Federal Courts do not have the power to stop the entire country from following his orders. The Supreme Court heard historic arguments on Thursday, as the Trump administration seeks to challenge the constitutional provision that guarantees automatic citizenship to all babies born in the United States. And yet, as I explained above, the arguments focused primarily on a different question entirely—a legal question regarding nationwide injunctions that could make it much more difficult and time-consuming to bring challenges to all of Trump's legal policies, not just this one. If this is a test case, it is a doozy. Birthright Citizenship is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Keke keeps getting spam calls every 30 minutes and is asking for advice on how to get rid of them! And yes, we are still arguing on the proper way to brush your teeth. Listen now!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The United States and China took a step back this week from their trade war, announcing that tariffs imposed just a few weeks ago would be slashed significantly—at least for now. But even as the tension seems to be ebbing, some people in the United States are questioning whether it's beneficial for the two economies to be intertwined at all. Welcome to Counterpoint. On each episode, we look at one pressing question facing world leaders—from two opposing points of view.   Today, we're tackling the question: Should the United States completely decouple from China?  With us to make the case for a tough stance against China is ⁠Derek Scissors⁠, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the chief economist of the China Beige Book. He is also the author of the China Global investment Tracker.   Arguing that broad decoupling won't work to counter China is Lizzi C. Lee. She's a fellow on Chinese economy at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Center for China Analysis. Counterpoint is a production of Foreign Policy, in partnership with the Doha Forum. The show is hosted by Sasha Polakow-Suransky. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Arguing with reality in business is a huge waste of time. If you've got clients who are in that head space where they're sort of scared, they're not quite sure what to do next. If you call them and you're in that same head space, then you're not helpful to them. But if you call them with some thoughts or ideas on how you can help them to accomplish the things they want to accomplish, now you have value, and they're going to be happy to talk to you. They're going to want to talk to you because they understand that you may have the solution to some of the problems they're facing. David: Hi, and welcome back. In today's episode, co-host Kevin Rosenquist, and I ask the question, are you stuck arguing with reality? Welcome back, Kevin. Kevin: Good to see you, David. Normally, I feel like I'm stuck arguing with virtual reality these days. With Chat GPT or the like. What are we talking about when you say "argue with reality?" David: We touched on this in a previous podcast, and it's a quote that I heard from Byron Katie. She wrote a book called Loving What Is, and she had this quote in there where she said, "Whenever I argue with reality, I lose, but only 100% of the time." And I loved that quote because it just seemed so completely true. Anytime we argue with whatever is actually happening, whatever's going on in the world, whenever we argue with that reality, we lose. And if you go to social media, any social media platform, you will find millions of people, every day, arguing with reality. They'll be talking about things they have no control over, that they wish weren't the case. And you can waste so much life doing this, that I thought it would be good for us to have a conversation about it. Kevin: Well, we talked a little bit about controlling what you can control and accepting what you can't control, so it kind of fits into the same category. And it feels like we tend to resist what's happening, instead of adapting to it. Is that fair to say? David: Yeah. I think a lot of people do that, and not that we're even doing it intentionally. A lot of times we don't even consider this idea of what is reality versus what am I looking at on a day-to-day basis? We tend to go into experiences, whether it's conversations with people, whether it's posting something on social media or replying to someone on social media, doing any of these things, and we just feel like we're having a conversation and we don't necessarily take into consideration what are the things that are just real and true, that I might be arguing against, right? Kevin: Mm-hmm. David: So when people go online, particularly now, and they're on there and they're talking about tariffs and all the terrible things that are going to be happening to their business, I look at that and I'm like, okay, well, the tariffs, that's true. The uncertainty in the market, that's true. Everyone is dealing with that. But if I talk about that without looking for solutions, without looking for the ways to get around those problems, then why am I even doing it? Isn't that not just wasting time, but wasting our lives and other people's lives? Kevin: Mm-hmm. What other ways, you know, we mentioned tariffs, there's plenty of big stuff out there that's happening that affects the business world. But as far as, you know, just getting into the sales process, the business process, what other ways do you find that people argue with reality? David: Ghosting. Sales in general? Cold calling. I mean, every aspect of sales requires us to deal with different aspects of reality every single time. Right? "These people won't call me back." Okay. That may be a reality with those people. Another part of reality though, is that there are people who will call you back. There are prospects who are responsive. There are people who need to buy your products and services right now. All of those things are also true.

IS ARGUING GOOD FOR A RELATIONSHIP + THE MENTAL COST OF DIVORCE...Also, you can get a free 7-day dating course at DocLove.com/Course and free dating videos at DocLove.com/YouTube

Send us a textWatch the video version here!:  https://youtu.be/DyHPtux54GQ The Talk&Taste Debate: Should we be having more kids? event, was held in New York City, on Friday, April 25th, 2025, to a SOLD OUT audience of over 70 people, at the beautiful Hancock foundation! Arguing for the position of pro-natalism and against my antinatalism, was the wonderful Travis Timmerman, associate professor of philosophy, and chair of the philosophy department, at Seton Hall University - and an Exploring Antinatalism Podcast alum! Check out episode #42 if you would like to see my first conversation with Travis!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veplsEq3rKs And make sure to purchase his co-edited book, Exploring the Philosophy of Death and Dying HERE!: https://a.co/d/7npejM0 Read more about the event HERE!: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/talktaste-debate-should-we-be-having-more-kids-tickets-1297422067329?utm-campaign=social&utm-content=attendeeshare&utm-medium=discovery&utm-term=listing&utm-source=cp&aff=ebdsshcopyurl Follow Talk&Taste on Instagram, HERE! https://www.instagram.com/talkandtasteclub?igsh=MXB1cmZ0ZnI4b2p3OQ%3D%3D&utm_source=qr Learn more about The Handcock Foundation HERE!: https://www.instagram.com/thehancockfoundation/ A portion of the audio was produced by Kim Nerderveen Pieterse

This week, we're discussing all things adulthood: the good, the bad, and the “oh god, no one's coming to rescue me.” From the never-ending responsibilities to the realisation that the buck officially stops with you, we're discussing all what it's like to be a responsible adult (spoiler: it's exhausting)We're also reminding ourselves - and you - why it's so important to prioritise yourself. Al's long-overdue facial is officially on the agenda.Plus, we dive into a listener email with a relationship dilemma and do our best to offer some honest advice (with minimal chaos). Got something you want to ask us? Slide into our inbox: shouldideletethatpod@gmail.com And remember: die, cry, hate (with love)

We’re having headphone issues Bjorn from tech Arguing about Chat GPT Join the Pod Squad Listen Live on the Nova Player App Follow us on Instagram - TikTok - Facebook - SnapchatSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cancel culture says “stay silent,” but Scripture and saints say “speak truth in love.” Here's why real debate matters now more than ever.Morning Offering, May 5, 2025Every morning, join Father Brad as he begins the day with prayer and reflection. In a few short minutes, Father Brad guides you in prayer, shares a brief reflection grounding your day in the Church's rhythm of feast days and liturgy, and provides you with the encouragement necessary to go forward with peace and strength. Disclaimer: The ads shown before, during, or after this video have no affiliation with Morning Offering and are controlled by YouTubeLet us do as the saints urge and begin our days in prayer together so as a community of believers we may join the Psalmist in saying, “In the morning, Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait expectantly.” (Psalm 5:3-4)________________

It's All Been Done Radio Hour #524  Morning Show #25 "Election Night"     Things are tense as Pat and Gus reunite for election night coverage.    Visit our website http://iabdpresents.com Script books, clothing, and more at https://amzn.to/3km2TLm Please support us at http://patreon.com/IABD   Find more from It's All Been Done Radio Hour here: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iabdpresents/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iabdpresents   A comedy radio show originally performed Saturday, April 13, 2024, at Boxland in Columbus, Ohio.     STARRING Ashley Clementas as Lea Zichi  Keith Jackson as Pat Shock  Nathan Haley as Gus Goodall  Kristin Green as Shelly Meyers  Ryan Yohe as Brooks Dylan  GUEST STARRING  Beth Debelak as Taylor Day  Rosaleigh Wilson as Reed Silver      Narrated by Darren Esler  Foley Artist Megan Overholt  Podcast edited by Trulie Awesome Productions     It's All Been Done Radio Hour created and produced by Jerome Wetzel  Written by Jerome Wetzel  Directed by Samantha Stark  Music Director Kristin Green  Featuring original music by Megan Overholt and Chris Lynch  Theme Songs composed by Nathan Haley, with lyrics by Jerome Wetzel  Technical Director Shane Stefanchik   When you post about us, hashtag #IABD  

Why Arguing With Women & These Other Behaviors Makes You Feminine CoachGregAdams YouTube FreeAgentLifestyle YouTube

It's not my fault? I didn't do anything! It's your fault! How is that even fair!? That's not fair? Tell me how this is fair! We all need good parenting tools for this! Good news - there are tools! Get some of them here! Sean will empower and coach you to lead your emotional child out of bad patterns and into good ones. Go deeper with Sean at www.SaveMyFamily.us 

This week we're joined by two BJJMM alumni: Josh Vogel and Dr. Mike Israetel! In this episode, Josh and Mike discuss the unique way they build gameplans at The Jiu-Jitsu Company.Follow Josh and Mike on Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/joshrvogelhttps://www.instagram.com/drmikeisraetelSubscribe to Josh and Mike on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@thejiujitsucompanyhttps://www.youtube.com/@RenaissancePeriodizationGet Josh's instructional, 90 Day Project Based Jiu Jitsu:https://bjjfanatics.com/products/90-day-project-based-jiu-jitsu-by-josh-vogelGet ripped with Mike at RP Strength:https://rpstrength.com/Resources mentioned in this episode:Arguing to Convince series, by Dr. Mike Israetel — YouTubehttps://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyqKj7LwU2RufCp8SzFQy3Nb1FaHpsCLuMental models discussed in this episode:Asymmetric Warfarehttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/asymmetric-warfare/Zone of Geniushttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/zone-of-genius/Defend with Purposehttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/defend-with-purpose/Funnelinghttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/funneling/Technique Chaininghttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/technique-chaining/Dictate the Pacehttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/dictate-the-pace/Tokui Wazahttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/tokui-waza/Dilemmahttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/dilemma/Plus, Minus, Equalshttps://bjjmentalmodels.com/plus-minus-equals/Don't forget to check out BJJ Mental Models Premium!If you love the podcast, you'll definitely love our premium membership offerings. The podcast is truly just the tip of the iceberg – the next steps on your journey are joining our community, downloading our strategy courseware, and working with us to optimize your game.  We do all this through memberships that come in at a fraction of the cost of a single private.Sign up here for a free trial:https://bjjmentalmodels.com/Need more BJJ Mental Models?Get tips, tricks, and breakthrough insights from our newsletter:https://bjjmentalmodels.com/newsletter/Get nitty-gritty details on our mental models from the full database:https://bjjmentalmodels.com/database/Follow us on social:https://facebook.com/bjjmentalmodels/https://instagram.com/bjjmentalmodels/Music by Enterprize:https://enterprize.bandcamp.com/

There are only two teams in the AL that are multiple games above .500 and Jeff Passan is already predicting a crowded playoff race. Brock says the next couple of months in the AL will be fascinating and wonders if the M's could have been holding out this offseason to go big at the trade deadline. Then, Brock and Salk argue against taking a WR in the first round and we do a special Brock's birthday edition of Answer the Question Jerk.