Podcasts about ARPA

Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman join our podcast to discuss how psychedelic policy is actually moving in Washington, DC. Lavasani leads Psychedelic Medicine Coalition, a DC-based advocacy organization focused on educating federal officials and advancing legislation around psychedelic medicine. Kopelman is CEO of Mission Within Foundation, which provides scholarships for veterans and first responders seeking psychedelic-assisted therapy retreats, often outside the United States. The conversation centers on veterans, the VA, and why that system may be the first realistic federal pathway for psychedelic care. Early Themes Lavasani describes PMC's work on Capitol Hill, including hosting events that bring lawmakers, staffers, and advocates into the same room. Her focus is steady engagement. In DC, progress often happens through repeated conversations, not headlines. Kopelman shares his background as a Marine and how his own psychedelic-assisted therapy experience led him to Mission Within. The foundation has funded more than 250 scholarships for veterans and first responders seeking treatment for PTSD, mild traumatic brain injury, depression, and addiction. They connect this work to pending veteran-focused legislation and explain why the VA matters. As a closed health system, the VA can pilot programs, gather data, and refine protocols without the pressures of private healthcare markets. Core Insights A recent Capitol Hill gathering, For Veteran Society, brought together members of Congress and leaders from the psychedelic caucus. Lavasani describes candid feedback from lawmakers. The message was clear: coordinate messaging, avoid fragmentation, and move while bipartisan interest remains. Veteran healthcare is not framed as the final goal. It is a starting point. If psychedelic therapies can demonstrate safety and effectiveness within the VA, broader adoption becomes more plausible. Kopelman raises operational realities that must be addressed: Standardized safety protocols across providers Integration support, not medication alone Clear training pathways for clinicians Real-world data beyond tightly screened clinical trials They also address recent negative headlines involving ibogaine treatment abroad. Kopelman emphasizes the need for shared learning across providers, especially when adverse events occur. Lavasani argues that inconsistency within the ecosystem can slow federal confidence. Later Discussion and Takeaways The discussion widens to federal momentum around addiction and mental health. Lavasani notes that new funding initiatives signal growing openness to innovative treatment models, even if psychedelics are not named explicitly in every announcement. Both guests stress that policy moves slowly by design. Meetings, follow-ups, and relationship building often matter more than public statements. For clinicians, researchers, operators, and advocates, the takeaways are direct: Veterans are likely the first federal pathway Public education remains essential Safety standards must be shared and transparent Integration and workforce development need attention now If psychedelic medicine enters federal systems, infrastructure will determine success. Frequently Asked Questions What do Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman say about VA psychedelic policy? They argue that veteran-focused legislation offers a realistic first federal pathway for psychedelic-assisted care. Is ibogaine currently available through the VA? No. They discuss ibogaine in the context of private retreats and future possibilities, not an existing VA program. Why do Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman emphasize coordination? Lawmakers respond more positively when advocates present aligned messaging and clear priorities. What safety issues are discussed by Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman? They highlight the need for standardized screening, monitoring, integration support, and transparent review of adverse events. Closing Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman provide a grounded look at how psychedelic policy develops inside federal systems. Their message is practical: veterans may be the first lane, but long-term success depends on coordination, safety standards, and sustained engagement. Closing This episode captures a real-time view of how federal policy could shape the next phase of the psychedelic resurgence, especially through veteran-facing legislation and VA infrastructure. Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman argue that coordination, public education, and shared safety standards will shape whether access expands with credibility and care. Transcript Joe Moore: [00:00:00] Hello everybody. Welcome back to Psychedelics Today. Today we have two guests, um, got Melissa Sani from Psychedelic Medicine Coalition. We got Jake Pelman from Mission Within Foundation. We're gonna talk about I bga I became policy on a recent, uh, set of meetings in Washington, DC and, uh, all sorts of other things I'm sure. Joe Moore: But thank you both for joining me. Melissa Lavasani: Thanks for having us. Jay Kopelman: Yeah, it's a pleasure. Thanks. Joe Moore: Yeah. Um, Melissa, I wanna have you, uh, jump in. First. Can you tell us a little bit about, uh, your work and what you do at PMC? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, so Psychedelic Medicine Coalition is, um, the only DC based Washington DC based advocacy organization dedicated to the advancing the issue of psychedelics, um, and making sure the federal government has the education they need, um, and understands the issue inside out so that they can generate good policy around, around psychedelic medicines. Melissa Lavasani: [00:01:00] Uh, we. Host Hill events. We host other convenings. Our big event every year is the Federal Summit on psychedelic medicine. Um, that's going to be May 14th this year. Um, where we talk about kinda the pressing issues that need to be talked about, uh, with government officials in the room, um, so that we can incrementally move this forward. Melissa Lavasani: Um, our presence here in Washington DC is, is really critical for this issue's success because, um, when we're talking about psychedelic medicines, um, from the federal government pers perspective, you know, they are, they are the ones that are going to initiate the policies that create a healthcare system that can properly facilitate these medicines and make sure, um, patient safety is a priority. Melissa Lavasani: And there's guardrails on this. And, um, you know, there, it's, it's really important that we have. A home base for this issue in Washington DC just [00:02:00] because, uh, this is very complicated as a lot of your viewers probably understand, and, you know, this can get lost in the mix of all the other issues that, um, lawmakers in DC are focused on right now. Melissa Lavasani: And we need to keep that consistent presence here so that this continues to be a priority for members of Congress. Joe Moore: Mm. I love this. And Jay, can you tell us a bit about yourself and mission within Foundation? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, sure. Joe, thanks. Uh, I, I am the CEO of Mission within Foundation. Prior to this, most of my adult life was spent in the military as a Marine. Jay Kopelman: And I came to this. Role after having, uh, a psychedelic assisted therapy experience myself at the mission within down in Mexico, which is where pretty much we all go. Um, we are here to help [00:03:00] provide, uh, access for veterans and first responders to be able to attend psychedelic assisted therapy retreats to treat issues like mild TBI, post-traumatic stress disorder, uh, depression, sometimes addiction at, at a very low level. Jay Kopelman: Um, and, and so we've, we've been doing this for a little more than a year now and have provided 250 plus scholarships to veterans and first responders to be able to access. These retreats and these, these lifesaving medicines. Um, we're also partnered, uh, you may or may not know with Melissa at Psychedelic Medicine Coalition to help advance education and policy, specifically the innovative, uh, therapy Centers of Excellence Act [00:04:00] that Melissa has worked for a number of years on now to bring to both Houses of Congress. Joe Moore: Thank you for that. Um, so let's chat a little bit about what this event was that just, uh, went down, uh, what, what was it two weeks ago at this point? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. Yeah. It's called For Veteran Society and it's all, um, there's a lot of dialogue on Capitol Hill about veterans healthcare and psychedelics, but where I've been frustrated is that, you know, it was just a lot of. Melissa Lavasani: Talk about what the problems are and not a lot of talk about like how we actually propel things forward. Um, so it, at that event, I thought it was really important and we had three members of Congress there, um, Morgan Latrell, who has been a champion from day one and his time in Congress, um, having gone through the experience himself, um, [00:05:00] at Mission within, um, and then the two chairs of the psychedelic caucus, uh, Lou Correa and Jack Bergman. Melissa Lavasani: And we really got down to the nitty gritty of like w like why this has taken so long and you know, what is actually happening right now? What are the possibilities and what the roadblocks are. And it was, I thought it was a great conversation. Um, we had an interesting kind of dynamic with Latres is like a very passionate about this issue in particular. Melissa Lavasani: Um, I think it was, I think it was really. A great event. And, you know, two days later, Jack Bergman introduced his new bill for the va. Um, so it was kind of like the precursor to that bill getting introduced. And we're just excited for more and more conversations about how the government can gently guide this issue to success. Joe Moore: Hmm. Yeah. [00:06:00] That's fantastic. Um, yeah, I was a little bummed I couldn't make it, but next time, I hope. But I've heard a lot of good things and, um, it's, it sounded like there was some really important messages in, in terms of like feedback from legislators. Yeah. Yeah. Could you speak to that? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, I mean, I think when, uh, representative Latrell was speaking, he really impressed on us a couple things. Melissa Lavasani: Um, first is that, you know, they really kind of need the advocates to. Coordinate, collaborate and come up with like a, a strategic plan, you know, without public education. Um, talking to members of Congress about this issue is, is really difficult. You know, like PMC is just one organization. We're very little mission within, very little, um, you know, we're all like, kind of new in navigating, um, this not so new issue, but new to Washington DC [00:07:00] issue. Melissa Lavasani: Um, without that public education as a baseline, uh, it's, it's, you have to spend a lot of time educating members of Congress. You know, that's like one of our things is, you know, we have to, we don't wanna tell Congress what direction to go to. We wanna provide them the information so they understand it very intimately and know how to navigate through things. Melissa Lavasani: Um, and secondly. Um, he got pretty frank with us and said, you know, we've got one cha one chance at this issue. And it's like, that's, that's kind of been like my talking point since I started. PMC is like, you have a very limited window, um, when these kind of issues pop up and they're new and they're fresh and you have a lot of the veteran community coming out and talking about it. Melissa Lavasani: And there's a lot of energy there. But now is the time to really move forward, um, with some real legislation that can be impactful. Um, but, you know, we've gotta [00:08:00] be careful. We, we forget, I think sometimes those of us who are in the ecosystem forget that our level of knowledge about these medicines and a lot of us have firsthand experience, um, with these drugs and, and our own healing journeys is, um, we forget that there is a public out there that doesn't have the level of knowledge that we all have. Melissa Lavasani: And, um. We gotta make sure that we're sticking to the right elements of, of, of what needs to happen. We need to be sure that our talking points are on track and we're not getting sideways about anything and going down roads that we don't need to talk about. It's why, um, you know, PMC is very focused on, um, moving forward veteran legislation right now. Melissa Lavasani: Not because we're a veteran organization, but because we're, we see this long-term policy track here. Um, we know where we want to get [00:09:00] to, um. Um, and watching other healthcare issues kind of come up and then go through the VA healthcare system, I think it's a really unique opportunity, um, to utilize the VA as this closed system, the biggest healthcare system in the country to evaluate, uh, how psychedelics operate within systems like that. Melissa Lavasani: And, you know, before they get into, um, other healthcare systems. What do we need to fix? What do we need to pay attention to? What's something that we're paying too much attention to that doesn't necessarily need that much attention? So it's, um, it's a real opportunity to look at psychedelic medicines within a healthcare system and obviously continue to gather the data. Melissa Lavasani: Um, Bergman's Bill emerging, uh, expanding veteran access to emerging treatments. Um, not only mandates the research, it gives the VA authority for this, uh, for running trials and, and creating programs around psychedelic medicines. But also, [00:10:00] one of the great things about it, I think, is it provides an on-ramp for veterans that don't necessarily qualify for clinical trials. Melissa Lavasani: You know, I think that's one of the biggest criticisms of clinical trials is like you're cre you're creating a vacuum for people and people don't live in a vacuum. So we don't necessarily know what psychedelics are gonna look like in real life. Um, but with this expanding veteran access bill that Bergman introduced, it provides the VA an opportunity to provide this access under. Melissa Lavasani: Um, in a, in a safe container with medical supervision while collecting data, um, while ensuring that the veteran that is going through this process has the support systems that it needs. So, um, you know, I think that there's a really unique opportunity here, and like Latrell said, like, we've got one shot at this. Melissa Lavasani: We have people's attention in Congress. Um, now's the time to start acting, and let's be really considerate and thoughtful about what we're doing with it. Joe Moore: Thanks for that, Melissa and Jay, how, [00:11:00] anything to add there on kind of your takeaways from the this, uh, last visit in dc? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, I, I think that Melissa highlighted it really well and there, there were a couple other things that I, I think, you know, you could kind of tie it all together with some other issues that we face in this country, uh, and that. Jay Kopelman: Uh, representative Correa brought up as well, but one of the things I wanted to go back and say is that veterans have kind of led this movement already, right? So, so it's a, it's a good jumping off point, right? That it's something people from both sides of the aisle, from any community in America can get behind. Jay Kopelman: You know, if you think about it, uh, in World War ii, you know, we had a million people serving our population was like, not even 200 million, but now [00:12:00] we have a population of 330 million, and at any given time there might be a million people in uniform, including the Reserve and the National Guard. So it's, it, it's an easy thing to get behind this small part of the population that is willing to sign that contract. Jay Kopelman: Where you are saying, yeah, I'm going to defend my country, possibly at the risk of my l my own life. So that's the first thing. The other thing is that the VA being a closed health system, and they don't have shareholders to answer to, they can take some risks, they can be innovative and be forward thinking in the ways that some other healthcare systems can't. Jay Kopelman: And so they have a perfect opportunity to show that they truly care for their veterans, which don't, I'm not saying they don't, but this would be an [00:13:00] opportunity to show that carrot at a whole different level. Uh, it would allow them to innovate and be a leader in something as, uh, as our friend Jim Hancock will say, you know. Jay Kopelman: When he went to the Naval Academy, they had the world's best shipbuilding program. Why doesn't the VA have the world's best care program for things like TBI and PTSD, which affects, you know, 40 something percent of all veterans, right? So, so there's, there's an opportunity here for the VA to lead from the front. Jay Kopelman: Um, the, these medicines provide, you know, reasonably lasting care where it's kind of a one and done. Whereas with the current systems, the, you know, and, and [00:14:00] again, not to denigrate the VA in any way, they're doing the best job they can with the tools in their toolbox, right? But maybe it's time for a trip to Home Depot. Jay Kopelman: Let's get some new tools. And have some new ways of fixing what's broken, which is really the way of doing things. It's not, veterans aren't broken, we are who we are. Um, but it's a, it's a way to fix what isn't working. So I, I think that, you know, given there's tremendous veteran homelessness still, you know, addiction issues, all these things that do translate to the population at large are things that can be worked on in this one system, the va that can then be shown to have efficacy, have good data, have [00:15:00] good outcomes, and, and take it to the population at large. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Brilliant. Thanks for that. And so there was another thing I wanted to pivot to, which is some of the recent press. So we've, um, seen a little bit of press around some, um, in one instance, some bad behavior in Mexico that a FI put out Americans thrive again, put out. And then another case there was a, a recent fatality. Joe Moore: And I think, um, both are tragic. Like we shouldn't be having to deal with this at this point. Um, but there's a lot of things that got us here. Um, it's not necessarily the operator's fault entirely, um, or even at all, honestly, like some medical interventions just carry a lot of risk. Like think, think about like, uh, how risky bypass surgery was in the nineties, right? Joe Moore: Like people were dying a lot from medical interventions and um, you know, this is a major intervention, uh, ibogaine [00:16:00] and also a lot of promise. To help people quite a bit. Um, but as of right now, there's, there's risk. And part of that risk, in my opinion, comes from the inability of organizations to necessarily collaborate. Joe Moore: Like there's no kind of convening body, sitting in the middle, allowing, um, for, and facilitating really good data sharing and learnings. Um, and I don't, I don't necessarily see an organization stepping up and being the, um, the convener for that kind of work. I've heard rumors that something's gonna happen there, and I'm, I'm hopeful I'll always wanna share my opinion on that. Joe Moore: But yeah. I don't know. Jay, from your perspective, is there anything you want to kind of speak to about, uh, these two recent incidents that Americans for Iboga kind of publicized recently? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, so I, I'll echo your sentiment, of course, that these are tragic incidents. Um, and I, [00:17:00] I think that at least in the case of the death at Ambio, AMBIO has done a very good job of talking about it, right? Jay Kopelman: They've been very honest with the information that they have. And like you said, there are risks inherent to these medicines, and it's like anything else in medicine, there are going to be risks. You know, when I went through, uh, when I, when I went through chemo, you know, there were, there are risks. You know, you don't feel well, you get sick. Jay Kopelman: Um, and, and it. There are processes in place to counter that when it happens. And there are processes and, and procedures and safety protocols in place when caring for somebody going through an ibogaine [00:18:00] journey. Uh, when I did it, we had EKG echocardiogram. You're on a heart monitor the entire time they push magnesium via iv. Jay Kopelman: You have to provide a urinalysis sample to make sure that there is nothing in your system that is going to potentially harm you. During the ibogaine, they have, uh, a cardiologist who is monitoring the heart monitors throughout the ibogaine experience. So the, the safety protocols are there. I think it's, I think it's just a matter of. Jay Kopelman: Standardizing them across all, all providers, right? Like, that would be a good thing if people would talk to one another. Um, as, as in any system, right? You've gotta have [00:19:00] some collaboration. You've gotta have standardization, you know, so, you know, they're not called standard operating procedures for nothing. Jay Kopelman: That means that in a, you know, in a given environment, everybody does things the same way. It's true in Navy and Marine Corps, air Force, army Aviation, they have standard operating procedures for every single aircraft. So if you fly, let's say the F 35 now, right? Because it's flown by the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. Jay Kopelman: The, the emergency procedures in that airplane are standardized across all three services, so you should have the same, or, you know, with within a couple of different words, the same procedures and processes [00:20:00] across all the providers, right? Like maybe in one document you're gonna change, happy to glad and small dog to puppy, but it's still pretty much the, the same thing. Jay Kopelman: And as a service that provides scholarships to people to go access these medicines and go to these retreats, you know, my criteria is that the, this provider has to be safe. Number one, safety's paramount. It's always gotta be very safe. It should, it has to be effective. And you know, once you have those two things in place, then I have a comfort level saying, okay, yeah, we'll work with this provider. Jay Kopelman: But until those standardized processes are in place, you'll probably see these one-off things. I mean, some providers have been doing this longer than others and have [00:21:00] really figured out, you know, they've, they've cracked the code and, you know, sharing that across the spectrum would be good. Um, but just when these things happen, having a clearing house, right, where everybody can come together and talk about it, you know, like once the facts are known because. Jay Kopelman: To my knowledge, we still don't know all the facts. Like as, you know, as horrible as this is, you still have to talk about like an, has an autopsy been performed? What was found in the patient's system? You know, there, there are things there that we don't know. So we need to, we need to know that before we can start saying, okay, well this is how we can fix that, because we just don't know. Jay Kopelman: And, you know, to their credit, you know, Amio has always been safe to, to the, to the best of my knowledge. You know, I, [00:22:00] I haven't been to Ambio myself, but people that I have worked with have been there. They have observed, they have seen the process. They believe it's safe, and I trust their opinion because they've seen it elsewhere as well. Jay Kopelman: So yeah, having, having that one place where we can all come together when this happens, it, it's almost like it should be mandatory. In the military when there's a training accident, we, you know, we would have to have what's called a safety standout. And you don't do that again for a little while until you figure out, okay, how are we going to mitigate that happening again? Jay Kopelman: Believe me, you can go overboard and we don't want to do that. Like, we don't wanna just stop all care, but maybe stop detox for a week and then come back to it. [00:23:00] Joe Moore: Yeah. A dream would be, let's get like the, I don't know, 10, 20 most popular, uh, or well-known operators together somewhere and just do like a three day debrief. Joe Moore: Hey, everybody, like, here's what we see. Let's work on this together. You know how normal medicine works. And this is, it's hard because this is not necessarily, um, something people feel safe about in America talking about 'cause it's illicit here. Um, I don't understand necessarily how the operations, uh, relate to each other in Mexico, but I think that's something to like the public should dig into. Joe Moore: Like, what, what is this? And I, I'll start digging into that. Um, I, I asked a question recently of somebody like, is there some sort of like back channel signal everybody's using and there's no clear Yes. You know? Um, I think it would be good. That's just a [00:24:00] start, you know, that's like, okay, we can actually kind of say hi and watch out for this to each other. Jay Kopelman: It's not like we don't all know one another, right? Joe Moore: Yes. Jay Kopelman: Like at least three operators we're represented. At the Aspen Ibogaine meeting. So like that could be, and I think there was a panel kind of loosely related to this during Aspen Ibogaine meeting, but Joe Moore: mm-hmm. Jay Kopelman: It, you know, have a breakout where the operators can go sit down and kind of compare notes. Joe Moore: Right. Yeah. Melissa, do you have any, uh, comments on this thread here? And I, I put you on mute if you didn't see that. Um, Melissa Lavasani: all right, I'm off mute. Um, yeah, I think that Jay's hits the nail on the head with the collaboration thing. Um, I think that it's just a [00:25:00] problem across the entire ecosystem, and I think that's just a product of us being relatively new and upcoming field. Melissa Lavasani: Um, uh, it's a product of, you know. Our fundraising community is really small, so organizations feel like they are competing for the same dollars, even though their, their goals are all the same, they have different functions. Um, I think with time, I mean, let's be honest, like if we don't start collaborating and, and the federal government's moving forward, the federal government's gonna coordinate for us. Melissa Lavasani: And not, that might not necessarily be a bad thing, but, you know, we understand this issue to a whole other level that the federal government doesn't, and they're not required to understand it deeply. They just need to know how to really move forward with it the proper way. Um, but I think that it. It's really essential [00:26:00] that we all have this come together moment here so we can avoid things. Melissa Lavasani: Uh, I mean, no one's gonna die from bad advocacy. So like I've, I have a bit of an easier job. Um, but it can a, a absolutely stall efforts, um, to move things forward in Washington DC when, um, one group is saying one thing, another group is saying another thing, like, we're not quite at a point yet where we can have multiple lines of conversation and multiple things moving forward. Melissa Lavasani: Um, you know, for PMC, it's like, just let's get the first thing across the finish line. And we think that is, um, veteran healthcare. And, um, I know there's plenty of other groups out there that, that want the same thing. So, you know, I always, the reason why I put on the Federal Summit last year was I kind of hit my breaking point with a lack of collaboration and I wanted to just bring everyone in the same room and say like, all right, here are the things that we need to talk about. Melissa Lavasani: And I think the goal for this year is, um. To bring people in the same room and say, we talked about [00:27:00] we scratched the surface last year and this is where we need to really put our efforts into. And this is where the opportunities are. Um, I think that is going to, that's going to show the federal government if we can organize ourselves, that they need to take this issue really seriously. Melissa Lavasani: Um, I don't think we've done a great job at that thus far, but I think there's still plenty of time for us to get it together. Um, and I'm hoping with these two, uh, VA bills that are in the house right now and Senate is, is putting together their version of these two bills, um, so that they can move in tandem with each other. Melissa Lavasani: I think that, you know, there's an opportunity here for. Us to show the federal government as an ecosystem, Hey, we, we are so much further ahead and you know, this is what we've organized and here's how we can help you, um, that would make them buy into this issue a bit more and potentially move things forward faster. Melissa Lavasani: Uh, at this point in time, it's, I think that, [00:28:00] you know, psychedelics aren't necessarily the taboo thing that they, they used to be, but there's certainly places that need attention. Um, there's certainly conversations that need to be had, and like I said, like PMC is just one organization that can do this. Um, we can certainly organize and drive forward collaboration, but I, like we alone, cannot cover all this ground and we need the subject matter experts to collaborate with us so we can, you know, once we get in the door, we wanna bring the experts in to talk to these officials about it. Melissa Lavasani: So I. I, I really want listeners to really think about us as a convener of sorts when it comes to federal policy. Um, and you know, I think when, like for example, in the early eighties, a lot of people have made comparisons to the issue of psychedelics to the issue of AIDS research and how you have in a subject matter that's like extremely taboo and a patient population that the government [00:29:00] quite honestly didn't really care about in the early eighties. Melissa Lavasani: But what they did as an ecosystem is really organized themselves, get very clear on what they wanted the federal government to do. And within a matter of a couple years, uh, AIDS research funding was a thing that was happening. And what that, what that did was that ripple effect turned that into basically finding new therapies for something that we thought was a death, death sentence before. Melissa Lavasani: So I think. We just need to look at things in the past that have been really successful, um, and, and try to take the lessons from all of these issues and, and move forward with psychedelics. Joe Moore: Love that. And yes, we always need to be figuring out efficient approaches and where it has been successful in the past is often, um, an opportunity to mimic and, and potentially improve on that. Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. Jay Kopelman: One, one thing I think it's important to add to this part of the conversation is that, [00:30:00] you know, Melissa pointed out there are a number of organizations that are essentially doing the same thing. Jay Kopelman: Um, you know, I like to think we do things a little bit differently at Mission within Foundation in that we don't target any one specific type of service member. We, we work with all veterans. We work with first responders, but. What that leads to is that there are, as far as I've seen, nothing but good intentioned people in this space. Jay Kopelman: You know, people who really care about their patient population, they care about healing, they are trying to do a good job, and more importantly, they're trying to do good. Right? It, it, I think they all see the benefit down the road that this has, [00:31:00] pardon me, not just for veterans, but for society as a whole. Jay Kopelman: And, and ultimately that's where I would like to see this go. You know, I, I would love to see the VA take this. Take up this mantle and, and run with it and provide great data, great outcomes. You know, we are doing some data collection ourselves at Mission within foundation, albeit anecdotal based on surveys given before and after retreats. Jay Kopelman: But we're also working with, uh, Greg Fonzo down at UT Austin on a brain study he's doing that will have 40 patients in it when it's all said and done. And I think we have two more guys to put through that. Uh, and then we'll hit the 40. So there, there's a lot of good here that's being done by some really, really good people who've been doing this for a long time [00:32:00] and want to want nothing more than to, to see this. Jay Kopelman: Come to, come full circle so that we can take care of many, many, many people. Um, you know, like I say, I, I wanna work myself out of a job here. I, I just, I would love to see this happen and then I, you know, I don't have to send guys to Mexico to do this. They can go to their local VA and get the care that they need. Jay Kopelman: Um, but one thing that I don't think we've touched on yet, or regarding that is that the VA isn't designed for that. So it's gonna be a pretty big lift to get the right types of providers into the va with the knowledge, right, with the institutional knowledge of how this should be done, what is safe, what is effective, um, and then it, it's not just providing these medicines to [00:33:00] people and sending them home. Jay Kopelman: You don't just do that, you've gotta have the right therapists on the backend who can provide the integration coaching to the folks who are receiving these medicines. And I'm not just talking, I bga, even with MDMA and psilocybin, you should have a proper period of integration. It helps you to understand how this is going to affect you, what it, what the experience really meant, you know, because it's very difficult sometimes to just interpret it on your own. Jay Kopelman: And so what the experience was and what it meant to you. And, and so it will take some time to spin all that up. But once it's, once it's in place, you know, the sky's the limit. I think. Joe Moore: Kinda curious Jay, about what's, what's going on with Ibogaine at the federal level. Is there anything at VA right now? [00:34:00] Jay Kopelman: At the va? No, not with ibogaine. And, you know, uh, we, we send people specifically for IBOGAINE and five MEO, right? And, and so that, that doesn't preclude my interest in seeing this legislation passed, right? Jay Kopelman: Because it, it will start with something like MDMA or psilocybin, but ultimately it could grow to iboga, right? It the think about the cost savings at, at the va, even with psilocybin, right? Where you could potentially treat somebody with a very inexpensive dose of psilocybin or, or iboga one time, and then you, you don't have to treat them again. Jay Kopelman: Now, if I were, uh, you know, a VA therapist who's not trained in psychedelic trauma therapy. I might be worried [00:35:00] about job security, but it's like with anything, right? Like ultimately it will open pathways for new people to get that training or the existing people to get that training and, and stay on and do that work. Jay Kopelman: Um, which only adds another arrow to their quiver as far as I'm concerned, because this is coming and we're gonna need the people. It's just like ai, right? Like ai, yeah. Some people are gonna lose some jobs initially, and that's unfortunate. But productivity ultimately across all industries will increase and new jobs will be created as a result of that. Jay Kopelman: I mean, I was watching Squawk Box one morning. They were talking about the AI revolution and how there's gonna be a need for 500,000 electricians to. Build these systems that are going to work with the AI [00:36:00] supercomputers and, and so, Joe Moore: mm-hmm. Jay Kopelman: Where, where an opportunity may be lost. I think several more can be gained going forward. Melissa Lavasani: And just to add on what Jay just said there, there's nothing specific going on with Ibogaine at, at the va, but I think this administration is, is taking a real look at addiction in particular. Uh, they just launched, uh, a new initiative, uh, that's really centered on addiction treatments called the Great American Recovery. Melissa Lavasani: And, um, they're dedicating a hundred million dollars towards treating addiction as like a chronic treatable disease and not necessarily a law enforcement issue. So, um, in that initiative there will be federal grant programs for prevention and treatment and recovery. And, um, while this isn't just for psychedelic medicines, uh, I think it's a really great opportunity for the discussion of psychedelics to get elevated to the White House. Melissa Lavasani: Um, [00:37:00] there's also, previous to this announcement last week from the White House, there's been a hundred million dollars that was dedicated at, um, at ARPA h, which is. The advanced research projects, uh, agency for healthcare, um, and that is kind of an agency that's really focused on forward looking, um, treatments and technologies, uh, for, um, a, a whole slew of. Melissa Lavasani: Of issues, but this a hundred million dollars is dedicated to mental health and addiction. So there's a lot of opportunity there as well. So we, while I think, you know, some people are talking about, oh, we need a executive order on Iboga, it's like, well, you know, the, the president is thinking, um, about, you know, what issues can land with his, uh, voting block. Melissa Lavasani: And I think it's, I don't think we necessarily need a specific executive order on Iboga to call this a success. It's like, let's look at what, [00:38:00] um, what's just been announced from the White House. They're, they're all in on. Thinking creatively and finding, uh, new solutions for this. And this is kind of, this aligns with, um, HHS secretaries, uh, Robert F. Melissa Lavasani: Kennedy Junior's goals when he took on this, this role of Health Secretary. Um, addiction has been a discussion that, you know, he has personal, um, a personal tie to from his own experience. And, um, I think when this administration started, there was so much like fervor around the, the dialogue of like, everyone's talking about psychedelics. Melissa Lavasani: It was Secretary Kennedy, it was, uh, secretary Collins at the va. It was FDA Commissioner Marty Macari. And I think that there's like a lot of undue frustration within folks 'cause um, you don't necessarily snap your fingers and change happens in Washington dc This is not the city for that. And it's intentionally designed to move slow so that we can avoid really big mistakes. Melissa Lavasani: Um. [00:39:00] I think we're a year into this administration and these two announcements are, are pretty huge considering, um, you know, the, we, there are known people within domestic policy council that don't, aren't necessarily supportive of psychedelic medicine. So there's a really amazing progress here, and frustrating as it might be to, um, just be waiting for this administration to make some major move. Melissa Lavasani: I think they are making major moves like for Washington, DC These, these are major moves and we just gotta figure out how we can, um, take these initiatives and apply them to the issue of psychedelic medicines. Joe Moore: Thanks, Melissa. Um, yeah, it is, it is interesting like the amount of fervor there was at the beginning. You know, we had, uh. Kind of one of my old lawyers, Matt Zorn, jumped in with the administration. Right. And, um, you know, it was, uh, really cool to [00:40:00] see and hopeful how much energy was going on. It's been a little quiet, kind of feels like a black box a little bit, but I, you know, there was, Melissa Lavasani: that's on me. Melissa Lavasani: Maybe I, we need to be more out in public about like, what's actually happening, because I feel like, like day in and day out, it's just been, you gotta just mm-hmm. Like have that constant beat with the government. Mm-hmm. And, um, it's, it's, it's not the photo ops on the hill, it's the conversations that you have. Melissa Lavasani: It's the dinner parties you go to, it's the fundraisers you attend, you know? Mm-hmm. That's why I, I kind of have to like toot my own horn with PCs. Like, we need to be present here at, at not only on the Hill, not only at the White House, but kind of in the ecosystem of Washington DC itself. There's, it's, there are like power players here. Melissa Lavasani: There are people that are connected that can get things done, like. I mean, the other last week we had a big snow storm. I walked over to my friend's house, um, to have like a little fire sesh with them and our kids, and his next door neighbor came over. He was a member of Congress. I talked about the VA bills, like [00:41:00] we're reaching out to his office now, um, to get them, um, up to speed and hopefully get their co-sponsorship for, uh, the two VA bills. Melissa Lavasani: So, I mean, it, the little conversations you have here are just as important as the big ones with the photo ops. So, um, it, it's, it's really like, you know, building up that momentum and, and finding that time where you can really strike and make something happen. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Jay, anything to add there? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, I was just gonna say that, you know, I, I, I think the fervor is still there, right? Jay Kopelman: But real life happens. Melissa Lavasani: Yes, Jay Kopelman: yes. And gets in the way, right? So, Melissa Lavasani: yeah, Jay Kopelman: I, I can't imagine how many issues. Secretary Kennedy has every day much less the president. Like there's so many things that they are dealing with on a daily basis, right? It, we, we just have to work to be the squeaky wheel in, in the right way, right. Jay Kopelman: [00:42:00] With the, with the right information at the right time. Like just inundating one of these organizations with noise, it's then it be with Informa, it just becomes noise, right? It it, it doesn't help. So when we have things to say that are meaningful and impactful, we do, and Melissa does an amazing job of that. Jay Kopelman: But, you know, it, it takes time. You know, it's, you know, we're not, this is, this is like turning an aircraft carrier, not a ski boat. Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, Joe Moore: yeah, absolutely. Um, and. It's, it's understandably frustrating, I think for the public and the psychedelic public in particular because we see all this hope, you know, we continue to get frustrated at politics. It's nothing new, right? Um, and we, we wanna see more people get well immediately. [00:43:00] And I, I kind of, Jay from the veteran perspective, I do love the kind of loud voices like, you're making me go to Mexico for this. Joe Moore: I did that and you're making me leave the country for the thing that's gonna fix me. Like, no way. And barely a recognition that this is a valid treatment. You know, like, you know, that is complicated given how medicine is structured here domestically. But it's also, let's face the facts, like the drug war kind of prevented us from being able to do this research in the first place. Joe Moore: You know? Thanks Nixon. And like, how do we actually kind of correct course and say like, we need to spend appropriately on science here so we can heal our own people, including veterans and everybody really. It's a, it's a dire situation out there. Jay Kopelman: Yeah. It, it really is. Um, you know, we were talking briefly about addicts, right? Jay Kopelman: And you know, it's not sexy. People think of addicts as people who are weak-minded, [00:44:00] right? They don't have any self-control. Um, but, but look at, look at the opioid crisis, right? That Brian Hubbard was fighting against in Kentucky for all those years. That that was something that was given to the patient by a doctor that they then became dependent on, and a lot of people died from that. Jay Kopelman: And, and so you, you know, it's, I I don't think it's fair to just put all addicts in a box. Just like it's not fair to put all veterans in a box. Just like it's not fair for doctors, put all their patients in a box. We're individuals. We, we have individual needs. Our, our health is very individual. Like, I, I don't think I should be put in the same box as every other 66-year-old that my doctor sees. Jay Kopelman: It's not fair. [00:45:00] You know, if you, if you took my high school classmates and put us all in a photo, we're all gonna have different needs, right? Like, some look like they're 76, not 66. Some look like they're 56. Not like they're, we, we do things differently. We live our lives differently. And the same is true of addicts. Jay Kopelman: They come to addiction from different places. Not everybody decides they want to just try heroin at a party, and all of a sudden they're addicted. It happens in, in different ways, you know, and the whole fentanyl thing has been so daggum nefarious, right? You know, pushing fentanyl into marijuana. Jay Kopelman: Somebody's smoking a joint and all of a sudden they're addicted to fentanyl or they die. Melissa Lavasani: I think we're having a, Jay Kopelman: it's, it's just not fair to, to say everybody in this pot is the same, or everybody in this one is the same. We have [00:46:00] to look at it differently. Joe Moore: Yeah. I like to zoom one level out and kind of talk about, um, just how hurt we are as a country, as a world really, but as a country specifically, and how many people are out of work for so many. Joe Moore: Difficult reasons and away from their families for so many kind of tragic reasons. And if we can get people back to their families and back to work, a lot of these things start to self-correct, but we have to like have those interventions where we can heal folks and, and get them back. Um, yeah. And you know, everything from trauma, uh, in childhood, you know, adulthood, combat, whatever it is. Joe Moore: Like these things can put people on the sidelines. And Jay, to your point, like you get knee surgery and all of a sudden you're, you know, two years later you're on the hunt for Fentanyl daily. You know, that's tough. It's really tough. Carl Hart does a good job talking about this kind of addiction pipeline and [00:47:00] a few others do as well. Joe Moore: But it's just, you know, kind of putting it in a moral failure bucket. It's not great. I was chatting with somebody about, um, veterans, it's like you come back and you're like, what's gonna make me feel okay right now? And it's not always alcohol. Um, like this is the first thing that made me feel okay, because there's not great treatments and there's, there's a lot of improvements in this kind of like bringing people back from the field that needs to happen. Joe Moore: In my opinion. I, it seems to be shared by a lot of people, but yeah, there's, it's, it's, IGA is gonna be great. It's gonna be really important. I really can't wait for it to be at scale appropriately, but there's a lot of other things we need to fix too, um, so that we can just, you know, not have so many people we need to, you know, spend so much money healing. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Jay Kopelman: Yeah. You ahead with that. We don't need the president to sign an executive order to automatically legalize Ibogaine. Right. But it would be nice if he would reschedule it so that [00:48:00] then then researchers could do this research on a larger scale. You know, we could, we could now get some real data that would show the efficacy. Jay Kopelman: And it could be done in a safe environment, you know? And, and so that would be, do Joe Moore: you have any kind of figures, like, like, I've been talking about this for a while, Jay. Like, does it drop the cost a lot of doing research when we deschedule things? Jay Kopelman: I, I would imagine so, because it'll drop the cost of accessing the medicines that are being researched. Jay Kopelman: Right? You, you would have buy-in from more organizations. You know, you might even have a pharma company that comes into this, you know, look at j and j with the ketamine, right? They have, they have a nasal spray version of ketamine that's doing very well. I mean, it's probably their, their biggest revenue [00:49:00] provider for them right now. Jay Kopelman: And, and so. You know, you, it would certainly help and I think, I think it would lower costs of research to have something rescheduled rather than being schedule one. You know it, people are afraid to take chances when you're talking about Schedule one Melissa Lavasani: labs or they just don't have the money to research things that are on Schedule one. Melissa Lavasani: 'cause there's so much in an incredible amount of red tape that you have to go through and, and your facility has to be a certain way and how you contain those, uh, medicines. Oh, researching has to be in a specific container and it's just very cumbersome to research schedule one drugs. So absolutely the cost would go down. Melissa Lavasani: Um, but Joe Moore: yeah, absolutely. Less safes. Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. Joe Moore: Yes. Less uh, Melissa Lavasani: right. Joe Moore: Locked. Yeah. Um, it'll be really interesting when that happens. I'm gonna hold out faith. That we can see some [00:50:00] movement here. Um, because yeah, like why make healing more expensive than it needs to be? I think like that's potentially a protectionist move. Joe Moore: Like, I'm not, I'm not here yet, but, um, look at AbbVie's, uh, acquisition of the Gilgamesh ip. Mm-hmm. Like that's a really interesting move. I think it was $1.2 billion. Mm-hmm. So they're gonna wanna protect that investment. Um, and it's likely going to be an approved medication. Like, I don't, I don't see a world in which it's not an approved medication. Joe Moore: Um, you know, I don't know a timeline, I would say Jay Kopelman: yeah. Joe Moore: Less than six years, just given how much cash they've got. But who knows, like, I haven't followed it too closely. So, and that's an I bga derivative to be clear, everybody, um mm-hmm. If you're not, um, in, in the loop on that, which is hopeful, you know? Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. But I don't know what the efficacy is gonna be with that compared to Ibogaine and then we have to talk about the kind of proprietary molecule stuff. Um, there's like a whole bunch of things that are gonna go on here, and this is one of the reasons why I'm excited about. Federal involvement [00:51:00] because we might actually be able to have some sort of centralized manufacturer, um, or at least the VA could license three or four generic manufacturers per for instance, and that way prices aren't gonna be, you know, eight grand a dose or whatever. Joe Moore: You know, it's, Jay Kopelman: well, I think it's a very exciting time in the space. You know, I, I think that there's the opportunity for innovation. There is the opportunity for collaboration. There's the opportunity for, you know, long-term healing at a very low cost. You know, that we, we have the highest healthcare cost per capita in the world right here in the us. Jay Kopelman: And, and yet we are not the number one health system in the world. So to me, that doesn't add up. So we need to figure out a way to start. Bringing costs down for a lot of people and [00:52:00] at the same time increasing, increasing outcomes. Joe Moore: Absolutely. Yeah. There's a lot of possible outcome improvements here and, and you know, everything from relapse rates, like we hear often about people leaving a clinic and they go and overdose when they get home. Tragically, too common. I think there's everything from, you know, I'm Jay, I'm involved in an organization called the Psychedelics and Pain Association. Joe Moore: We look at chronic pain very seriously, and IGA is something we are really interested in. And if. We could have better, you know, research, there better outcome measures there. Um, you know, perhaps we can have less people on opioids to begin with from chronic pain conditions. Um, Jay Kopelman: yeah, I, I might be due for another Ibogaine journey then, because I deal with chronic pain from Jiujitsu, but, Joe Moore: oh gosh, let's Jay Kopelman: talk Joe Moore: later. Jay Kopelman: That's self inflicted. Some people would say take a month off, but Melissa Lavasani: yeah, Jay Kopelman: I'm [00:53:00] not, I'm not that smart. Joe Moore: Yeah. Um, but you know, this, uh, yeah, this whole thing is gonna be really interesting to see how it plays out. I'm endlessly hopeful pull because I'm still here. Right. I, I've been at this for almost 10 years now, very publicly, and I think we are seeing a lot of movement. Joe Moore: It's not always what we actually wanna see, but it is movement nonetheless. You know, how many people are writing on this now than there were before? Right. You know, we, we have people in New York Times writing somewhat regularly about psychedelics and. Even international media is covering it. What do we have legalization in Australia somewhat recently for psilocybin and MDMA, Czech Republic. Joe Moore: I think Germany made some moves recently. Mm-hmm. Um, really interesting to see how this is gonna just keep shifting. Um Jay Kopelman: mm-hmm. Joe Moore: And I think there's no way that we're not gonna have prescription psychedelics in three years in the United States. It pro probably more like a [00:54:00] year and a half. I don't know. Do you, are you all taking odds? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. I mean, I think Jay Kopelman: I, I gotta check Cal sheet, see what they're saying. Melissa Lavasani: I think it's safe to say, I mean, this could even come potentially the end of this year, I think, but definitely by the end of 2027, there's gonna be at least one psychedelic that's FDA approved. Joe Moore: Yeah. Yeah. Melissa Lavasani: If you're not counting Ketamine. Joe Moore: Right. Jay Kopelman: I, I mean, I mean it mm-hmm. It, it doesn't make sense that it. Shouldn't be or wouldn't be. Right. The, we've seen the benefits. Mm-hmm. We know what they are. It's at a very low cost, but you have to keep in mind that these things, they need to be done with the right set setting and container. Right. And, and gotta be able to provide that environment. Jay Kopelman: So, but I would, I would love, like I said, I'd love to work myself out of a job here and see this happen, not just for our veterans, [00:55:00] but for everybody. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Um, so Melissa, is there a way people can get involved or follow PMC or how can they support your work at PMC? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, I mean, follow us in social media. Melissa Lavasani: Um, our two biggest platforms are LinkedIn and Instagram. Um, I'm bringing my newsletter back because I'm realizing, um, you know, there is a big gap in, in kind of like the knowledge of Washington DC just in general. What's happening here, and I think, you know, part of PC's value is that we're, we are plugged into conversations that are being had, um, here in the city. Melissa Lavasani: And, you know, we do get a little insight. Um, and I think that that would really quiet a lot of, you know, the, a lot of noise that, um, exists in the, our ecosystem. If, if people just had some clarity on like, what's actually happening or happening here and what are the opportunities and, [00:56:00] um, where do we need more reinforcement? Melissa Lavasani: Um, and, and also, you know, as we're putting together public education campaign, you know. My, like, if I could get everything I wanted like that, that campaign would be this like multi-stakeholder collaborative effort, right? Where we're covering all the ground that we need to cover. We're talking to the patient groups, we're talking to traditional mental health organizations, we're talking to the medical community, we're talking to the general population. Melissa Lavasani: I think that's like another area that we, we just seem to be, um, lacking some effort in. And, you know, ultimately the veteran story's always super compelling. It pulls on your heartstrings. These are our heroes, um, of our country. Like that, that is, that is meaningful. But a lot of the veteran population is small and we need the, like a, the just.[00:57:00] Melissa Lavasani: Basic American living in middle America, um, understanding what psychedelics are so that in, in, in presenting to them the stories that they can relate to, um, because that's how you activate the public and you activate the public and you get them to see what's happening in these clinical trials, what the data's been saying, what the opportunities are with psychedelics, and then they start calling their members of Congress and saying, Hey, there is this. Melissa Lavasani: Bill sitting in Congress and why haven't you signed onto it? And that political pressure, uh, when used the right way can be really powerful. So, um, I think, you know, now we're at this really amazing moment where we have a good amount of congressional offices that are familiar enough with psychedelics that they're willing to move on it. Melissa Lavasani: Um, there's another larger group, uh, that is familiar with psychedelics and will assist and co-sponsor legislation, but there's still so many offices that we haven't been able to get to just 'cause like we don't have all the time in the world and all the manpower in the world to [00:58:00] do it. But, you know, that is one avenue is like the advocates can speak to the, the lawmakers, the experts speak to the lawmakers, and we not, we want the public engaged in this, you know, ultimately, like that's. Melissa Lavasani: Like the best form of harm reduction is having an informed public. So we are not, they're not seeing these media headlines of like, oh, this miracle cure that, um, saved my family. It's like, yes, that can happen psychedelics. I mean, person speaking personally, psychedelics did save my family. But what you miss out of that story is the incredible amount of work I put into myself and put into my mental health to this day to maintain, um, like myself, my, my own agency and like be the parent that I wanna be and be the spouse that I wanna be. Melissa Lavasani: So, um, we, we need to continue to share these stories and we need to continue to collaborate to get this message out because we're all, we're all in the same boat right now. We all want the same things. We want patients to have safe and [00:59:00] affordable access to psychedelic assisted care. Um, and, uh. We're just in the beginning here, so, um, sign up for our newsletter and we can sign up on our website and then follow us on social media. Melissa Lavasani: And, um, I anticipate more and more events, um, happening with PMC and hopefully we can scale up some of these events to be much more public facing, um, as this issue grows. So, um, I'm really excited about the future and I'm, I've been enjoying this partnership with Mission Within. Jay is such a professional and, and it really shows up when he needs to show up and, um, I look forward to more of that in the future. Joe Moore: Fantastic. And Jay, how can people follow along and support mission within Foundation? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, again, social media is gonna be a good way to do that. So we, we are also pretty heavily engaged on LinkedIn and on Instagram. Um, I do [01:00:00] share, uh, a bit of my own stuff as well. On social media. So we have social media pages for Mission within Foundation, and we have a LinkedIn page for mission within foundation. Jay Kopelman: I have my own profiles on both of those as well where people can follow along. Um, one of the other things you know that would probably help get more attention for this is if the general public was more aware of the numbers of professional athletes who are also now pursuing. I began specifically to help treat their traumatic brain injuries and the chronic traumatic encephalopathy that they've, uh, suffered as a result of their time in professional sports or even college sports. Jay Kopelman: And, you know. I people worship these athletes, and I [01:01:00] think that if more of them, like Robert Gall, were more outspoken about these treatments and the healing properties that they've provided them, that it would get even more attention. Um, I think though what Melissa said, you know, I don't wanna parrot anything she just said because she said it perfectly Right. Jay Kopelman: And I'd just be speaking to hear myself talk. Um, but being collaborative the way that we are with PMC and with Melissa is I think, the way to move the needle on this overall. And like she said, if she could get more groups involved in, in these discussions, it would, it would do wonders for us. Joe Moore: Well, thank you both so much for your hard work out there. I always appreciate it when people are showing up and doing this important, [01:02:00] sometimes boring and tedious, but nevertheless sometimes, sometimes exciting work. And um, so yeah, just thank you both and thank you both for showing up here to psychedelics today to join us and I hope we can continue to support you all in the future. Jay Kopelman: Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Joe. It's a pleasure being with you today and with Melissa, of course, always Melissa Lavasani: appreciate the time and space. Joe Moore: Thanks.  

Zarpa el Arpa - 14 de febrero 2026 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Desde la más remota antigüedad, las estructuras de poder han estado presenten en los diferentes grupos humanos desde las cuevas de Altamira hasta hoy. Esta realidad está presente en el libro del catedrático y emérito José Luis Villacañas, de la Universidad Complutense. Acaba de publicar el libro Senderos que se bifurcan (Arpa). Con él charlamos y escuchamos como si fuéramos sus alumnos.

Zarpa el Arpa - 7 de febrero 2026 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Arpa Talks cumple 100 episodios con una conversación con Lluís Bassat, una de las figuras más relevantes de la historia de la publicidad en España.La conversación recorre su trayectoria profesional y vital, desde los primeros contactos con el mundo del trabajo hasta su consolidación como publicista, pasando por la creación de su propia agencia y su relación con David Ogilvy.Bassat explica también cómo desarrolló los “caminos creativos”, una forma de entender la publicidad que ha marcado su manera de trabajar y su éxito profesional.A lo largo de la charla aparecen algunos de los grandes momentos de su vida profesional, como su papel en los Juegos Olímpicos de Barcelona 92 o su implicación en la campaña que llevó a Pasqual Maragall a la alcaldía de Barcelona, junto a reflexiones sobre el éxito, la ambición y la ansiedad.En la parte final de la conversación, Bassat explica a qué dedica hoy su tiempo: sigue vinculado a la publicidad y está muy implicado en su fundación, desde la que apoya proyectos sociales y promueve el arte contemporáneo.——¿Quieres apoyar Arpa Talks?1. Patrocina Arpa Talks y recibe libros de Arpa cada mes. https://arpaeditores.com/products/patrocinio-arpa-talks 2. Únete al canal de WhatsApp de Arpa Editores:https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7dsfcFXUuRmK8aoM0v 3. Responde nuestra encuesta. Te llevará un minuto y es anónima:https://forms.gle/DJHyLwVgLk9weY9H84. ¡Compra libros de Arpa! http://www.arpaeditores.com——YouTube: ‪@ArpaTalks‬ Spotify: https://bitly.cx/G6aCDApple Podcast: https://bitly.cx/gLW2INewsletter: https://arpaeditores.com/pages/newsletterTwitter: https://x.com/arpaeditoresMail: talks@arpaeditores.com——Música original de Alfo G. Aguado x Udio

Acogemos un encuentro con el periodista Daniel Iriarte, con motivo de la publicación de su ensayo Guerras Cognitivas (editorial Arpa). Guerras cognitivas es el primer ensayo en español que analiza de forma integral una de las mayores amenazas contemporáneas: el uso de las tecnologías de la información como herramienta de manipulación masiva. Un tema decisivo para el futuro de la democracia y la estabilidad global. #GuerrasCognitivas Mas información en: https://espacio.fundaciontelefonica.com/evento/guerras-cognitivas/ Un nuevo espacio para una nueva cultura: visita el Espacio Fundación Telefónica en pleno corazón de Madrid, en la calle Fuencarral 3. Visítanos y síguenos en: Web: https://espacio.fundaciontelefonica.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/EspacioFTef Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/espaciofundaciontef Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/espacioftef/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/CulturaSiglo21

Hablamos con la catedrática emérita de filosofía Victoria Camps, autora del libro “La sociedad de la desconfianza” (Arpa editorial) donde nos plantea cómo recuperar la confianza en un mundo donde se ha perdido la visión moral de la política y la vida cotidiana. Nos recibe la filósofa en su casa de Sant Cugat, una población cercana a Barcelona. Sobre la mesa un café que casi se nos olvida beber porque la conversación enseguida nos enreda a comentar el mal momento que estamos viviendo. La filosofía es más necesaria que nunca. Más necesaria que este primer café que se enfría. En un rato llegarán los hijos y los nietos a comer con ella, y ahí la filósofa da paso a la abuela que igual reflexiona sobre la condición humana preparando el sofrito.  

Zarpa el Arpa - 31 de enero 2026 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

En este episodio de Arpa Talks conversamos con Gregorio Luri, filósofo, ensayista y maestro, en una conversación sobre la escuela y la educación en España.La charla comienza con cuestiones filosóficas de fondo: qué cosas son importantes, Platón, el mito y el logos, y algunos de los grandes momentos —o civilizaciones estelares— de la historia de la humanidad. A partir de ahí, se abordan algunas de las posiciones más polémicas de Luri y se habla del diálogo: de la dificultad real de dialogar con quien piensa diferente y de cómo esa dificultad se hace especialmente visible cuando se traslada al contexto de la geopolítica contemporánea.La conversación avanza entonces hacia la escuela y la educación en España: para qué existe la escuela, qué significa como institución, cómo era en el pasado y cómo es hoy. Hablamos de las leyes educativas, de los debates que atraviesan el discurso pedagógico actual y de por qué la idea de una “crisis de la escuela” reaparece de forma recurrente.Luri defiende la escuela como una institución noble, aunque inevitablemente imperfecta, y discute qué rasgos permiten pensar qué es una buena escuela. La conversación se cierra con una reflexión sobre los hijos y sobre la insistencia, frecuente entre padres y abuelos, en subrayar la importancia de esa experiencia.Una conversación exigente y muy interesante sobre filosofía, diálogo y educación en España.——¿Quieres apoyar Arpa Talks?1. Únete al canal de WhatsApp de Arpa Editores:https://chat.whatsapp.com/GHChxe1LBlbCGWnBfmvXhu2. Patrocina Arpa Talks y recibe libros de Arpa cada mes. https://arpaeditores.com/products/patrocinio-arpa-talks3. Responde a nuestra encuesta. Son 60 segundos y es anónima:https://forms.gle/DJHyLwVgLk9weY9H84. ¡Compra libros de Arpa! http://www.arpaeditores.com——YouTube: ‪@ArpaTalks‬ Spotify: https://bitly.cx/G6aCDApple Podcast: https://bitly.cx/gLW2INewsletter: https://arpaeditores.com/pages/newsletterTwitter: https://x.com/arpaeditoresMail: talks@arpaeditores.com——Música de Alfo G. Aguado x Udio

Peachtree Corners continues to push forward on what “smart city” can really mean—and in this in-person episode of Peachtree Corners Life, host Rico Figliolini sits down with City Councilman Phil Sadd (Post 1, District 1) to unpack the biggest initiatives shaping the city right now. From public safety innovation to trails, traffic, redevelopment, and housing, Phil walks through what's happening, why it matters, and what residents can expect next.Leading the conversation is a new Drone as First Responder pilot that can launch automatically from certain 911 priority calls—arriving on scene in seconds to provide real-time awareness, improve safety, and support de-escalation before officers arrive. The episode also covers major quality-of-life and economic development efforts including Crooked Creek Trail, workforce/affordable homeownership in Mechanicsville, updates on The Forum redevelopment, the new public innovation park Curiosity Corner, and upcoming mobility projects like the Peachtree Parkway lane conversion and the Winter's Chapel corridor multi-use path open house.Key takeawaysDrone as First Responder (DFR) is launching as a pilot with Brinc (integrated with Motorola's dispatch ecosystem), and Peachtree Corners is one of five partner cities—and the only one in Georgia.Crooked Creek Trail is a major long-term project (about 1.3 miles plus spurs) with heavy environmental and safety constraints due to waterway/EPA requirements; construction is still roughly two years out.Mechanicsville workforce homeownership plan uses ARPA funds for land acquisition (about five acres) and a public-private build model with price caps and anti-flip protections to keep homes affordable long-term.The Forum redevelopment is moving toward execution: Barnes & Noble relocation enables a 125-room boutique hotel on the corner; multifamily plans are updated to below 300 units, with parking decks designed to be visually screened by buildings; target start is early 2027 (funding-dependent).Curiosity Corner is a public innovation park in Technology Park with shaded seating + connectivity, plus testing for things like Pipedream underground delivery, drone delivery, and EV programs; projected completion this spring.Traffic improvement on Peachtree Parkway: converting an existing southbound turn lane into a third straight-through lane to reduce bottlenecks; funded via SPLOST with state permission.Winter's Chapel multi-use path (Phase 2) open house: joint city involvement due to corridor “zigzag” boundaries; open house is Feb 12, 5–7.Public safety discussion focuses on improving the county partnership: Phil emphasizes better communication, better data/metrics, a potential satellite office in Peachtree Corners, and addressing staffing shortages rather than rushing toward a new department vote.

Abrimos La Ventana de los libros para recibir a Luis Solano, editor de Libros del Asteroide, sello que ha publicado 'Hamnet' en lengua castellana, y a Joaquín Palau, editor de Arpa, en septiembre publicaron una nueva edición de 'Frankenstein o el moderno Prometeo' de Mary Shelley. Sigue el concurso de relatos para conocer al relato ganador de enero. Nieves Concostrina hace un nuevo repaso por la historia. Y por último, Isaías Lafuente repasa los mejores momentos del día. 

Ser Historia viaja al Museo Diocesano Regina Coeli de Santillana del Mar para disfrutar de la historia de una región absolutamente increíble. Comenzamos el cronovisor con Eduardo Palacio, conservador de las cuevas prehistóricas de Cantabria hablando de las teorías que se han presentado con más fuerza en las últimas décadas relacionando algunas pinturas rupestres con las estrellas. Luego nos visita Sara Izquierdo, alcaldesa de Santillana del Mar. Con ella descubrimos la belleza del patrimonio cultural de esta localidad cántabra. Pedro Ángel Fernández Vega, autor de Historia de Roma. Los orígenes (Ed. Arpa 2025), nos habla de los orígenes de la historia de Roma y la romanización. Acabamos el programa con Enrique Campuzano, director del Museo Diocesano quien nos pone en bandeja la historia de este lugar del siglo XVI y la riqueza arqueológica, artística y documental con que cuenta

Zarpa el Arpa - 24 de enero 2026 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Then, we transition to a panel led by Susan Stuart Clark featuring library directors Jayanti Addleman (Hayward) and Derek Wolfgram (Redwood City). They share on-the-ground stories of how their institutions transformed overnight—from providing hotspots and homework centers to becoming de facto daytime shelters for unhoused neighbors. This episode highlights the resilience of library staff, the mental health crisis, and the lasting impact of the digital divide.Key Topics & Takeaways[00:03:40] Origins of “Free for All”: How the filmmakers realized librarians are "first responders" during Hurricane Katrina, aiding evacuees when other systems failed.[00:10:45] The RV Tour Idea: Innovative distribution plans to project the documentary in library parking lots to maintain community during social distancing.[00:15:00] Hayward's Pivot: How Hayward Public Library immediately extended loan periods to one year and distributed hotspots to support students and immigrant families.[00:18:20] Redwood City Online: The surprise benefit of online programming, which increased accessibility for people with disabilities and transportation barriers.[00:21:00] Basic Needs & Hygiene: Libraries stepping up to provide portable toilets and handwashing stations for unhoused populations when public spaces closed.[00:30:00] The Heartbreak of Success: A story about a patron who found housing but was devastated to lose his daily connection to the Redwood City Library community.[00:50:00] The Future of Funding: The unprecedented opportunity of ARPA stimulus funds going directly to cities to help rebuild local services.Guests & HostGeorge Koster – Host and Executive Producer of Voices of the Community.Eric Estrada – Associate Producer and Host.Dawn Logsdon & Lucie Faulknor – Co-Founders of Serendipity Films and creators of the documentary Free for All.Susan Stuart Clark – Founder of Common Knowledge and community engagement expert.Jayanti Addleman – Director of Library Services for the City of Hayward.Derek Wolfgram – Library Director of Redwood City Public Library.Resources & Links MentionedFree for All Documentary: Learn more about the film at FreeForAllFilms.org.Voices of the Community Episode 10: Listen to the full interview with the filmmakers here: https://georgekoster.com/voc-free-for-allVoices of the Community Library Panel: Listen to the full panel discussion with Susan, Jayanti, and Derek here: https://georgekoster.com/voc-stories-common-knowledge-library-panelLearn More about our Guests & Series Listen to the full conversations: Dive deeper into these stories by listening to the complete interviews in Episode 10 and the Library Panel Episode.Explore the Series: Check out the full COVID-19 Special SeriesSupport the Show: Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to help us continue producing these stories. Click the donate button at voicesofthecommunity.comSignup for our Newsletter to stay in the loop on future shows and live eventsMake a Donation: Support Voices of the Community, fiscally sponsored by Intersection for the Arts, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and enjoy tax deductions for your contributions. Credits & AcknowledgmentsProduced by: George Koster and Alien Boy ProductionsAssociate Producer, Audio & Video: Eric EstradaVisual Design: Casey Nance of Citron StudioBroadcast Partners: KSFP-LP 102.5 FM (San Francisco) and KPCA-LP 103.3 FM (Petaluma)Special Thanks: BAVC Media for the initial collaboration on the SF Non-Profit Spotlight.TranscriptFull transcripts and video episodes are available on our website and YouTube channel.Website:https://georgekoster.com/voc-c19-highlight-show-part-4-libraries-transcriptYouTube: George Koster Delve deeper into the Voices of the Community Series on Arts & Culture, Making the Invisible Visible, Covid-19's impact on nonprofits, small enterprises and local government, the City of Stockton's rise from the ashes of bankruptcy, and our archives:You can explore episodes, speakers, organizations, and resources through each series web page. Watch and learn from all five series now!,

Zarpa el Arpa - 17 de enero 2026 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

El escritor y periodista Fidel Moreno nos habla de El hombre equivocado en el momento oportuno (Ed. Pre-Textos), su primer poemario como tal, que es abono para el pensamiento crítico, el derecho a la duda y a la contradicción. Luego, Ignacio Elguero se asoma a los escaparates para recomendarnos varios libros: Albión (Ed. Libros del Asteroide), novela de la británica Anna Hope sobre la herencia y los privilegios de clase, Jorge Luis Borges. Un destino literario (Ed. Cátedra), biografía en la que el profesor Lucas Adur reinterpreta algunos episodios de la vida del escritor argentino a partir de los últimos documentos encontrados y A sangre y fuego. Héroes, bestias y mártires de España (Ed. Plataforma), reedición de la célebre colección de cuentos que Manuel Chaves Nogales escribió basándose en historias reales de la guerra civil española.Además, Javier Lostalé nos lee unos versos de En la hondura del tiempo, volumen que recoge treinta y siete poemas de la muy laureada escritora mexicana Coral Bracho en una cuidada edición de La Colección Péñola Blanca de la Fundación César Manrique.En su sección, Sergio C. Fanjul pone sobre la mesa Orfidal y Caballero (Ed. Arpa), libro en el que Ángeles Caballero baraja textos de corte periodístico con apuntes del natural, anécdotas de la vida e impresiones de todo tipo en las que saca partido a su ojo para el detalle y su desparpajo habitual.Terminamos el programa en compañía de Mariano Peyrou, que hoy pasa olímpicamente de las novedades para proponernos las obras de dos escritoras en neerlandés: la holandesa Albertina Soepboer, a la que leemos en una traducción del propio Peyrou, y la belga Charlotte van de Broek, de la que la editorial De Conatus publicó su libro Camaleón.Escuchar audio

(ENTREVISTA OCTUBRE DE 2025 - AUDIO FRANCÉS SUBTITULADO AL CASTELLANO) El invitado de hoy es Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, historiador de la ciencia y autor de Sans transition. La entrevista es en francés y la hemos subtitulado, así que esperamos que podáis disfrutarla igual. En esta conversación cuestiona uno de los relatos más repetidos de nuestro tiempo: el de la “transición energética”.Fressoz explica por qué nunca ha existido una verdadera sustitución de unas fuentes de energía por otras, sino una acumulación. A través de ejemplos históricos —del paso de la madera al carbón, del petróleo al gas, del auge del nuclear a la persistencia de la fuerza humana y animal— muestra que nuestras sociedades no reemplazan energías: las suman.Hablamos del origen ideológico del concepto de transición, de su papel político y cultural desde los años 60, y de cómo se ha convertido en una coartada para mantener el statu quo. Fressoz analiza también la revolución actual de la inteligencia artificial, el efecto rebote, los límites de la descarbonización y la necesidad de pensar la energía con otra escala temporal: la escala geológica.

Cathy Love is joined by Michelle Oliver, Chief Occupational Therapist at Occupational Therapy Australia, for a grounded conversation about the realities facing occupational therapists and Allied Health professionals across workforce, policy, and business.Michelle shares what OT Australia is seeing on the ground, including mounting pressure on Allied Health businesses, the ongoing challenges of NDIS pricing and access, and why sustained relationship-building with government is critical. The conversation also explores how OT Australia is responding through advocacy, professional practice frameworks, and a significantly expanded approach to learning and development — all under the banner of being Stronger Together.This episode is essential listening for OTs, Allied Health Business Owners, and leaders navigating reform, sustainability concerns, and the need for a clearer, more unified professional voice.Topics covered on workforce pressure, advocacy, NDIS pricing, and professional development::Workforce & sustainabilityThe increasing pressure on occupational therapists, including private practice viability, rapid workforce growth, and the tension between values-driven care and commercial realities.Advocacy & influenceWhy OT Australia is prioritising stronger relationships with ministers and departments, and working collaboratively through ARPA to strengthen allied health's voice at a national level.NDIS pricing & accessReframing travel and service costs as issues of access rather than waste, and unpacking what provider survey results reveal about sustainability risks.Learning, development & capabilityHow OT Australia's capability frameworks and flexible CPD offerings are evolving to better support a younger, growing workforce.Related EpisodesEpisode 379: The Bill, the Rules, and the Realities of NDIS in 2026 with Muriel CumminsP.S. Need a little extra support on your business journey? Whether you're navigating challenges or looking to reach new goals, we're here to support your growth.

Zarpa el Arpa - 10 de enero 2026 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Joplin Mayor Keenan Cortez joined NewsTalk KZRG to discuss more than half a million dollars going to planning upgrades to storm water drainage, ARPA dollars being reallocated, and the Chamber of Commerce. Join Ted, and Lucas for the KZRG Morning Newswatch!

Zarpa el Arpa - 3 de enero 2026 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

En este episodio de Arpa Talks conversamos con Joaquín Palau, editor y cofundador de Arpa, en una entrevista muy especial que abre el nuevo año.Hablamos de los diez años de Arpa: del balance de esta primera década, de si puede hablarse o no de éxito, del momento actual de la editorial y de cómo imaginar su futuro. La conversación pone el acento en el trabajo colectivo que hay detrás de una editorial y en la importancia de la gratitud hacia quienes la han hecho posible.Recorremos su trayectoria como editor —de Grup 62 a Destino, RBA y Arpa— y, sobre todo, su formación filosófica: qué significó estudiar filosofía, cómo aprendió a leer filosofía y literatura, y qué autores han marcado de manera decisiva su pensamiento y su manera de editar.Hablamos de poesía, de clásicos, del sentido de publicarlos hoy, del gusto, del criterio y del oficio de editor entendido como un trabajo al servicio de la obra ajena. Y, en un plano más personal, de la familia y de cómo es trabajar con un hijo en un proyecto común.Una conversación serena y profundamente editorial sobre libros, pensamiento y edición independiente.——¿Quieres apoyar Arpa Talks?1. Únete al canal de WhatsApp de Arpa Editores:https://chat.whatsapp.com/GHChxe1LBlbCGWnBfmvXhu2. Patrocina Arpa Talks y recibe libros de Arpa cada mes. https://arpaeditores.com/products/patrocinio-arpa-talks3. Responde a nuestra encuesta. Son 60 segundos y es anónima:https://forms.gle/DJHyLwVgLk9weY9H84. ¡Compra libros de Arpa! http://www.arpaeditores.com——YouTube: ‪@ArpaTalks‬ Spotify: https://bitly.cx/G6aCDApple Podcast: https://bitly.cx/gLW2INewsletter: https://arpaeditores.com/pages/newsletterTwitter: https://x.com/arpaeditoresMail: talks@arpaeditores.com——Música de Alfo G. Aguado x Udio

Zarpa el Arpa - 27 de diciembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Nos visita el escritor y periodista Sergio C. Fanjul para presentarnos su último ensayo 'Cronofobia', o el miedo al paso del tiempo, que publica la editorial Arpa. Una interesante reflexión sobre la experiencia del tiempo, la memoria, el edadismo y el fatal presentimiento de que vivimos en un mundo, que acabará autodestruyéndose

Nos preparamos para decir adiós a 2025 con la ayuda de Sergio Fanjul. El periodista y escritor nos presenta Cronofobia (Ed. Arpa), su último ensayo, en el que se sincera sobre su miedo al paso de los años, además de investigar otras cuestiones relacionadas con la experiencia colectiva del tiempo, como la sensación de futuro abolido y la tendencia a la nostalgia.Luego, Javier Lostalé nos propone hacer memoria para celebrar varios aniversarios: el cincuentenario de Sepulcro de Tarquinia, emblemático poemario de Antonio Colinas que acaba de ser reeditado por Siruela y el centenario del nacimiento de Ángel González, voz fundamental de la generación de los cincuenta, a la que podemos asomarnos a través de Eso era amor (Ed. Nórdica), antología ilustrada que recoge algunos poemas fundamentales del escritor asturiano.Además, Ignacio Elguero se asoma a los escaparates para sugerirnos algunas lecturas en estas vacaciones: El corazón negro (Ed. Alfaguara), novela policiaca del escritor ucraniano Andrei Kurkov, La edad de los fantasmas (Ed. Visor), el nuevo poemario de Benjamín Prado, la reedición del Frankenstein de Mary Shelley que acaba de sacar la editorial Planeta con prólogo de Siri Husvedt y El camino que no elegimos (Ed. Destino), la nueva ficción de Ana Merino.En Peligro en La estación hablamos de Te esperaré antes (Ed. Continta me tienes) volumen ideado por María Tinaut que recoge un conjunto de cartas escritas ex profeso por distintas autoras que utilizan la misiva para despedirse simbólicamente de personas, actitudes, momentos o cosas del pasado.Terminamos el programa (y el año) Desmontando el poema en compañía de Mariano Peyrou, que esta vez se centra en el bellísimo poema que el chileno Gonzalo Rojas escribió para celebrar su octogésimo cumpleaños. Una lección de vida y de altísima literatura.Escuchar audio

Guest Levi Minderhoud, policy analyst with ARPA- educate, equip, and encourage Reformed Christians to action. Levi and I recap the October 18 IMPACT seminar in Edmonton bringing awareness to the connections between human trafficking, pornography and abortion in Canada. Policy analyst based in Western Canada, Levi researches, analyzes, and advocates for public policy issues from a Christian worldview at the federal level and in the Western Canadian provinces. He also has a particular expertise in issues relating to gender and sexuality.Prior to joining the ARPA staff in June 2019, Levi earned a bachelor's degree from Dordt University in political science, business, and economics and a Master of Public Policy degree from Simon Fraser University. He also spent stints interning for a Member of Parliament, working within the federal civil service, and leading a local ARPA chapter.Levi lives with his wife Jillian and two daughters in Mission, British Columbia. When off the clock, you'll find Levi participating in all things hockey, tickling the ivories, and playing every board and card game imaginable.Contact Levi at Levi@ARPACanada.cahttps://arpacanada.cahttps://www.youtube.com/arpacanadahttps://www.facebook.com/arpacanadaARPA'S MISSIONTo educate, equip, and encourage Reformed Christians toPOLITICAL ACTIONPlease share this with others!❤️

"Organizations like ours attract people to them when they have standards. Men see an opportunity for themselves to develop and get better and grow."  A strong men's organization, the kind that truly serves men, grows by enforcing a high standard. This creates an environment where men are challenged to rise and attracts the men who are ready to do just that. Invite the right men in, set clear standards, and be willing to remove those who refuse to show up, engage, or improve. When these standards are clear and unwavering, the culture is strong and builds momentum.   This is another Arpa & Billou episode. They revisit how Sovereign Man shifted its context to upgrade the quality of the group, attracting more committed members. Arpa explains how they created a culture of cohesion and trust and ultimately attracted more men who wanted leadership development, brotherhood, and real-world results. Men prepared to do the hard work of looking inside themselves and standing up for their fellow man.  Rob Arpa is a senior council member of Sovereign Man. He's a husband, father and owner/operator of a 7 figure business.  Learn more & connect:   https://www.sovereignman.ca/  Also in this episode:  Book: The Prophet — Kahlil Gibran  You're invited to come to a Sovereign Circle meeting to experience it for yourself. To learn more, go to https://www.sovereignman.ca/. While you're there, check out the Battle Ready program and check out the store for Sovereign Man t-shirts, hats, and books. 

CDMX llama a celebrar Navidad sin pirotecnia  Notre Dame, el monumento más visitado de París tras su reapertura  ¿Sabía qué el arpa es el símbolo sagrado en la cultura yaqui?  Más información en nuestro podcast

Welcome to the latest episode of Carolina Cabinet! Host Peter Pappas is joined by intrepid reporter Myron Pitts and co-host Laura Musler for Cumberland County's smartest hour of talk radio. In this lively conversation, the trio digs into the pulse of Fayetteville's local politics, from election filings and the perennial drama at city council to candid reflections on voter turnout and the real impact of local government on our daily lives.You'll hear a refreshing dose of bipartisanship as Laura Musler and Myron Pitts examine what keeps local politics both passionate and pragmatic, debating everything from the transparency of ARPA funds to why potholes—and clean water—aren't partisan issues. Plus, they take on some big-picture topics like healthcare, the changing landscape of media, and the importance of community involvement, while keeping the conversation grounded in the issues that matter most to residents.If you've ever wondered about how decisions made at city council shape our future, or what really drives local political engagement, this episode is for you. Whether you're a longtime Fayetteville resident or just want smarter local talk, tune in to Carolina Cabinet for insight, wit, and a thoughtful look at the stories shaping our community.big-picture topics like healthcare, the changing media landscape

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

St Louis Mayor Cara Spencer joins Chris and Amy in-studio. She points out that the tornado was about 6-weeks after she took office, but continues to work and plan for the winter months in terms of shelters for impacted people. 'We are not ideal', says Spencer in terms of federal or state funding on recovery. She also talks about the amount of money available through ARPA funds and Rams settlement money. She points out the 'big unknown' as to how flexible the federal government will be to reallocation of money towards tornado relief. She says she feels good heading into winter regarding snow removal.

La mecánica cuántica, el origen de la vida o el envejecimiento siguen siendo los misterios profundos de nuestra existencia. La investigadora Sonia Contera los explora en 'Seis problemas que la ciencia no puede resolver' (Arpa).

Yo decidí llorar andando.

The McGraw Show 11-18-25: ARPA Funds, Butterflies, the Concert Rehearsal Facility & Doing Liners by

90% of Gen Z diners like communal table dining. Chris and Amy discuss the findings. ARPA funds face a deadline to be spent by St Louis.

In episode #329, Ben Murray, The SaaS CFO, breaks down the growing debate around SaaS economics versus AI economics. A recent post claimed that “SaaS metrics are broken” and that traditional KPIs no longer apply to AI companies. Ben challenges this idea and walks through why recurring revenue metrics still matter, how revenue models differ across SaaS and AI, and what CFOs need to understand about gross margin, unit economics, and total addressable market. Key Topics Covered Why claims that SaaS metrics are “broken” are inaccurate The difference between SaaS economics and AI economics Why recurring revenue metrics still apply to AI companies How subscription versus usage revenue impacts KPI calculation Gross margin expectations for SaaS vs. AI companies Whether AI companies truly generate more profit per customer The role of absolute profit versus per-customer economics How AI may expand TAM by targeting labor budgets, not just software budgets How Agentic AI affects financial modeling and cost structures Using ROSE (Return on Software Employees) to evaluate AI-driven ROI What You'll Learn Why SaaS metrics still matter for both SaaS and AI companies How CFOs should evaluate margins, ARR, and revenue quality in AI models The difference between rate-based economics (ARPA, ACV) and volume-based economics (absolute profit) How to think about financial strategy when transitioning from a pure SaaS model to an AI-embedded product model How to assess realistic AI unit economics instead of relying on hype Who This Episode Is For SaaS CFOs and finance leaders evaluating AI investments Founders embedding AI into their product and adjusting their financial models Operators who want a grounded understanding of real AI economics Investors assessing how AI shifts revenue models and margins Related Resources Ben's upcoming deep-dive blog post on SaaS vs. AI economics: TheSaaSCFO.com SaaS Metrics Foundation course for mastering KPI's, ARR, MRR, and unit economics: https://www.thesaasacademy.com/the-saas-metrics-foundation ROSE metric framework for analyzing AI-driven productivity and financial systems: https://www.thesaascfo.com/saas-rose-metric/

Repasamos la actualidad de la semana de la mano de Hans-Günter Kellner, Ana Fuentes, Íñigo Domínguez y Mathieu de Taillac, que pasa por la promoción de las obras culturales españolas con más resonancia internacional del momento: 'Lux', el nuevo disco de Rosalía, y 'Réconciliation', las memorias de Juan Carlos I. Sumamos a la conversación al periodista Sergio Fanjul, que también publica libro, en este caso sobre el miedo al paso del tiempo: 'Cronofobia' (Arpa, 2025).

El arpa es uno de los instrumentos más antiguos del mundo, con raíces que se remontan a las civilizaciones egipcias y mesopotámicas. Con el paso de los siglos, viajó hasta América Latina, donde se transformó y adoptó características propias en cada país. Del 6 al 8 de noviembre se llevará a cabo el tercer Congreso internacional de Arpistas en Guadalajara Con lo mejor del Arpa de Brasil, chile, Colombia, Paraguay y por supuesto, México; donde se podrán disfrutar Clases maestras, conversatorios, conciertos didácticos, para finalizar con un concierto que será un viaje sonoro a través de cuerdas, ritmos y emociones: el concierto “Arpa Latinoamericana – Sonidos que Nos Hermanan”. En este podcast de El Expresso de las 10, conoceremos más de esta música y sus intérpretes con los Arpistas Mexicanos Miguel Ángel Martínez Estrada y Luis Ku, músico anfitrión del 3er Congreso Internacional de Arpistas.

Civilisation ou chaos. Cuisine ou barbarie. Deux chocs d'une même ampleur. Sous son air espiègle, la cheffe Maria Nicolau pousse à ouvrir les yeux et à réaliser l'abîme dans lequel nos sociétés se laissent glisser mollement. À l'heure de la standardisation, des plats préparés, de l'uniformisation, la cheffe catalane Maria Nicolau interpelle, bouscule : il est urgent de redonner du sens à l'acte de cuisiner. (Rediffusion) Urgent de se réapproprier cet édifice de nos libertés, si accessible, à la portée de tous, enfants y compris ! Dans les casseroles, se mijotent nos singularités, les paysages, la mer lorsqu'elle est proche, la montagne, les familles, l'amour, la haine, les traditions héritées depuis des générations, les transmissions, les rivalités. Quelques kilomètres suffisent pour humer un ailleurs, pour résister à la monotonie et à la standardisation. Du pain, de la tomate et de l'ail le matin sur du pain et je sais d'où tu viens. Une sauce gombo au petit qui ne boit plus que du lait et je sais d'où tu viens. La «cuisine maison» pour identité, et atout maître, le livre (cri !) de Maria Nicolau «Cuisine ou barbarie» pour guide, révolutionnaire ! Juste, incisif, drôle, émouvant, édifiant et féministe, il est à mettre entre toutes les mains, à transmettre évidemment !!!  Avec Maria Nicolau, cheffe catalane et autrice de «Cuisine ou barbarie», aux éditions Arpa.  Nos grands-mères ont passé toute leur vie à cuisiner, elles ont fait ce qu'elles pouvaient avec ce qu'elles avaient. Elles nous ont sauvés de la faim ! Et là maintenant, à la télévision, les chefs professionnels donnent des recettes et affirment : «C'est ça la vraie cuisine !» Et là, on a des générations, des milliards de femmes ayant donné toute leur vie à la cuisine qui pensent qu'elles ne font pas assez bien ! Quand j'y pense, j'ai tellement honte. Je pense qu'on a folklorisé tout ça. On a dit : «Les grands-mères font de la bonne cuisine, mais c'est juste de la cuisine du quotidien, et elle est bonne parce qu'elles la font avec amour.» Non ! Elles y mettent de la technique ! Les grands-mères supportaient une vraie pression. Dans ce métier qu'est la cuisine domestique, si tu ne cuisines pas bien, si tu ne sais pas gérer un budget, tu n'arrives pas à terminer le mois et à nourrir tes enfants. Il y a de la science là-dedans ! Même si elles n'ont pas eu l'opportunité d'aller à l'école, elles ont la science. Elles ne peuvent peut-être pas dire combien de grammes, de minutes, de secondes, mais elles savent le faire parfaitement, et ça, c'est sérieux ! ► Pour suivre la cheffe Maria Nicolau : - Site internet Maria Nicolau - Instagram - Chroniques sur radio Catalunya - Grandmas Project, une websérie collaborative, de la cuisine et des grands-mères loin du folklore, notamment dans « ce lapin ivre ».  ► Programmation musicale : - « Free » – Prince - « Tatuaje » – Concha Piquer Zarzuela.

“Council is empowered — they're not using their power.” Brenda Faye Butler from Birmingham to Detroit—walks us through a life that links the Civil Rights South to the Eastside today: a coal miner's daughter who landed here after the 1967 uprising, trained at 14 by Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth to knock doors and teach neighbors the civics needed to pass voter tests, and later inside the Wayne County's first executive administration of Bill Lucas “setting up how government would run.” Brenda unpacks why council-by-district matters, how ARPA and CDBG dollars should “follow the people,” and why CRIO must truly monitor deals “If a developer says they met with the community—who?”. Brenda Butler is a community voice that represents the Eastside residents where politics and business connect. She's real about development math, tax abatements, and the difference between promises and delivery: “Stop saying jobs; people want careers.” We trace her organizing arc—from Chandler Park meetings during the housing crisis to tracking Stellantis benefits and flood relief gaps—tying it all to Legacy Black Detroit's past (migration, unions, church-led civics) and future (youth seats on CACs, manufacturing training, climate resilience). And as a write-in for District 4's Community Advisory Council, she makes it plain: “Bring everyone to the table. That's equity.” By the time she spells the ballot line—“Write in B-R-E-N-D-A F-A-Y-E B-U-T-L-E-R—coal miner's daughter working for us”—you'll hear why her voice maps where Detroit has been and where we're going. Detroit is Different is a podcast hosted by Khary Frazier covering people adding to the culture of an American Classic city. Visit www.detroitisdifferent.com to hear, see and experience more of what makes Detroit different. Follow, like, share, and subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes, Google Play, and Sticher. Comment, suggest and connect with the podcast by emailing info@detroitisdifferent.com

Analysts Don Kellogg and Roger Entner break down Q3 earnings for AT&T and T-Mobile, exploring strengths, weaknesses, and what the numbers reveal about their future as industry leaders.00:00 Episode intro 00:25 AT&T Q3 overview 02:59 Convergence as a key strategy 04:35 T-Mobile Q3 overview 05:27 Price increases and free lines 07:35 AT&T CapEx and rural strategy 09:02 T-Mobile's network leadership 09:27 AT&T and Verizon's new ad campaigns 11:26 Which metrics are trustworthy? 13:38 Networks are meeting customer needs 15:38 Verizon Q3 predictions and episode wrap-upTags: telecom, telecommunications, wireless, prepaid, postpaid, cellular phone, Don Kellogg, Roger Entner, earnings, AT&T, net adds, convergence, fiber, Frontier, spectrum, T-Mobile, cable, FWA, ARPA, network, satellite, Starlink, Verizon, Comcast, Nielsen, churn, Ookla

An ARPA grant from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources allowed the city to invest $5 million to restore the Blue River. Once a favorite for outdoor recreation in Kansas City, the river has become polluted as a result of urbanization.

The city of Vancouver is launching a new Revolving Loan Fund to expand access to capital for small businesses unable to secure traditional financing. With $1.2 million from ARPA and a focus on underserved communities, the city seeks a nonprofit CDFI partner to administer and grow the fund. Proposals are due Dec. 10. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/city-of-vancouver-seeks-partner-to-launch-and-administer-new-revolving-loan-fund/ #Vancouver #EconomicDevelopment #SmallBusiness #CDFI #ARPA #FourthPlain #Entrepreneurship #Funding #BusinessFinance #Washington

From organizing the first energy conference in 1992, which concluded that the Medzamor Nuclear Power Plant should be restarted for the country's survival, to developing AI algorithms combating disinformation campaigns against Armenia, ARPA Institute has long been at the intersection of research, innovation and national strategies for the future. Dr. Hagop Panossian, founder and president of the institute, speaks about the solutions-based approach that has defined ARPA's work for more than three decades.

In this episode, we're joined by Inês Lourenco, VP of Growth at Usercentrics, the privacy-led MarTech company that is powering consent on 2M+ websites & apps across 200 countries for 600k customers.  Inês unpacks how she built a 50-person growth org of cross-functional pods (Monetization & Pricing, Acquisition & Virality, Activation, Partner Experience, CMS Integrations, and Retention) around a simple thesis: growth = product distribution. She details the early, scrappy phase with manual signal detection, nightly queries, and “product specialist” outreach - through to a scalable system that routes users to self-serve, low-touch, or high-touch paths based on predicted AOV, with a hard-earned lesson to start with activation before everything else. We spoke with Inês about turning signals into revenue, structuring pods, and creating an operating cadence where every pod owns its metric such as ARPA growth, NRR/GRR, activation time, and virality share, while collaborating tightly with Product, Marketing, Sales, and CS.  Here are some of the key questions we address: How do you define growth as product distribution and design pods that actually move revenue, not vanity metrics? What signals predict AOV early, and how do you route users to self-serve vs. low/high-touch experiences accordingly? Why did “product specialist” outreach outperform SDR-style messaging, and how do you structure those “baby-step” nudges? If you're starting from scratch, why begin with an Activation pod and what are the first experiments to run? How do you set pod-level metrics (ARPA growth, activation time, virality share, NRR/GRR) and avoid cross-metric collateral damage? What collaboration model keeps Growth aligned with Product, Marketing, Sales, and CS, and who should Growth report to? When shouldn't you build a growth team (and what to do instead if your top of funnel is small)? How do you evolve from consent management to a privacy-led marketing platform, while staying profitable and fast?

In this episode, we're joined by Inês Lorenzo, VP of Growth at Usercentrics, the privacy-led MarTech company that scaled from

Liberty Dispatch Interviews ~ August 30, 2025 In this episode of Liberty Dispatch Interviews, host Andrew DeBartolo interviews ARPA Executive Director Mike Schouten about recent events affecting the organization, including a “controversial” –Let Kids Be Kids– billboard campaign and subsequent censorship and their simultaneous debanking. They discuss the implications of these events for free speech, the legal challenges ARPA faces, and the broader cultural and social dynamics at play, as well as how it appears to be controversial to be Christian in Canada. Schouten emphasizes the importance of Christian advocacy in the public square and the need for continued engagement in political and social issues. The conversation culminates in a call to action for an upcoming rally aimed at protecting minors from harmful medical transitions. Episode Resources: ARPA Canada Website: https://arpacanada.ca/; Event: Let Kids Be Rally | September 27, 2025 | Queens Park, Toronto, ON: https://arpacanada.ca/event/let-kids-be-rally-and-march/; For full access to all our content, including the extended interviews, become a paid subscriber at: ldcanada.substack.com; SHOW SPONSORS:New Sponsor! Bitcoin Mentor: https://bitcoinmentor.io/aff/liberty Invest with Rocklinc: info@rocklinc.com or call them at 905-631-546; Diversify Your Money with Bull Bitcoin: https://mission.bullbitcoin.com/dispatch; BarterPay: https://barterpay.ca/; Barter It: https://www.barterit.ca/; Get freedom from Censorious CRMS by signing up for SalesNexus: https://www.salesnexus.com/ SUBSCRIBE TO OUR SHOWS/CHANNELS: LIBERTY DISPATCH PODCAST: https://libertydispatch.podbean.com; https://rumble.com/LDshow; CONTACT US: libertydispatch@pm.me STAY UP-TO-DATE ON ALL THINGS LD:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/liberty_dispatch/; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertyDispatchCanada; X: @LDCanada - https://x.com/_LDCanada; Rumble: https://rumble.com/LDshow; YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@libertydispatch Please LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, RATE, & REVIEW, and SHARE it with others!

The Republican supermajority in the Iowa Senate has been broken. Gov. Kim Reynolds spoke about teacher and medical professional shortages with other governors. And all of Polk County's ARPA funding has been allocated.

The future of Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) subsidies is a pressing issue for retirees and anyone shopping for health insurance on the ACA marketplace.  With the generous subsidies brought by the American Rescue Plan Act set to expire at the end of 2025, I break down exactly how these subsidies work, what changes are coming in 2026, and what that means for your wallet. We're talking eligibility thresholds, how income is calculated, why premiums might rise, and—most importantly—shares practical strategies for lowering your adjusted gross income to continue qualifying for subsidies as the rules tighten. Whether you're planning to retire before age 65 or just want to make sure you're making the most of affordable health options, this episode is packed with actionable advice to help you navigate the shifting health insurance landscape. Stay tuned to hear how you can prepare before the subsidy cliff arrives. You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in... [00:00] ARPA health subsidy set to expire. [06:48] Special enrollment eligibility criteria. [09:49] Estimate income for subsidy applications. [12:50] Retirement subsidy eligibility insights. [16:38] Managing income for post-2025 health subsidies. [19:50] Retirement planning and tax strategies. What Retirees Need to Know About Expiring Subsidies in 2026 For many Americans considering early retirement, one of the pressing concerns is the high cost of health insurance before Medicare eligibility kicks in at age 65. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called Obamacare, has provided critical subsidies—tax credits that reduce monthly health insurance premiums for individuals and families who earn between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Thanks to these subsidies, many retirees have found coverage that's far more affordable than what existed before the ACA. These subsidies aren't static, however. Their availability, amount, and eligibility thresholds have changed over time, notably with the enhancements set by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) during the pandemic. But much of that is set to change again at the end of 2025, and retirees need to understand what's at stake and how they can prepare. How ACA Subsidies Work Right Now Currently, the vast majority of people purchasing health insurance through the ACA marketplace receive premium assistance. As of 2024, 91% of the 21 million marketplace participants benefit from some kind of subsidy, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. These subsidies are calculated based on household income and size, and for now, thanks to ARPA, even those earning above the previous 400% FPL cutoff have been able to secure relief. The system works on a sliding scale: the higher your income (relative to the FPL), the lower your subsidy—and vice versa. For instance, a single retiree in most U.S. states falls under the subsidy limit if their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) is less than $60,640 (400% of the 2024 federal poverty level). For a couple, that threshold is $84,600. The subsidies fill the gap between what the government deems an affordable percentage of your income and the cost of a benchmark “silver” marketplace plan. The Big Change: Subsidy Cliff Returning in 2026 A crucial point highlighted in episode 267 of Carolyn C-B's podcast with Ryan Morrissey: the most generous version of these subsidies, courtesy of the ARPA, will sunset at the end of 2025. We are about to return to a world where if your income exceeds 400% of the FPL by even just $1, you lose all subsidy assistance—an abrupt subsidy cliff. Previously, the ARPA smoothed this out, allowing gradual decreases rather than outright elimination at the cutoff. That made planning far simpler for retirees managing taxable withdrawals from savings or retirement accounts. Starting in 2026, the sudden loss of these subsidies at the income cliff could mean the difference between a manageable $400 monthly premium and a staggering $2,700+ for a similar plan. To add to the challenge, insurers anticipate higher premiums in 2026 as healthier enrollees fall off plans due to pricing and subsidy loss. Planning Strategies for Retirees With the looming subsidy cliff, retirees may need to rethink their approach to generating retirement income. Since eligibility is based on income, not assets, it's possible to have significant savings but low reportable income, qualifying you for subsidies. Key strategies include: Harvest Extra Income Before 2026: Consider accelerating IRA distributions, realizing capital gains, or selling assets in 2025 while subsidies remain generous. Build Up Liquid Assets: By moving assets into cash accounts before retirement, retirees can “live off” cash in years they need to keep income low, preserving subsidy eligibility. Utilize Roth and Home Equity Withdrawals: Roth IRA distributions (if held 5 years and owner is 59½ or older) don't count toward MAGI; home equity lines or reverse mortgages can also provide non-taxable funds. Make Use of Pre-tax Contributions: While still working, increase contributions to 401(k)s, IRAs, and HSAs—these lower MAGI and can be a tool for subsidy planning. Congress may choose to extend or reform these subsidies again, but as of now, retirees should assume the cliff is returning. If you plan to retire—and especially if you'll rely on individual ACA coverage before age 65—be proactive. Monitor federal updates, calculate your projected MAGI, and consult a knowledgeable financial advisor for personalized guidance. Open enrollment begins November 1st each year—make sure to check your state's marketplace for updated premiums and subsidy parameters for 2026. Planning now can safeguard your health and your finances through a rapidly changing insurance landscape. Resources Mentioned Retirement Readiness Review Subscribe to the Retire with Ryan YouTube Channel Download my entire book for FREE  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Access Health CT  Health Insurance Marketplace  Connect With Morrissey Wealth Management  www.MorrisseyWealthManagement.com/contact   Subscribe to Retire With Ryan