Podcasts about Benjamin Spock

The primatologist discusses the thrill of observing chimpanzees in the wild, the value of challenging orthodoxy, and why dying is her next great adventure. SOURCES:Dr. Jane Goodall, GBE, founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and U.N. Messenger of Peace. RESOURCES:The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times, by Jane Goodall, Douglas Abrams, and Gail Hudson (2021).Jane, by Brett Morgen (2017).“Remembering My Mentor: Robert Hinde,” by Jane Goodall (2017).The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness, by Sy Montgomery (2015).Dr. Spock On Parenting: Sensible, Reassuring Advice for Today's Parent, by by Benjamin Spock, M.D. (2001).The Mentality of Apes, by Wolfgang Kohler (1976).“Miss Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees,” (1965). EXTRAS:Roots and Shoots.Jane Goodall Hopecast.The Jane Goodall Institute.Grameen Foundation.“A Cross Between Sherlock Holmes and Indiana Jones,” by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022).“‘No One Can Resist a Jolly, Happy Pig,'” by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022).

Piše Marija Švajncer, bereta Sanja Rejc in Renato Horvat. Joseph Heath je, kot je navedeno na zadnji platnici, kanadski filozof in predavatelj na Univerzi v Torontu. V času študija sta bila njegova mentorja znana filozofa Charles Taylor in Jürgen Habermas. Raziskovalno se ukvarja s politično in moralno filozofijo, kritično družbeno teorijo in ekonomskimi vedami. Objavil je vrsto odmevnih knjig, za delo Razsvetljenstvo 2.0 je leta 2014 prejel kanadsko nagrado za politično pisanje Shaughnessy Cohen. Elizabeth Shaughnessy Cohen, po kateri se nagrada imenuje, je bila kanadska liberalna političarka. Joseph Heath je knjigo posvetil filozofu Andrewu Potterju. Pisanja sta se namreč lotila skupaj, kaj kmalu pa je sodelavec dobil drugo nalogo in postal odgovorni urednik časnika Ottawa Citizen. Heathu torej ni preostalo nič drugega, kot da je načrt uresničil sam. V knjigi predstavlja program za drugo razsvetljenstvo ali razsvetljenstvo 2.0. Oznaka 2.0 se nanaša na splet. Uvedli so jo leta 2003, opisuje pa številne pomembne spremembe v razvoju medmrežja. Heath jo v naslovu navaja zato, ker pomeni premik, ki bi ga rad priporočil pri razmišljanju o racionalnosti. Pri tem pojasnjuje, zakaj je razum nepogrešljiv, kako se je izoblikovalo okolje iracionalizma in kaj bi bilo treba še storiti. Vse skupaj se začne s kritiko ameriške politike, sčasoma pa pisec namenja čedalje več pozornosti delovanju, učinku in zmožnostim tako razuma kot tudi intuicije, se pravi racionalnim in iracionalnim postopkom. Že res, da je razsvetljenstvo zanj prizadevanje, ki pomeni velik izziv, toda dvomi tako o razumu kot tudi o intuitivnih in čustvenih vidikih. Naslanja se na spoznanja psihologije in v nasprotju s kakim Kantom enači izraza razum in um. Pojem razuma se, kot pravi, tradicionalno nanaša na posebno duševno sposobnost, ki je povezana s prepoznavnim načinom razmišljanja. Posebna lastnost razumskega mišljenja je, da ga je mogoče skoraj v celoti izraziti ter navajati argumentacijo in utemeljevanje. Intuitivne presoje pa povedo tisto, kar bi bilo mogoče imeti za rezultate kognitivnih procesov. Intuicija je koristna pri razmišljanju o resničnem svetu in odzivanju nanj, medtem ko razmišljanje o možnem svetu in tudi negaciji resničnega sveta zahteva uporabo racionalnega dela možganov. Razum sklepa tudi hipotetično. Morda bi si celo zastavili vprašanje, ali je Razsvetljenstvo 2.0 sploh knjiga s filozofsko vsebino. Pisec namenja veliko besed človekovemu ravnanju, njegovim zmotam, sprenevedanju in odzivanju na delovanje v skupini. Heath je sicer velik poznavalec filozofije, omenja kar nekaj filozofov, med njimi Aristotela, Nietzscheja, Heideggerja in Marxa ter tudi utemeljitelja psihoanalize Freuda, toda svoja poglavitna spoznanja podkrepi s številnimi slikovitimi primeri iz javnega življenja, politike, medijev in gospodarstva. Naslanja se na sodobno psihologijo in navaja njeno novejšo terminologijo, saj je prav psihologija pokazala, da je nekatere probleme mogoče rešiti samo z razumom. Čeprav razum ni popoln, nam ne preostane drugega, kot da delamo s tem, kar imamo. Od njega je odvisna civilizacija. Najbolj očitne slabosti razuma naj bi bile v tem, da je počasen in zato zahteva veliko napora, trpi pa tudi zaradi omejene pozornosti, ozkega delovnega spomina in nezanesljivega dolgoročnega spomina. Vse skupaj dobi tudi politične razsežnosti. Težava ni v tem, da je levica zamudila svojo priložnost in bila neartikulirana ali da so bili njeni voditelji strahopetni, temveč je razlog pravzaprav temeljna asimetrija med desnico in levico, torej nesomernost, ki se v takšnih časih izrazi. Heath poudarja, da je prav to osrednja trditev njegove knjige. Progresivne družbene spremembe so že po naravi zapletene, težko dosegljive in zahtevajo kompromis, zaupanje in kolektivno delovanje. Zato jih ni mogoče doseči samo s »srcem« – zanje potrebujemo tudi veliko »glave«. Avtor je ironičen in tudi duhovit. Priznava, da je racionalno razmišljanje težavno in se mu ljudje radi izognejo. Razum ni naraven, temveč je, prav nasprotno, globoko nenaraven. Hkrati je edina stvar, ki nam omogoča, da se izvijemo iz prisilnega jopiča animalističnih umov. Joseph Heath je kdaj pa kdaj tudi oseben. Predstavi se kot univerzitetni profesor na oddelku za filozofijo, pred tem je študiral in poučeval logiko, analizo argumentacije in teorijo verjetnosti. Po značaju je nekoliko racionalističen. Otroci so ga v tretjem razredu začeli klicati »gospod Spock«. Benjamin Spock je bil pediater, ki je spodbujal bolj strpno vzgojo otrok. Knjiga Razsvetljenstvo 2.0 je zakladnica idej in kopičenje domiselno izbranih primerov. Avtor sega na različna področja in je izvedenec v kognitivni znanosti. S številnimi opombami, v katerih navaja različne vire, od knjižnih do spletnih, širi vednost o predmetu svoje knjige. Pomembno je zavedanje, predlaga, da racionalnost ni niz pravil, ki bi bila vsiljena od zgoraj, temveč je temelj človekove svobode in avtonomije. Prav dobro ve, kako je »iracionalna desnica« doživela velik volilni uspeh, toda prijatelji in zavezniki razsvetljenstva, med katere se uvršča tudi sam, morajo spremeniti svojo taktiko in poskusiti znova. Racionalno politiko bo omogočilo kolektivno delovanje. Ideal je svet, v katerem si skupaj prizadevamo ustvariti okolja, ki nas delajo pametnejše, namesto okolij, ki nas delajo neumnejše, ne le s predmeti, ki jih upravljamo, temveč tudi z institucijami, s katerimi sodelujemo. Heath verjame, da se je k zdravemu svetu mogoče pomikati z majhnimi koraki, zato na koncu ponudi tako imenovani manifest počasne politike. Avtorica poglobljene spremne besede slovenska sociologinja Ksenija Vidmar Horvat Josepha Heatha uvršča na seznam avtorjev, ki obujajo idejo razsvetljenstva in pozivajo k razumu. Pogosto so na nasprotnih bregovih, za razum in proti njemu, Heath pa je tisti, je prepričana, ki o razsvetljenstvu nima vselej najboljšega mnenja in razsvetljenstvu očita predvsem njegovo individualističnost in ošaben odnos do tradicije. Ksenija Vidmar Horvat meni, da Heathovo delo kljub temu prinaša pomembno razsvetljenje glede razsvetljenstva samega. Poudarja, da je treba v načrt obnove razuma vključiti tudi politiko čustev, in med drugim zapiše: »Vsesplošna krepitev kulture zasmehovanja na eni strani in vzpon brezsramne politične kulture na drugi strani sta resno opozorilo o omejitvah, ki jih ima na razum oprt razsvetljenski projekt v našem stoletju.«

the beginning of "everybody wins a trophy"

A presentation from "Censorship and Official Lies: The End of Truth in America?" This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.Full Written Text (Audio link is above): Over the past three years, the word “sedition” has again become popular among regime agents and their friends in the media. It's certainly not the first time the word has enjoyed a renaissance. It's frequently employed whenever the ruling class wishes us to become hysterical about various real and imagined enemies, both domestic and foreign.This time, the regime's paranoia about sedition was prompted by the Capitol Riot in January 2021, when we were told that Trump supporters nearly carried out a coup d'etat. Since then, regime operatives have frequently referred to Trump supporters and Trump himself as seditionists.Yet, out of the approximately 850 people charged with crimes of various sorts, only a very small number have been charged with anything even close to treason or insurrection. Rather, most charges are various forms of infractions related to vandalism and trespassing. However, because these charges have to do with the regime's sacred office buildings, the penalties are outrageously harsh compared to similar acts, were they to occur on private property.For a small handful of defendants, however—the ones the Justice Department has most enthusiastically targeted—the federal prosecutors have brought the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”Why not charges of treason, rebellion or insurrection? Well, if federal prosecutors though they could get a conviction for actual rebellion, insurrection, or treason for the January 6 riot, they would have brought those charges.But they didn't.What they did do is turn to seditious conspiracy, which is far easier to prove in court, and is—like all conspiracy charges in American law—essentially a thought crime and a speech crime. Seditious conspiracy is not actual sedition, or rebellion, or insurrection. That is, there is no overt act necessary, nor is it necessary that the alleged sedition or insurrection actually take place or be executed. What really matters is that two or more people said things that prosecutors could later claim were part of a conspiracy to do something that may or may not have ever happened.Moreover, the regime now routinely employs other types of conspiracy charges for prosecuting Americans supposedly guilty for various crimes against the state. At the moment, for example, Donald Trump faces three different conspiracy charges for saying that the 2020 election was illegitimate.As we shall see, purported crimes like seditious conspiracy are crimes based largely on things people have said. They are a type of speech crime. Now, some may ask how that is even possible if there is freedom of speech in this country.Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.The federal government has long sought tools to get around the First amendment, and one of them is seditious conspiracy.Now, the term seditious conspiracy contains two pieces. There's the sedition part, and there is the conspiracy part. Let's explore both parts of this in a bit more detail to see what we can learn about this inventive way the regime has developed to silence those who question the legitimacy of the American state.Seditious Conspiracy Was Invented to Get Around Limitations on Treason Prosecutions From the very beginning, federal politicians have sought ways to create political crimes above and beyond the Constitution's very limited definition of treason. This began with the Sedition Act of 1798, and continued with the creation of the Seditious Conspiracy law in 1861, and carried on through to the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940, and a plethora of various types of “conspiracy” laws used to punish many different types of antiwar and dissident activities since then.All of these laws, involve restrictions on freedom of speech, and open up suspects to punishments for saying things.The reason why federal politicians believe they need extra sedition laws on top of treason can be found in the fact that the framers of the Constitution defined treason in very specific and limiting terms:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Note the use of the word “only” to specify that the definition of treason shall not be construed as something more broad than what is in the text. As with much of what we now find in the Bill of Rights, this language stems from fears that the US federal government would indulge in some of the same abuses that had occurred under the English crown, especially in the days of the Stuart monarchs. Kings had often construed “treason” to mean acts, thoughts, and alleged conspiracies far beyond the act of actually taking up arms against the state.Treason could have been anything the king didn't like, and it how you end up with a situation in which St. Thomas More was executed for treason simply for refusing to say that the king was head of the church.By contrast, in the US Constitution, the only flexibility given to Congress is in determining the punishment for treason.Naturally, those who favored greater federal power chafed at these limitations and sought more federal laws that would punish alleged crimes against the state. It only took the Federalists ten years to come up with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stated:That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States … or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, … from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.Note the references to “intent,” “counsel,” and “advise” as criminal acts so long as these types of speech are employed in a presumed effort to obstruct government officials. In the twentieth century, we will again see this type of language designed to ensnare Americans in so-called crimes of conspiracy.A great many Americans—some of whom who still took the radical liberalism of the revolutionary era seriously—saw the Sedition Act for what it was. A blatant assault on the rights of Americans, and an attack on freedom of speech. Thanks to the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 the Sedition Act was allowed to expire,Then, for sixty years, the United States government had no laws addressing sedition on the books. But the heart of the 1798 Sedition Act would be revived. As passed in July 1861, the new Seditious Conspiracy statute statedthat if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or … prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States. . . . Shall be guilty of a high crime.Note the crimes here are not overt acts like “overthrowing the government” of “delaying the execution of a law.” No, the crime here is conspiring to do something about it. That is, saying things about it to another person. That is what constitutes “conspiracy” here.Now, some people who have a rather benign view of the state might think, well, people shouldn't conspire to do bad things. Well, in real life, conspiracy as prosecuted, does not necessarily look like a group of bad guys getting together in a dark room and explaining how they're going to blow up some government building. That's Hollywood stuff.In real life, people can be found guilty of conspiring with people with whom they have never been in the same room, or with whom the "conspirator" expressed any actual violent intent.We'll return to this, and this is just something to keep in mind, whenever looking at government conspiracy laws.Given the timing of the seditious conspiracy legislation that I just read—i.e., in 1861, following the secession of several Southern states—it is assumed that the legislation originated to address alleged Confederate treason. This is not quite the case. The legislation did enjoy considerable support from those who were especially militant in their opposition to the Confederacy. However, Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio—who would later be exiled to the Confederacy for opposing Lincoln's war—supported the bill precisely because he thought it would help punish opponents of the fugitive slave laws.” Congress had initially become serious about punishing “conspiracies” not in response to Southern secession, but in response to John Brown's 1859 raid at Harper's Ferry.Thus, there was support for the idea in the South before the war. Soon thereafter, however, the Confederate secession and fears of rebellion helped enlarge the coalition in favor of a new sedition law. The new sedition law represented a significant expansion of the idea of “crimes against the state.” Senator Stephen Douglas, the bill's sponsor understood this perfectly well, statingYou must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. … If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, [a reference to John Brown] why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act?Others were more suspicious of expanding federal power in this way, however. Sen. Lazarus Powell and eight other Democrats presented a statement opposing the passage of the bill. Specifically, Powell and his allies believed the new seditious conspiracy law would be a de facto move in the direction of allowing the federal government to expand the definition of treason offered by the federal constitution. The statement read:The creation of an offense, resting in intention alone, without overt act, would render nugatory the provision last quoted, [i.e., the treason definition in the Constitution] and the door would be opened for those similar oppressions and cruelties which, under the excitement of political struggles, have so often disgraced the past history of the world.Powell is here describing what George Orwell would later call a “thoughtcrime.” This “crime” Powell tells us, rests “in intention alone, without overt act.” To anyone who actually valued freedom in 1861, this would set off major alarm bells.Even worse, Powell saw that the new legislation would provide to the federal government “the utmost latitude to prosecutions founded on personal enmity and political animosity and the suspicions as to intention which they inevitably engender.”Like so many political crimes invented by regimes, the legislation tends to grant unusual flexibility and discretion in prosecuting the state's perceived enemies. This opens up political dissidents to new kinds of prosecution.Such legislation COULD have been used against opponents of the fugitive slave acts, as well as against opponents of federal conscription during the war. After all, opponents of both the Civil War draft and the Vietnam War draft “conspired” to destroy government property—as with the heroic draft-card burnings of the Catonsville Nine, for example.It would be far harder to prove in court that such acts constituted treason, so sedition laws have paved to way for more frequently prosecuting various acts of resistance against the regime and its crimes.It's bad enough that federal policy makers schemed to insert into federal law new crimes against the state. But, as Powell correctly noted, the greater danger is in the part of the sedition law that enables prosecutions for conspiracy.What Is Conspiracy?So now we look at the other component of seditious conspiracy: the conspiracy part.Now conspiracy laws are used far more broadly than for political crimes. They are also used in the war on drugs and countless other federal legal crusades.Current federal conspiracy laws outlaw conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Other provisions include conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct, ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes, regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.This latter point is an important distinction. As was explicit in the Sedition Act of 1798, so it is today: it is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone —i.e., that there be any actual victim. Indeed, conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes that might occur, but have not.Moreover, it is not even necessary in all cases that a "conspirator" take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme, It is also the case that Many have no such explicit overt act requirement. Even in those cases where some "affirmative step" or overt act take place, it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The "act" could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.In a 2019 interview with the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted his own problem with conspiracy charges:If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But, at the present time in our history and in fact, for all of our history, regrettably, an agreement to commit a felony, agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement, constitutes an independent crime. ... In the world of freedom, where you and I and people reading this live, conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, all accepted [that] crime contained an element of harm. Today, crime is whatever the government says it is.Napolitano is right, and the fact that crime is whatever the government says it is becomes apparent in one of the other key problems with conspiracy laws. Namely, as one legal commentator put it, “few things [are] left so doubtful in the criminal law, as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.”That is, at what point do a bunch of people talking about things become a criminal act. The law is very vague on this, and it is why it's not so easy to say “well, golly, I won't ever be prosecuted for conspiracy, because I don't plan to do anything illegal.But you are not safe because it is not clear in the law, at what point, statements encouraging legal activities become illegal —or statements encouraging legal activities, but without real criminal intent, become felonies.So, you can imagine yourself mouthing off unseriously and saying “we oughta burn down the offices of the department of education.” And then your friend texts back and says “I agree.” Well, congratulations, a prosecutor could easily use that exchange as a way of building a case for conspiracy against you.Would a single expression of an opinion against the regime be enough to convict? Probably not, but combined with other unrelated acts and legal activities such as a stated plan to visit Washington DC or buy a gun for unrelated activities, a prosecutor could, with enough convincing, tie them together in the minds of jurors to get a conviction for conspiracy.Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard of when these disconnected, and often legal acts become crimes, and thus, prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. For an indictment, the prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really part of an illegal conspiracy. This is not difficult, as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich."Not surprisingly, people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.For example, Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in 1932, concluding "It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny, this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like, should find a home in our country."Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925 described conspiracy charges as "that darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery" for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely DefinedConspiracy crimes have been a favorite of government prosecutors in going after political opponents historically.And, In the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal government's many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes, many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges. Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial. The elastic and vague nature of conspiracy "crimes" means that, as legal scholar Thomas Emerson puts it, "the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor."One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters. That is, they were charged with saying things. Although prosecutors could never show the "conspirators" committed any illegal acts—or were ever even in the same room together—Spock and three of his "co-conspirators" were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal, but only on a legal technicality.Spock was able to avoid prison, but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spock's level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors don't like.The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spock—and against antiwar activists in general—was covered in detail in Jessica Mitford's 1969 book The Trial of Dr. Spock, in which she writesThe law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor's tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrate the absurdity of these prosecutions, pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.Again, we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words, rather than any actual criminal acts. Or, as legal scholar Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: "conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat."This ability to treat this "state of mind" as real crime means, in the words of legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller:the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone, and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that "even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing DissentConspiracy laws----including seditious conspiracy of course -- have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes.However, as the Dr. Spock case makes clear, conspiracy prosecutions are also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically, given that conspiracy "crimes" are essentially crimes of words and thoughts, conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970:Throughout various periods of xenophobia, chauvinism, and collective paranoia in American history, conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.Or, put another way by the Journal, through conspiracy prosecutions, the "government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression." Naturally, citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.So, if you and the other members of your gun club like to get a bit over-the-top in your comments about the crimes of America's political class, be careful. The federal informant in your midst may be taking notes.So it was the case with many government informants placed to investigate groups that opposed the War and the draft. Those who simply agreed with radical opinions could find themselves on the wrong end of a federal indictment.Yet, any strict interpretation of the First Amendment—which is the correct type of interpretation—would tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts, however, have long disagreed, and some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected.Yet, in real-life conspiracy prosecutions, it is not easy to determine whether or not a "conspirator" is actually inciting a crime. As legal scholar David Filvaroff notes, the actual intent and effect of the speech in question in these cases is difficult to interpret. Thus, judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:He writes:With a conspiracy to murder, one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little, if any, risk that either the defendants themselves, or the court or jury, will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high, however, in the case of conspiracy to incite.Back to our case about burning down the dept. of education. Was that casual comment a conspiracy to incite arson? Did the defendant intend it as such? This is largely up to the unilateral interpretation of the prosecutor.Most of the time, it is difficult for a "conspirator" to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result.Under these circumstances, innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.The fact that legal acts can become illegal, and the fact that intent need not be proven makes conspiracy crimes, especially seditious conspiracy an excellent avenue for political prosecutions against perceived enemies of the state. It is not a coincidence that most of the charges against Donald Trump are conspiracy charges. They largely come down to Trump making statement both public and private questioning the validity of the election. Prosecutors have turned these opinions into a legal theory that Trump “incited” others to commit crimes. Thanks to conspiracy laws, it is not necessary that any actual crimes take place, or that any actual victims materialize, to get a guilty verdict.Thanks to his wealth, Trump has been able to mount a defense. Most people accused of various conspiracy laws are not so lucky, and countless Americans have endured financial ruin and prison thanks to the vast and abusive powers handed over to prosecutors by conspiracy laws.These are most dangerous when wielded against political opponents because, conspiracy laws essentially nullify the First Amendment and enable prosecutors to turn words into crimes.End All Political CrimesSo what is to be done? Obviously, conspiracy laws, including seditious conspiracy laws, ought to be abolished. All sedition laws are especially ripe for repeal given that the United States survived for decades without any federal political crimes other than treason, narrowly defined.Yet, if we are to win any meaningful victory against the state, we ought to repeal all political crimes, including treason, altogether.For one, political crimes like treason and sedition are simply unnecessary.It is already illegal to blow up buildings. It's especially illegal to do it with people inside the building, whether those people are government employees or not. It is already illegal to murder people, regardless of whether or not they represent the state. Destruction of property is illegal in every state.What political crimes like treason and sedition do is create a special class of people and institutions: government employees and government property, to send the message—via harsher penalties and punishments—that the destruction of government property, or the killing of government employees is worse than crimes against the mere taxpayers who pay all the bills.Political crimes are often subject to fewer regulations protecting the rights of the accused, and are often prosecuted by authorities more directly under the control of the central executive power. In the United States, the federal government has taken over control of most political crimes, centralizing enforcement and thus strengthening the central state. Certainly this has been the case with sedition laws.This scam that all modern regimes embrace exists not to keep the public safe. It exists for propagandistic purposes. These laws exist to send a message.Treason and sedition laws create the illusion that loyalty to the regime to which on presently pays taxes is morally important.Or, as historian Mark Cornwell puts it, regimes have long used crimes such as these “as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance.”Freedom of speech has always been a grave threat to this manipulation of allegiance, and its why sedition and conspiracy laws have so long been employed to weaponize speech against dissidents.The remedy lies in taking a page from those early Jeffersonians who abolished early sedition laws and refused to create new ones. The regime does not need or deserve a way around the First Amendment. The country does not need these “wornout pieces of tyranny” that are sedition and conspiracy laws. Abolish them now.

Robert Wolterstorff joined me to discuss being mentored by Norman Lear; a quick overview of his career; going to SFSU; being mentored by Norman Lear; selling a Good Times; going to work on the Jeffersons; turning down a chance to write / produce the Incredible Hulk; his pilot Pen 'n' Ink aided by Louis Schwartzberg; doing a college interview for Benjamin Spock for President that got picked up by PBS; Jeffersons episodes; befriending Roxie Roker and her husband Sy Kravitz; Jeffersons writer's were older; moving to Universal to write pilots; working for Nicholls, Ross, West; writing for Sheriff Lobo; his pilot for Pen 'n' Ink leads to a lifelong friendship with Fred & Mary Willard; his pilot, the Outlaw; Street Hawk was originally supposed to precede Monday Night Football; finished second to Dallas but not good enough; cost $1 million an episode; getting Tangerine Dream to do the music; hiring Joe Regalbuto and Rex Smith; "predicting the future"; great writing staff; his sitcom pilot Sisters with Sally Kellerman; Quantum Leap; his episode "Jimmy" is nominated for an Emmy; writes Little Rascals movie for Penelope Spheeris; hired to make snow version of Baywatch called Extreme; creates Slappy & the Stinkers based on original Little Rascals script; Extreme; his pilot for Stinger, a superhero parody; Blade Squad; Twice in a Lifetime; his fun in writing Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction; how he got the audience to believe anything; working for military intelligence creating battle drills, IED simulations, and writing military role playing table tops; and working for the Spy Museum

They say history whispers to us through the corridors of time, but today, I'm cranking up the volume. Join me, Joey Bruno, for a session of Give Zero, where we're fearlessly connecting the dots between Benjamin Spock's revolutionary child-rearing legacy and the cacophony of challenges in our modern households. My own cat-obsessed abode, complete with the antics of our chatty feline Winx, serves as the perfect backdrop for this unfiltered journey through past philosophies and their echoes in today's societal fabric. Sip your go-to drink—be it coffee or something with a kick—and let's confront the unvarnished truths that shape our lives.Forget what you've heard about the decline of American society being a slow burn; it's an all-out war that's been waged in the shadows of our post-Cold War landscape. In this episode, I dissect the cultural and economic trenches that have been carved by the insidious spread of ideologies and the erosion of traditional values. From the stealthy infiltration of educational systems to the controversial political chessboard, I'm breaking down the frontlines that demand our vigilance. And with future uncertainties perched on our doorstep, I underscore the importance of safeguarding our children against the year's looming unpredictability. So, gear up, stay sharp, and let's take on these thought-provoking discussions together—because here at Give Zero, complacency is not an option.Support the showThanks for being a part of America's #1 (3rd Rate) Podcast!!We thank ALL of you who support us spiritually and financially. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!TWITTER (X)@Gives0ShowTRUTH Social@JoeyBrunoIVDon't forget our home page!!GIVES0.comAlso, we endorse (and are compensated by) My Patriot Supply and NORD VPN. We work with them because they are trusted names by we Patriots and we use their products and services ourselves. Use the links below for them, we get a little love when you do.My Patriot SupplyNORD VPN

This Day in Legal History: Dr. Spock IndictedOn this day in legal history, January 5, 1968, a noteworthy moment in the intersection of legal and social history unfolded as Dr. Benjamin Spock, a renowned child psychologist, faced indictment by a federal grand jury. He, along with several others, was charged with conspiring to assist individuals in evading the draft during the Vietnam War. This act was a bold statement against the contentious military draft and the war itself, reflecting the era's intense political and social turmoil.Dr. Spock, already famous for his influential book on child rearing, became a symbol of anti-war activism. His indictment was not just a legal proceeding but a cultural event, marking a stark confrontation between the U.S. government and war dissenters. The trial that ensued was a high-profile affair, drawing widespread public attention and media coverage.In the trial, the prosecution argued that Dr. Spock and his co-defendants had willfully conspired to undermine the draft system. Defense attorneys, however, presented their actions as an exercise of free speech and a moral stance against an unjust war. The courtroom became a venue for broader debates on civil liberties, government authority, and individual conscience.Ultimately, Dr. Spock was convicted, a decision that sent shockwaves across the nation. However, this was not the end of the story. The case ascended to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, where a crucial development occurred. In a landmark decision, the appellate court overturned Dr. Spock's conviction. The ruling in United States v. Spock was a significant moment in legal history, underscoring the delicate balance between government authority and individual rights.The case of Dr. Spock remains a vivid chapter in American legal and social history. It highlights the power of the judicial system to both enforce and check governmental power and reflects the era's profound struggles over war, peace, and freedom of expression. This episode, while rooted in its time, continues to resonate, illustrating the ongoing tensions between civic duty and personal beliefs.New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed an innovative plan to extend paid family leave benefits to include prenatal care, aiming to establish New York as the first state in the nation to offer such a program. Emphasizing the severity of the maternal and infant mortality crisis, Hochul, speaking in New York City, expressed a personal commitment to addressing these issues with supportive policies. This initiative surpasses even progressive states like California in broadening the social safety net, as it would allow New Yorkers to use 40 hours of paid leave for prenatal care, expanding beyond the current short-term disability benefits available only in the final weeks before childbirth.The funding details for this proposal are expected to be revealed in the upcoming state budget, following Hochul's State of the State address. The plan also includes the elimination of co-pays and out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy-related care in state-controlled insurance plans, and aims to remove referral requirements for doula services. During the announcement, Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams emphasized the potential impact of this expanded support on reducing the disproportionately high mortality rates among infants and minority mothers. Bichotte Hermelyn, highlighting her own experience with maternal loss, voiced strong support for the governor's comprehensive approach to improving maternal health and combating rising infant mortality rates.Hochul Aims for Nation's First Paid Prenatal Leave Benefit in NYNew York City has initiated a lawsuit against 17 bus companies for their role in transporting over 33,000 migrants from Texas, a move prompted by Texas Governor Greg Abbott's campaign to send migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally to Democrat-led cities. Filed in a Manhattan state court, the city is seeking $708 million for costs incurred in providing shelter and services to these migrants over the past two years. Texas itself is not a defendant in this case, but the focus is on the bus companies, primarily based in Texas, which the city alleges earned millions from these transports.The legal action claims these companies violated a 19th-century New York law that mandates anyone bringing a "needy person" likely to seek government aid to New York from another state to cover their expenses. Additionally, some companies are accused of not complying with a New York City order requiring bus operators to notify the city if they transport 10 or more passengers likely to need emergency shelter.Governor Abbott started sending buses of migrants to cities like New York in 2022 as a response to what he perceives as inadequate federal action on the high numbers of illegal border crossings. He has been a vocal critic of President Joe Biden's immigration policies and has introduced various measures to discourage illegal migration. In contrast, Abbott defends the busing initiative, asserting the migrants traveled voluntarily and were authorized by the Biden Administration to remain in the U.S.This lawsuit comes in the wake of the Biden administration's own legal challenge against a new Texas law granting state officials extensive authority to arrest, prosecute, and deport migrants. The conflict underscores the growing tensions between state and federal approaches to immigration and the burden on cities like New York to accommodate an unexpected influx of migrants.New York City sues bus companies for transporting migrants from Texas | ReutersSpaceX has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), following accusations by the NLRB that the company illegally terminated employees critical of CEO Elon Musk. The fired employees had sent a letter branding Musk as "a distraction and embarrassment" and accusing him of making sexist remarks. This case, filed in Brownsville, Texas, challenges the NLRB's structure, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution due to the protected status of board members and administrative judges, who can only be removed for cause, not at will.The NLRB's complaint against SpaceX concerns the firing of eight workers in 2022 who signed the letter critical of Musk. This case is set to be heard by an administrative judge and a five-member board appointed by the President, with the option to appeal their decisions in federal court.SpaceX's lawsuit aims to halt the NLRB's proceedings against them. This legal strategy mirrors SpaceX's previous approach in a case involving the U.S. Department of Justice, where the company contested the hiring process for refugees and asylum recipients. In that instance, a federal judge in Brownsville paused the administrative case, citing constitutional concerns over the appointment of administrative judges.This lawsuit against the NLRB reflects SpaceX's broader legal strategy to challenge administrative procedures and the structure of federal agencies. The NLRB itself is facing a similar challenge in a separate case involving a Starbucks Corp employee contesting the unionization process at her workplace.SpaceX sues US agency that accused it of firing workers critical of Elon Musk | ReutersPolicy groups are advocating for an exemption to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, allowing independent hackers to legally circumvent digital security measures to examine artificial intelligence (AI) models for bias and discrimination. This proposal, part of a triennial review by the US Copyright Office, aims to increase transparency and trust in AI technology. It would enable researchers to access the models behind generative AI products from companies like OpenAI Inc., Microsoft Corp., Google, and Meta Platforms, Inc., to test for potential biases.The proposal, initially put forward by a graduate student, Jonathan Weiss, suggests that such access is crucial for ensuring AI models are free from biases, especially as they are increasingly used in decision-making. The Copyright Office has advanced this proposal along with others for review, with virtual public hearings scheduled in the spring.Supporters of the exemption, including the Hacking Policy Council and OpenPolicy, argue that it would allow researchers to expose and address biases and other harmful outputs in AI systems, leading to more reliable and fair technology. They stress that without such an exemption, there could be a chilling effect on research due to fear of legal repercussions.Critics, however, are expected to emerge, particularly from companies that consider their AI models confidential and proprietary. The exemption is seen as different from traditional concepts of fair use, and while it aims to facilitate independent research, it is not intended as a blanket protection for malicious hacking. The discussion around this exemption reflects the evolving relationship between AI development and the need for independent oversight to ensure fairness and reliability in these technologies.AI Copyright Hacking Exemption Would Boost Trust, Advocates SayThe unsealed ruling from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) reveals why certain Apple Watch models were initially banned from importation. Apple Inc.'s argument that it would face "unquantifiable harm" from the ban was rejected by the ITC due to a lack of evidence. This decision came after the ITC ruled that Apple's smartwatches infringed on patents held by Masimo Corp., a medical-device maker.Despite Apple's claim, the Commission found no evidence to support the alleged harm Apple would suffer from the import ban, which only affected a portion of one product line. Apple had gained a temporary reprieve from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, allowing the sale of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 to resume. However, this stay is only until the appeals court decides whether to extend it for the duration of Apple's appeal.The ITC also noted that while Masimo might suffer some harm from the stay, it wouldn't lose substantial revenue since Masimo is not selling its competing product, the W1 Watch, in significant quantities in the US. Additionally, the Commission dismissed Apple's vague reference to a potential detrimental impact on the healthcare field, finding that the public interest does not support a stay pending appeal.Apple is pursuing a multi-faceted strategy to overcome the ITC's decision, including redeveloping software for non-infringing versions of its watches and continuing its appeal. The US Customs and Border Protection is considering Apple's case, with a decision possibly impacting sales as soon as January 12. The Federal Circuit has given the ITC until January 10 to respond to Apple's request for a stay during the appeal.Unsealed Apple Ruling Reveals Why Watch Was Initially Banned Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

From the White House to the Teenage House: Liz Carpenter's Unplanned Parenthood When her brother died in 1993, his three unruly teenagers came to live with Liz Carpenter, retired after a storied career that included serving as Lady Bird Johnson's press secretary. And just like that, she found herself, at age 73, a mother once again. In this 1994 interview Carpenter describes the unique challenges she faced. But she also had some wise and insightful thoughts about those GenX people she was raising, and their peers. Get Unplanned Parenthood by Liz CarpenterAs an Amazon Associate, Now I've Heard Everything earns from qualifying purchases.You may also enjoy my interviews with Benjamin Spock and Betty Friedan For more vintage interviews with celebrities, leaders, and influencers, subscribe to Now I've Heard Everything on Spotify, Apple Podcasts. and now on YouTube Photo by University of Texas at Arlington News Service Photograph Collection #teenagers #GenX

The beginning of "Everyone gets a trophy" --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rocky-seale7/message

This episode originally aired on August 11, 2021.You've probably heard the proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child.” That's because for most of human history, when it came to child-care, people had the daily support of family, friends and neighbours. Today, that's not the reality for many young parents. Not only that, parents are raising their kids in a much more technologically complex world. So the question becomes, with a smaller support network, how can parents use technology to help raise their children, without letting it get in the way. Featuring Jennifer Traig, Alison Gopnik, Mike Rothman, Dr. Harvey Karp, Jill Gilkerson and Dana Porter. For more on the podcast go to delltechnologies.com/trailblazers

Mike Keenan, the Retirement Coach, talks about the famous pediatrician, Dr. Benjamin Spock not to be confused with Spock on Star Trek.

Mọi người đều muốn có tự do. Bởi vì mọi người đều có chung nhận thức: Có tự do mới có hạnh phúc. Tự do là nền tảng của mọi nền tảng hạnh phúc. Từ đời sống cá nhân cho đến hoạt động quốc gia và nhân loại, nếu tự do không có, hạnh phúc sẽ không có. “Không có tự do chọn lựa sẽ không có sáng tạo. Không có sáng tạo sẽ không có cuộc sống” (Benjamin Spock). “Khi con người được tự do lựa chọn, người ta trước hết lựa chọn sự tự do” (Margaret Thatcher).

The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care altered parenting forever and made Dr. Benjamin Spock a household name. But his wife Jane, who not only helped him get the book down on paper but introduced him to the very concepts that were so revolutionary in his work, was ruined by his success. Source List:Dr. Spock, An American Life, by Thomas Maier​​Doctor Spock: Biography of a Conservative Radical, by Lynn Z. Bloom“Public vs. Private: Dr. Spock, Mr. Hyde,” by Mary Jo Kochakian“Parents and Dr. Spock”, American Archive of Public Broadcasting“The Man Who Raised America,” by Susan Bolotin“The Spocks: Bittersweet. Recognition in a Revised Classic,” by Judy Klemesrud“Jane C. Spock, 82, Worked on Baby Book,” The New York TimesChristian Nurture, by Horace BushnellHorace Bushnell, Britannica “The Personal Spock: The Controversial Doctor Recalls His Childhood, Which Was Influenced by a Domineering Mother,” by Elizabeth Mehren 

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 540, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Benny 1: In the 1790s astronomer and mathematician Benjamin Banneker compiled an annual one of these. almanac. 2: In 1785 Thomas Jefferson succeeded him as minister to France. Benjamin Franklin. 3: While in office, he admitted 6 states, more than any other U.S. president. Benjamin Harrison. 4: In addition to his "Baby and Child Care" book, he wrote "Caring for Your Disabled Child". Dr. Benjamin Spock. 5: In 1954 he turned Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw" into an opera. Benjamin Britten. Round 2. Category: Going Cuckoo 1: Sonny is the bird who's "cuckoo for" this cereal. Cocoa Puffs. 2: Edmund Spenser called "The Merry Cuckoo" the "messenger of" this season. Spring. 3: This term for the husband of an adulterous wife is derived from cuckoo. Cuckold. 4: In this 1962 novel, McMurphy takes on Nurse Ratched. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". 5: In this film, Harry Lime says Switzerland's 500 years of democracy and peace produced--the cuckoo clock. The Third Man. Round 3. Category: Plagues On Egypt 1: Plague No. 4, they were everywhere, including in my soup! Waiter!. flies. 2: In plague No. 2 these went a-pharaoh courtin', uh-huh. frogs. 3: This plague, No. 8, occurs every 17 years in some places. locusts. 4: In 1991 Gloria Estefan was "Coming Out of" this, also plague No. 9. the darkness. 5: Pharaoh could have used a pediculicidal shampoo to get rid of these in plague No. 3. lice. Round 4. Category: Urban Myths 1: It's not a croc, I heard it from a friend: these croc relatives are living in the New York City sewers. Alligators. 2: Because he's barefoot on the cover of "Abbey Road", I'm convinced this member of the Beatles is dead. Paul McCartney. 3: My cousin just told me that a man in a hotel room had this renal organ removed while he slept. Kidney. 4: Wow! A couple found this pirate prosthesis on their car door handle when they got home from a date. Hook. 5: Did you hear? This man had a congressional page fired for making a "Love Boat" joke. Fred Grandy. Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 540, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: The High Cost Of Living 1: According to DOE figures, it was 25 cents in 1919, and in 1980 broke through the dollar-a-gallon barrier nationally. the cost of a gallon of gas. 2: If something's irrelevant, you might ask what it has to do with the price of these ($5,000 from a fertile donor). eggs. 3: In 1931 New York was crowded with men selling these fruits for a nickel; today they're about 10 times that. apples. 4: This NYC water transport cost 5 cents in 1900, 50 cents in 1990 but (happy ending) now it's free. the Staten Island Ferry. 5: This company's first Superman comic book cost 10 cents; in 2004 its "Superman/Batman" No. 14 was $2.95. DC Comics. Round 2. Category: Victorian Verse 1: "Beware" this, "my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the jubjub bird...". the jabberwock. 2: The last verse of the first version of this Tennyson poem begins, "When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made!". "The Charge of the Light Brigade". 3: In his "Departmental Ditties", Kipling wrote, "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is" this.

On this day in 1946, Dr. Benjamin Spock's seminal book about child care was published for the first time. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

#throwbackthursday Dr Benjamin Spock's ‘Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care' was first published on 14th July, 1946. It was then translated into 40 languages, selling over 50 million copies - second only to the Bible in the USA. Spock's thesis is perhaps best summarised in its seminal opening sentence: ‘Trust yourself, you know more than you think you do'. This intuitive approach was a shock to the world of parental guidance: just 18 years prior, psychologist John B Watson had recommended that children should be treated as adults.  In this episode, Rebecca, Arion and Olly revisit the radically different 1916 tome ‘The Mother and Her Baby'; explain how Spock's trusting instincts were a mainstay of his  career; and consider whether Gene Rodenberry's preference for strong-sounding names REALLY explains how ‘Spock' became a character on Star Trek... Further Reading: • ‘The Pied Piper Of Permissivism' (The Guardian, 1962): https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/23/dr-benjamin-spock-baby-and-child-care-1962 • ‘Dr Spock's Timeless Lessons in Parenting' (The Conversation, 2019): https://theconversation.com/dr-spocks-timeless-lessons-in-parenting-122377 • TV interview with Dr Spock (1982): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9fSG01h_0w ‘Why am I hearing a rerun?' We're planning exciting new things for the autumn, and we're banking that most of you haven't heard it yet. So stick with us. For bonus material and to support the show, visit Patreon.com/Retrospectors We'll be back tomorrow with a new episode! Follow us wherever you get your podcasts: podfollow.com/Retrospectors The Retrospectors are Olly Mann, Rebecca Messina & Arion McNicoll, with Matt Hill. Theme Music: Pass The Peas. Announcer: Bob Ravelli. Graphic Design: Terry Saunders. Edit Producer: Sophie King. Copyright: Rethink Audio / Olly Mann 2022. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fred discusses American Pediatrician Benjamin Spock, who's popular book on childcare was first published on this day in 1946. www.rockysealemusic.com https://rockysealemusic.com/wow-i-didn-t-know-that-or-maybe-i-just-forgot https://www.facebook.com/150wordspodcast --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rocky-seale7/message

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 469, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Would You Like To Be In The Movies? 1: She was discovered while performing at the 1940 Aquacade in San Francisco. Esther Williams. 2: First brought to the big screen by D.W. Griffith in 1909, this hugely popular star was once known as "Little Mary". Mary Pickford. 3: Born in South Africa, this female star of "The Italian Job" was discovered in line at a Hollywood bank. Charlize Theron. 4: Sophia Loren was a struggling teenage model when she met this future husband and beauty contest judge. Carlo Ponti. 5: Jack Nicholson discovered this Arkansas native and 2 years later she won an Oscar for "Melvin and Howard". Mary Steenburgen. Round 2. Category: Ends In "Ook" 1: It's cranny's partner, or a cozy corner for eating breakfast. Nook. 2: Gibberish, or mumbo jumbo. Gobbledygook. 3: For over 40 years this actor has brought Mark Twain to life in a one-man show. Hal Holbrook. 4: This one's a breeze: it's the largest of the Pacific salmons. Chinook. 5: As a result of this scandal, in 1992 H. Lawrence Garrett 3rd stepped down as Navy Secretary. Tailhook. Round 3. Category: There's No Business 1: The power went out on this Houston company when it declared bankruptcy in December 2001. Enron. 2: This airline's "Friendly Skies" were darkened by its Dec. 2002 bankruptcy. United Airlines. 3: In Jan. 2002 this undersea fiber optic telecom co. founded by Gary Winnick sank beneath the bankruptcy waves. Global Crossing. 4: $11 billion in alleged fraud might've played a tiny part in this long-distance co.'s July 2002 bankruptcy. WorldCom. 5: Conspiracy and fraud led to a June 2002 "reorganization" of this cable co. led by the Rigas family. Adelphia. Round 4. Category: Benny 1: In the 1790s astronomer and mathematician Benjamin Banneker compiled an annual one of these. almanac. 2: In 1785 Thomas Jefferson succeeded him as minister to France. Benjamin Franklin. 3: While in office, he admitted 6 states, more than any other U.S. president. Benjamin Harrison. 4: In addition to his "Baby and Child Care" book, he wrote "Caring for Your Disabled Child". Dr. Benjamin Spock. 5: In 1954 he turned Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw" into an opera. Benjamin Britten. Round 5. Category: Word In Common 1: One-word description of a "drummer boy" or an "engine that could". Little. 2: Adjective before Britain, Dane or "Gatsby". Great. 3: Term preceding Smokey, Faithful or "Yeller". Old. 4: TV's Simpson or football's Starr. Bart. 5: Judy's puppet partner, or a "Hawaiian" beverage. Punch. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!

Dr. Judy Rubin a pioneer in the field of art therapy. In Part I of my discussion with  Dr.  Rubin, she explains how she "stumbled into" the emerging field and gradually figured out how to harness the synergistic benefits of the arts and psychotherapy.  Early in her career Judy appeared with Fred Rogers as "the arts lady" on the PBS series Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.  Her training brought her into contact with the renowned developmental psychologist Erik Erikson  and with Benjamin Spock who wrote the hugely influential parenting guide that was the bible for my mother and millions of other parents in the 1950s. Judy, now in her 80s,  is still active, creating and curating documentary films about art therapy.In Part 2 Judy and I asked Judy to speculate about the power of the arts and then shifted gears to for her advice on aging well. 

"You know more than you think you do." The parenting advice of the baby boomer generation came from Dr. Benjamin Spock, born on this day in 1903.

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 410, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Born First 1: Dr. Jonas Salk,Dr. Louis Pasteur,Dr. Benjamin Spock. Dr. Louis Pasteur. 2: Ulysses Grant,Abraham Lincoln,Franklin Pierce. Franklin Pierce. 3: Harriet Beecher Stowe,James Fenimore Cooper,Ernest Hemingway. James Fenimore Cooper. 4: Ludwig van Beethoven,Johann Sebastian Bach,Johannes Brahms. Bach. 5: John Irving,James Michener,Arthur Miller. James Michener. Round 2. Category: Haunted Mansion 1: Every Thursday after "Jeopardy!" we hold one of these "sittings" to receive messages from our late Uncle Wiggin. Seance. 2: Whenever we have a devilish problem, Father Gary helps us with one of these spirited expelling rites. Exorcism. 3: None of us got any sleep last night with one of these "noisy" ghosts wandering all about. Poltergeist. 4: Sometimes our phantoms leave behind this spectral stuff whose name comes from Greek for "outside mold". Ectoplasm. 5: Our ghosts are so troubled, they may have taken lessons from this title ghost in an Oscar Wilde work. "The Canterville Ghost". Round 3. Category: I Do Impressions 1: This music legend penned hits like "Lay Lady Lay" and "Tangled Up In Blue". Bob Dylan. 2: Hello, my name this 2006 title movie film guy who say, "This suit is not black!"; very nice, high five. Borat. 3: "Here's Johnny!"; no, it's this actor known for his truth handling and a famous chicken salad sandwich request. Jack Nicholson. 4: I hear Darrell Hammond also does an impression of this "Finding Forrester" title guy, the filthy.... Sean Connery. 5: Watch me channel this 2'8" "Austin Powers" character. Mini-Me. Round 4. Category: What's Cooking? 1: This basic tomato-based spaghetti sauce whose name means "in sailor's style". marinara. 2: The eggs in Eggs Benedict aren't fried or scrambled, but cooked this way. poached. 3: This basic tomato-based spaghetti sauce whose name means "in sailor's style". marinara. 4: In the Persian dish Dolmeh Sib, this fruit is stuffed with a mix of peas, onions and meat -- a little too much to give to a teacher. apple. 5: This salad green, a variety of Italian chicory, is usually reddish. radicchio. Round 5. Category: War 1: "Operation Rolling Thunder" was the 1965 U.S. bombing campaign designed in part to stop men and supplies coming south on this road. the Ho Chi Minh Trail. 2: On June 25, 1950 fighting broke out on the 38th Parallel, thus beginning this war. the Korean War. 3: Of all the USA's wars, this one claimed the most American lives. the Civil War. 4: Meaning "little war", this term for a type of warfare originated during Napoleon's wars in Spain. guerrilla warfare. 5: This term for a member of Japan's powerful warrior class comes from the Japanese word meaning "guard". samurai. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!

This week, a look at calls surrounding the passage of the Medicare and Medicaid Act of 1965. You'll hear from President Johnson's chief aid to Congress Larry O'Brien, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Wilbur Mills (D-AR), Tennessee democratic senator Albert Gore Sr., Dr. Benjamin Spock, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Shirley Jackson - The Haunting Of Hill House - Episode 2 - Is Hill House Haunted Or Not?!   I'm Christy Shriver and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    And I'm Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.     Read the first paragraph of chapter 2.    That is the first paragraph of chapter 2 of The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson.  This is episode 2 as we explore this haunted space- and Christy, haunted it is.  Last week, we spent a lot of time talking about Shirley Jackson and her relationship with her mother.  It was our argument that a lot of the terror she creates springs originally from the dysfunction of living with a toxic mother.  We introduced the idea of reality versus illusion and the difficulty of knowing one from the other- especially in these toxic relationships.  We introduced the idea of feeling trapped and alone.  All of these feelings metaphorically expressing themselves not just in the characters who populate the story, but also in the physical space- the haunted house itself.      And Jackson borrowed from every gothic trope she could find to build for us a very relatable creepy house-  it's so stereotypical, we have to wonder if that in itself is part of her strategy- which of course, it very much is.   But, why?  What is she expressing? Of course, we know that haunted houses do express evil and fear and always have. We, also know that houses, in and of themselves, occupy a very important place in our psyche.  As people, we have an incredibly powerful psychological attachment to the physical spaces that populate our lives.  Physical spaces can bring us memories; as in favorite vacation destinations, they can be sacred as in a church, and they can also be haunted.  Let me quote Dr. Montague as he explained the origins of haunted houses to his assistants in chapter 3     Page 50-51    Jackson, herself, was always interested in houses- and for good reason.  Her grandfather had been a very important architect  in San Francisco, and she brought all of that family interest into her own life.  Jackson wanted to write a ghost story and then she set out to write Hill House, so, I guess it just made sense for her to research a bunch of different houses in order to create the one for her story.  She even enlisted her mother to help her get some research about a famous haunted house in San Jose, California, the Winchester Mystery House- one that still attracts millions of visitors visit every year.      I also happened to notice that Dr. Montague directly references this very famous house.  I wish I can say I had heard of it, but I hadn't, so I looked it up.  A woman by the name of Sarah Winchester inherited $20 million in 1881 from her dead husband and his family who had made their money selling firearms.  She was said to have moved to California to build a home for the spirits of the dead people who had been killed by the firearms made by her husband's family.  The Winchester house is really bizarre and worth Googling.  I can see why it has so many visitors.  It is enormous: 24,000 square feet; it has 10,000 windows, 47 stairways and fireplaces, 160 rooms, and 17 chimneys among other things.      It's weird looking too with all those turrets that remind us of what a proper haunted house should look like,  and Jackson studied it and her house has turrets, but Hill House isn't just one house, and it's not near as large as the Winchester House.  It's funny how many theories there are about what all inspired Hill House.  Stanley, Shirley's husband worked as a professor at a woman's college, I'm not sure we got to that last episode, but he worked at Bennington College in Vermont.  Well the Music building on campus is called Jennings Hall, and it is apart from the other buildings.  It's made from gray stone and stands against the hills, kind of like the opening of Hill House.   Lots of people see that connection. Ruth Franklin, Jackson's most recent biographer and probably the leading expert on all things Jackson, talks about a file she found in Jackson's archive at the Library of Congress when she was researching Jackson's life.  She found a collection of pictures and newspaper clippings about all these different places and events that inspired Hill House.  One was a newpaper article about a poltergeist incident in Long island, there were pictures of a couple of castles, there was the Winchester house stuff, but then she found one called the Edward H Everett Mansion- which is also in Vermont, and actually very near Bennington where Jackson and her family lived.  Franklin and her husband went there when she was researching for her book on Jackson and were basically shocked at how evil that house looked.  She and her husband both got chills just being on the property, so Franklin believes a lot of Hill House is inspired by that place.      At the end of the day, Hill House is the invention of Shirley Jackson's mind- not a specific place on earth.  It is also a creepy ole' metaphor for something- and when you're reading the book by chapter 4 where we go to in this episode - you don't know what it could be- but you intuitively feel it has to have something to do with a home- but definitely not a happy home- but maybe a place that should have been happy but is twisted, but maybe it is even a place that promised to be happy or to be something- but it lied about that.  I think when we read novels, especially the ones we like, sometimes we don't really know what we identify with- we just feel some sort of connection.  I think that's the big question in this book- especially at the beginning.  What am I supposed to make of this house?  Why am I compelled to read about it?   If it's so creepy why does Eleanor stay there?  What compels her to go inside? What's attracting her there?  Is it just that it's not her sister's house so anything is better than that?  Is she looking for a home?  As we read further on, we will come to understand that that is exactly what it is all about.  Of course, for all of us- having a home is important.  Wouldn't you agree, with Bing Crosby, Garry, that there's no place like home for the holidays?    Homes and thus families are important, there's a lot of psychological research to support that, of course.  But let's just narrow in on the idea of that physical space we associate with our home- where we currently are living and hopefully nesting.  For many of us, if we are going to make it our home- and not just a place where we sleep and maybe eat, a home is part of our self-definition- it is that physical space that expresses who we really are.  That's why decorating a home in your own way and making it beautiful to YOU is so important.  It's why I encourage people, even if you're wealthy enough to hire professional decorators, to be involved in that process in a personal way.  Most of us, however, don't have that problem, but we should make our home reflective of our interests, our passions, our tastes.  We should let it reflect OUR identity- in a positive way.  It's also true and I quote Robert Frost here, “Home is the place that, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.”  That's another very important idea.  It is a place where you feel safe, and you can be oriented in space and time.  It's a place where you can be vulnerable without being exploited.  But that's where the dangers reside, right?  If you are vulnerable, then by definition, you can be exploited- and of course, that happens, and it definitely happened to Shirley Jackson.    For me, a house really does has a spirit to it.  As strange as that sounds, especially if someone has lived in the same place for a while.  In some sense, a physical space has to develop its own energy and personality.  This is what I mean, Garry and I got married when my oldest daughter was a junior in college.  When she entered our new house- her new home, even though we put her things in a room, put her pictures on the wall, and tried to make her feel “at home”, she just didn't bond with the physical space.  She was living at college in a house of her own, and she was spending just a few days a year with us.  Her room at our house was nice; it was beautiful; but the house just wasn't her friend yet.  A full year later, we had a house fire, and I was in tears as things burned, thankfully just one room truly burned before we stopped the fire, but Anna was very stoic about the whole thing.  She just couldn't be sad.  She told me, point blank, I don't feel anything.  I don't feel like this is my space.  This isn't my home.  Of course this made me sad because I wanted her to feel at home there in our space with her sister and step-father, but it wasn't something I had any power to create.   There were no memories in that space for her at that time, and the only that that would ever change that is creating memories for that space in that space- of course, the fire ironically was a memory for us all- but it really is about the passing of time and what we do with the passing of time.  Living there- bringing friends there, filling up the air with the smell of food and the fire place, sharing meals together- playing games around the table- the house has had to develop a spirit of its own- and hopefully a positive safe and welcoming one and hopefully one that is still being developed.    Of course you're right.  That is why it's important to be intentional about that sort of thing because just as a space can be positive, it can also be negative.  And just as it can have a positive effect on a person, it can have a negative one as well- obviously.     William Sax, Professor of anthropology, says it this way: People and places where they reside engage in a continuing set of exchanges; they have determinate, mutual effects upon each other because they are part of a single, interactive system.”  Listen to what he means- people and places engage with each other- they interact with each other and have effects on each other- they are part of one single interactive system.  It's a very interesting way of looking at how we engage the world.  This is true.  It's originally a Southeast Asian concept, but it really nails a universal truth.     Of course it's that very idea that I also see Jackson taking and running wild with it in her book- physical space interacting actively with the people who occupy its space.      Reading here how Jackson plays around with the concept of this house is really a hyperbolized version of spaces interacting with people- and in her case, she builds an entire 80 year history of negative memories in this house.  Here, crazy enough, the house actually is a villain- although I know that's not totally obvious by the end of chapter 4- but even early on before the house spooks a single person when we read the history of the house, we can see how much negative emotions and hurt are a part of the spirit of this house.     For sure, Jackson makes Hill House into a literal character in the story.  This house has emotions.  She tells us explicitly this house is without kindness and has no concession to humanity- not unlike her own mother (as we saw last episode).  She goes on to say Hill house is not fit for love or for hope- that's how Jackson literally describes it.  But unlike a real house in the real world, what makes this fictional story creepy is that we are going to see that the house has agency- or it at least appears to.  The house does stuff- or maybe it does stuff- that's the big unanswered question.  Who's doing the stuff in the house.  Either way, Of course, this is all the opposite sort of things we want in our physical home, and I'm sure almost everyone would agree with that.   And let's be mindful here.  Shirley Jackson spent a lot of time thinking about her house.  She spent a lot of time, in fact, most of her time, thinking about her home.  She was first and foremost a homemaker. And she was extremely intentional about what she invested her time in.  She did a lot of cooking- and neglected a lot of cleaning opting to make her space a fun liveable one, contrary to popular standards and practices of her time.  She, probably better than most writers or any genre at any time, knew exactly how powerful a home was and could be and how a person could frame it.  Heck, she financed her entire life out of humorously discussing hers.  Her house was famously vibrant, full of life, full of energy, full of visitors- both celebrated literary friends of hers, as well as the dozens of childhood playmates that continuously bounced between the walls.  She clearly knew how to make a happy home, but here in this book, she strips all of that positive away and we see she also knew what a house without kindness could be like.       So interesting.  What's also interesting to me is that historically, this haunted house archetype goes back hundreds of years, well before Jackson came on the scene.  We all know this, I mean who hasn't seen pictures of those gloomy castles in old Gothic stories.  We all know those houses that wreaked havoc on Victorian readers, on Scooby Doo readers, on all of us.  I've read several of these to my own kids over the years, And now that I think about it, all these haunted houses kind of look like Hill House, they usually have two stories maybe a turret or tower, but for sure a black cat on a porch, bats coming out a window, and full moon somewhere behind it.      So true,  I think I've even mailed one or two Halloween cards with those very images on them, but literary haunted houses are slightly differently than the Scooby Doo thing.  In literary fiction authors use these Gothic tropes, and I'm going to put Jackson in this group, to create some sort of metaphor, to flesh out something moral or psychological- and this makes the inside of the house much scarier than the outside- as creepy as these pictures are.  The house represents something inside that is scary and that really exists in our world.  So the question is, what about this house scares us?  What are we really afraid of?  What are the ghosts?    And for me, although, I know this is totally a non-literature way of looking at things, to answer that question I find myself looking at Shirley Jackson as a person and the world she lived in.  Shirley Jackson was a woman of the 1950s, she was a writer and commentator and a deep thinker about that world.  She was a daughter, as we discussed last week, but she was also a mother herself.  And the definition of motherhood in the 1950s was very unique in American history because, and I talked about this a little last episode, but there was a giant shift after WW2 for the American family and especially for women.  Last episode, I talked about that second wave of feminism and Jackson as a professional woman may have looked at all of that, but today I want to bring up another important and that is this idea of the postwar rush to the suburbs and America's cult of the family- that is a very big distinctive historically about this time period. And it in fact, it is still very much a part of our American identity, even to this day.  After WW2, life changed for almost everyone in a positive way.  Life wasn't as hard as it had been before the war.  People could own a home; everyone seemed to want a family.  It was a status symbol.  We all wanted a particular kind of family- the nuclear family with a mom and a dad and children who were the product of that marriage.      That's not just an American thing- isn't that what everyone aspires to all over the world even today.      Of course- but for America, in this post World War 2 era, everything was changing and prospering in a new way and so this was not a pipe dream- it was attainable in a way that had NEVER been possible before.  Think about Of Mice and Men and how destitute things were during the depression.  That was all over.  Now- People had time to think about things like competitive living.  Before that we all were just trying not to starve.  We also had mass media that was projecting what prosperity looked like, or at least should look like.  This kind of atomic family was the picture of happiness.  This social framework was on the covers of all the magazines, in all the movies, in all the tv shows.  It was sanctioned by our churches, and how good or successful we were as humans depended on how well we created this particular family.  If your family wasn't this kind of family, we used the word “broken”.  You came from a broken home.  I know this very personally because this was my reality.  I was raised in a “broken” home.  My parents were divorced- although I'm not from the 50s, but even during my childhood this was a very shameful thing for a child- something was wrong with you, with your family, with your home.  Shirley Jackson's home wasn't physically broken at all- at least not in the way that mine was, but the appearance of perfection haunted her from her earliest memories.  Her parents were in hot pursuit of that perfection.  And as an adult when she was homemaking she was very aware of all of these family and social dynamics at work.  Almost all of her writings center around these ideas in one way or another, the fiction and the non-fiction.      So, back to Hill House, if we look at a home your way, as a place where individuals are supposed to belong- let's look at these characters from that perspective of why they might be showing up at Hill House.  Because the characters in this story are definitely not coming from that background.  They are all broken, if we pay close attention.  We see that Eleanor doesn't have a father or now a mother.  Theo is very vague about her identity, even about who she lives with- we don't even know if her roommate is a man or  a woman, the only thing she lets out in her introductory comments is about spending her vacations alone at boarding school which is kind of dark, and Luke will claim later on to not having a mother.  So, I guess, none of them really have a place to go for the holidays, to use the language from Bing Crosby's song.  When they get to Hill House, although the house itself is creepy, they seem happy to have found each other.  The lure of having what this house may be offering is greater than the risk of what could be scary about it being haunted.  The girls even wear bright colors to brighten up the dreary home; they run outside, the house is in a valley and kind of covered up, but they also claim it's a “place for picnics”, something happy families do- and of course, we'll see at the end of the book that this parody of the picnic will come back to haunt both girls. In the beginning, Eleanor and Theo claim to be cousins and the last sentence of chapter 2 is, “Would you let them separate us now?  Now that we've found out we're cousins?”.      When they meet Luke in chapter 3, Eleanor very quickly asks, “Then you're one of the family? The people who own Hill House? Not one of Doctor Montague's guests?”  Of course, she doesn't mean her own family- but for Eleanor- in some ways that is what she is fantasizing about- this notion of family- a place to call home.      Let me also point out that by this point in the story, even though, we're still in the very beginning, the house has already played a benign trick on Eleanor and Theo- there was an incident about a rabbit frightening them.  It's cute and funny but odd none the less.  Hill House, for Eleanor, although is obviously ugly, vile and haunted, is not an unhappy place.  It holds promise.  When they come in and meet Dr. Montague, he pours drinks for everyone and Eleanor comments, “Everything's so strange, I mean, this morning I was wondering what Hill House would be like, and now I can't believe that it's real, and we're here.”  She struggles to believe it, but as she sits with the other three and the thought she has is this and I quote, “I am the fourth person in this room; I am one of them; I belong.”    And of course, all of the conversation between the four of them is fun-loving.  They make jokes about what they do in the other world.  Almost all of it is non-sense.  Eleanor talks about being the talk of café's, Luke says he is a bullfighter, Theo claims to be clad in silk and gold.      Yes, and Dr. Montague assumes the role of a a traditional father-figure.  He calls them children and tells them stories.  Let's read that part.  They all sit around, and he tells the story of Hill House.    Page 54-      It's definitely a creepy story and the Crain family is definitely a miserable group of people, but getting to the current moment if Mr. Montague is the father-fugure, Luke, Theo and Eleanor are the kids, then in some sense the house is the mother- there's no one else.  But from the history of the house, there was never really a real mother that ever lived here.    Yes- and that brings me back to my discussion of the 1950s.  Before the 50s, life in the United States was more difficult.  Many people we're struggling to exist- mostly fighting mother nature on a farm or a ranch.  When wealth came to the United States in that post war era, like we already said forming an ideal family and an ideal home was at the heart of that- but at the heart of the home were the children.  A new word showed up in the Webster dictionary in 1958 that had never existed in English before- that is the word, “parenting”.  And whatever it meant, parenting was about the responsibility of making perfect kids or at least making a perfect growing up experience for kids, and how to do that was naturally- again in very American form- supercontroversial and divisive.  There was this book that came out in 1944 by a doctor by the name of Dr. Benjamin Spock.  This book took America by storm.  In his book, he claimed parents should not discipline their children.  They should be permissive.  The idea before this was that humans were evil, and children were humans, so they needed to be disciplined or tamed into doing right- if you indulged them you would “spoil” them- that was the word.  Dr. Spock took the opposite approach, his theory was that all of us are good and it is not possible to spoil a child.  A child who is loved will never be spoiled by things you give him/her or do for him/her.  If they had everything they needed, they didn't need to act out or misbehave.  In either case, no matter which side of the argument you fell on- one thing both camps had in common was the child was the center of the home. Everything was about the children.     And this was where Shirley Jackson, the mother, fit in.  Look at the titles of her two books of essays about her children, Life Among the Savages and Raising Demons. Jackson took seriously this debate about “parenting”.  In 1960 she wrote a book titled “Special Delivery, a Useful Book for Brand-New Mothers”.  Let me read a small quote from an essay in there called, “Whos' the Boss?”    “After Careful study it is going to be clear to the earnest mother that the enormous propaganda on child raising in books, magazins, and even adverstisments is being largely written by babies.  Baby is the boss, the articles point out flatly; first you are waiting for him, an dthe you are waiting on him.  Perhaps this is because 20 or 25 years ago the going rage in baby care was exactly the opposite.  Children who were allowed a little freedom of choice were going to be ‘spoiled' and the worse possible thing an anguished mother could do was pick up a crying baby. In our family there is a sharp division of opinion on the question of the authority of the child.  Our four children ardently support he cause of absolute indulgence, warmly seconded by their grandparents on both sides.  My husband and I, bolstering one another secretly with reminders that we are firm, righteous, fair, stem although impartial, band beyond all else the heads of the family, have managed to fight the issue to a standstill somewhere between the two camps.”    She is funny.      She definitely is, and even in Hill House, there are parts of the dialogue that are really funny- especially when we get to the parts about Mrs. Montague who is absolutely absurd.  But here's where I want to land.  Eleanor is our central character- no doubt.  We are wedded to her point of view.  There is no doubt that the allure of Hill House is also her desire for a family- to not be alone- one of the creepier elements for me in this book is Eleanor's constant revisiting the phrase “Journeys end in lovers meeting”.  I think it's repeated 14 times, maybe more than that.     Yeah- what is that about.    Well, of course, we never really know.  It's actually a quote from Shakepeare's play 12th Night.  Which is a comedy about a girl named Viola.  12th Night is very typical Shakespeare, I actually just watched it at a Shakespeare in the park this summer in Nashville.  It's a happy play and after a lot of misteps and misidentities Viola finds true love at the end.  The Journey for Viola ended in a lovers meeting.  But the way Jackson uses it isn't like the way Shakespeare uses it at all.  It really is not used in any kind of romantic sense.  Eleanor wants to meet love, but I'm not sure she's very particular as to the kind of love she meets.  It doesn't have to be sexual, for sure.  Although there's a little bit of flirtation with Luke, it definitely ends poorly. This is a very asexual book.  In fact, the most graphic sexual part has to do with the demented Hugh Crain and his abusive relationship with his daughters.  Eleanor is looking for a family- she wants to be the center of someone's world, and that is normal and understandable, but she's also a bratty kid in many ways.  She's judgmental of everyone else, we will see.  Jackson is going to create every member of this family of Hill House to be dysfunctional and self-orbiting.  Every member of the family is tyrranically trying to be in control- and notice that is what Dr. Montague pointed out in the history of the house.  Hugh Crain, who built the house, is a horrible father- he parented his daughters as we find out late in the book- through sheer terror.  The house is a horrible mother, it's oppressive and vile and deceitful- but the Crain kids were terrible too.  They were competitive and hurtful.  And now we get these “kids” – if that is what we're going to call Luke, Theo and Eleanor- are going to all three be portrayed as self-centered and competitive.  Dr. Montague in this playful exchange at dinner says this and notice Jackson's carefully chosen words, “You are three willful, spoiled children who are prepared to nag me for your bedtime story.”  Jackson uses the loaded language of her generation- words everyone in the 1950s would recognize.      So are you saying, Jackson is saying, children are tyrranical as well as mothers?  Is everyone tyrranical?      Well, I really don't know if I'm ready to comment on that yet but maybe.  I want to point out something though that IS interesting.  Both Theo and Eleanor were selected to come to the house because they supposedly have powers, Theo has telepathic power and Eleanor can create these poltergeist experiences where we can move things around- maybe subconsciously even.  This, I think is an important detail to include.  They are not powerless, and Jackson leaves room we will see to see both of them exercising their powers at various places in the book, maybe.      What do you mean by that?  That they may be using their powers or maybe they aren't, we can't be sure?    That's it exactly- and we're not even sure if they know if they are using their powers- they seem not to really understand that they have them. Now, let's go back and think about the HOUSE itself- As the story sets itself up in the exposition, four very different people have moved into the house.  The only thing they have in common is that they all have some sort of brokenness in the background, even Dr. Montague as we will find out when we meet his hideous wife, but they all are willing to move into a house that is supposedly haunted- but how and by whom?  And what are they going to do in the house.  Of course this question comes up in their evening together- their first bonding experience sharing food and drink together- and Dr. Montague confesses that he has no idea what will happen to them.  They will take notes, but that is all he can offer. They will drink brandy- as Luke points out- they are there to drink spirits- pardon the pun.  And they most certainly will.   Before they go to bed that first night, Theo and Eleanor share the stories of where they come from.  Let's read this part.    Page 64    What is interesting about that exchange is that we, as readers, already know Eleanor is lying.  None of what she just told them is true.  Things at Hill House are not what they appear to be.  In chapter 4 when they tour the house, Dr. Montague makes a point of pointing that out.      Page 77     Much of chapter 4 is describing the house- and the house is off- you can't see it at first- but it's off center.  There is a fairly large distortion because so much is off. There's also the marble statue of Mr. Crain, the veranda that's crooked, the cold spot in front of the nursery ironically which is symbolically in the middle of the house, and then the chapter ends with noises. This is the first really scary part in the book.  Eleanor apparently wakes up with someone calling her.  She thinks it's her mother at first before she remembers she's at Hill House.  When she goes to Theo's room Theo is scared out of her mind because she's heard someone knocking, plus it's terribly cold.  The noise gets louder until Eleanor shouts wildly, “Go away, go away!”  The door trembles and shakes against the hinges and ultimately they hear a little giggle and a whisper and a laugh before the Dr. and Luke get to them.    That is all very creepy and very definitely the stuff scary movies are made of.      Yes, and chapter 4 ends with Dr. Montague's observation.    - read  ending pg 99    Whatever is pressuring the house- is pressuring this little make shift family to break up.      But then again, no one ever knows what forces  are at work in any family dynamic. Do we?  What kind of subversive forces are at work in a house, in a home… in a home that is haunted?    Ha!  Good point Jackson.  I guess we often never do.      Well, that's terrifying enough for one episode.  We will pick up with chapter 5 next time and see just what exactly Jackson is doing with our minds.  Thanks for spending time with us as we explore the terrifying world Jackson has created at Hill House.  As always please tell your friends about us, push out an episode on your twitter account, or your Facebook account.  Text an episode to a friend.  If you're a teacher and want to use podcasts for instruction, go to our website and download a listening guide for your students to fill out as they listen.  We want to support learning around the world, and helping us share the world is how you can help us grow.  Thank you     Peace out.        

  Finck burned the first draft of the autopsy report According to Dr. David Mantik and Doug Horne, Finck also burned the second draft FREE Download Ebook: Six Seconds in Dallas (PDF) by Josiah "Tink" Thompson Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas made the cover of The Saturday Evening Post; see pic here Article: How Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got it Wrong by Dr. Aguilar Russell Fisher led the four-member Clark Panel Fisher was very close to the CIA The Clark Panel made some very radical changes to the autopsy They did not exhume the body nor did they speak to the original pathologists who performed the autopsy www.patspeer.com Article: The Mysteries Around Ida Dox by Tim Smith Jim DiEugenio reviews John Newman's latest volume on the JFK case, Into the Storm Book: Into the Storm by John Newman: Paperback, Kindle The Bay of Pigs invasion and Richard Bissell Please urge Biden to declassify the records Article: Cotton Coated Conspiracy, by John Roberts? by Jim DiEugenio Jim DiEugenio evaluates the new Showtime documentary The One and Only Dick Gregory June 11 1963, JFK's landmark Civil Rights Speech: Video, Text Dick Gregory started to speak against the Vietnam War at the peak of his career He even ran for political office in 1967 and 1968 Mark Lane & Benjamin Spock were his running mates 1968....the year that changed everything Trailer: The Trial of the Chicago 7 Trailer: King in the Wilderness FREE Borrowable Ebook: The Last Crusade: MLK, FBI and the Poor People's Campaign by Gerald D. McKnight Book: King and the Other America by Sylvie Laurent: Paperback, Kindle Video: Robert Groden and the first public broadcast of the Zapruder Film on Geraldo Rivera's show Good Night America Dick Gregory was also on the panel (in the video above) FREE Borrowable Ebook: Code Name Zorro: The Murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. by Mark Lane & Dick Gregory Reissued as Murder in Memphis in 1993 The State (Prosecution) approached the Defense (James Earl Ray) for a plea bargin !!! And Arthur Haynes, Ray's lawyer, turned it down and instead chose to go to court Trailer: The One and Only Dick Gregory This documentary does not touch Gregory's Please check the news section at Kennedys and King How a former Trump aide is pressing Biden to loosen national security secrets A Florida tie to the JFK assassination shows why secret records need releasing What is the CIA hiding about the assassination of President Kennedy? Book: Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba and the Garrison Case by Jim DiEugenio: Paperback, Kindle Book: The Assassinations co-edited by Jim DiEugenio & Lisa Pease: Paperback, Kindle FREE Borrowable Ebook: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass Robert McNamara and the Vietnam war The McNamara-Taylor report was actually written by Gen. Victor Krulak & Col. Fletcher Prouty Operation Rolling Thunder wasn't working Video: Senator Wayne Morse on the Vietnam War Documentary: War Made Easy by Norman Solomon FREE Borrowable Ebook: War is a Racket by Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler "I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own—and if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans." - Gen. David M. Shoup "We really blew it on the Kennedy case" - Dan Rather to Bob Tanenbaum  

Perhaps no one has ever had a bigger impact on an entire generation of children than Dr. Benjamin Spock. His book Baby and Child Care was published in 1946, just as the first baby boomers were being born. And his calm, reassuring tone quickly found an audience among new parents. Dr. Spock became the go-to guy for advice on child rearing. Then, in the late 1960s, Dr. Spock became known for something else - his political activism. He even ran for president in 1972. But Benjamin Spock had long resisted writing his autobiography. Finally, in the late 1980s, his second wife, Mary Morgan, persuaded him it was time. So, with her help, he finally wrote the book called Spock on Spock.

You've probably heard the proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child.” That's because for most of human history, when it came to child-care, people had the daily support of family, friends and neighbours. Today, that's not the reality for many young parents. Not only that, parents are raising their kids in a much more technologically complex world. So the question becomes, with a smaller support network, how can parents use technology to help raise their children, without letting it get in the way. Featuring Jennifer Traig, Alison Gopnik, Mike Rothman, Dr. Harvey Karp, Jill Gilkerson and Dana Porter. For more on the podcast go to delltechnologies.com/trailblazers 

Dr Benjamin Spock's ‘Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care' was first published on 14th July, 1946. It was then translated into 40 languages, selling over 50 million copies - second only to the Bible in the USA.Spock's thesis is perhaps best summarised in its seminal opening sentence: ‘Trust yourself, you know more than you think you do'. This intuitive approach was a shock to the world of parental guidance: just 18 years prior, psychologist John B Watson had recommended that children should be treated as adults. In this episode, Rebecca, Arion and Olly revisit the radically different 1916 tome ‘The Mother and Her Baby'; explain how Spock's trusting instincts were a mainstay of his career; and consider whether Gene Rodenberry's preference for strong-sounding names REALLY explains how ‘Spock' became a character on Star Trek...Further Reading:• TV interview with Dr Spock (1982): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9fSG01h_0w• ‘The Pied Piper Of Permissivism' (The Guardian, 1962): https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/23/dr-benjamin-spock-baby-and-child-care-1962• ‘Dr Spock's Timeless Lessons in Parenting' (The Conversation, 2019):https://theconversation.com/dr-spocks-timeless-lessons-in-parenting-122377For bonus material and to support the show, visit Patreon.com/RetrospectorsWe'll be back tomorrow! Follow us wherever you get your podcasts: podfollow.com/RetrospectorsThe Retrospectors are Olly Mann, Rebecca Messina & Arion McNicoll, with Matt Hill.Theme Music: Pass The Peas. Announcer: Bob Ravelli. Graphic Design: Terry Saunders. Edit Producer: Emma Corsham.Copyright: Rethink Audio / Olly Mann 2021. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There's an advertising campaign with the tagline, “you don't have to be perfect to be a perfect parent.” While this is true, you still need to parent. Simply training and instructing your child about Jesus doesn't show them what a relationship with Jesus actually looks like. Today we discuss some parenting strategies that you probably won't find in the works of Benjamin Spock.

Benjamin Spock, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child CarePhillips Andover Academy, Yale University, Columbia UniversityJane Cheney, Mary MorganUshttp://www.thebibliophiledailypodcast.carrd.cohttps://twitter.com/thebibliodailythebibliophiledailypodcast@gmail.comRoxiehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAfdi8Qagiiu8uYaop7Qvwhttp://www.chaoticbibliophile.comhttp://instagram.com/chaoticbibliophilehttps://twitter.com/NewAllegroBeat

Newspaper journalist Thomas Maier is the author of five highly successful non-fiction books. His topics include the Newhouse publishing empire, the life of Dr. Benjamin Spock, and the intertwined relationships of two famous families, the Churchills and the Kennedys. His newest book, Mafia Spies, shows how the CIA recruited two gangsters to assassinate Fidel Castro during the Cold War. In a starred review, Booklist called it "brilliant" and "enormous fun" … A paperback version of Mafia Spies has just been published, and it’s a great read!Tom is probably best known as the author of Masters of Sex: The Life and Times of William Masters and Virginia Johnson, the Couple Who Taught America How to Love. He also served as a producer of the Emmy Award-winning Showtime series based on the book.In this episode, Tom talks about his adventures as a biographer, and shares how his investigative reporting skills led him to astonishing stories about his subjects.

Devocional Cristiano para Jóvenes - PERSIGUE TUS SUEÑOS Fecha: 29-10-2020 Título: BENJAMIN SPOCK Autor: Dorothy E. Watts Locución: Ale Marín

undefined See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week at In The Past Lane, the American History podcast, we take a look at the original March on Washington. “Coxey’s Army” was a group of 500 men who amidst a terrible economic depression in 1894, marched from Ohio to the nation’s capital to demand that Congress provide employment through public works projects. They were turned away, but many of the Populist ideas that inspired them were enacted into law in the coming decades.    Feature Story: “Coxey’s Army” Arrives in Washington, DC On April 30, 1894 a man named Jacob Coxey arrived in Washington, DC at the head of a group of about 500 men. By then the whole nation knew them as “Coxey’s Army.” They had set out weeks earlier from Coxey’s hometown of Massillon, Ohio in what was the first ever March On Washington. So what was the fuss all about? The immediate answer was that in the spring of 1894 the United States was in the midst of the most severe economic depression in its history. It was triggered one year earlier by the financial Panic of 1893 which caused tens of thousands of businesses and farms to fail, and the unemployment rate to soar to 20% - and often. Double that in big cities like Chicago and New York. The US had seen its share of economic depressions in the 19th century – the panic of 1837, the panic of 1857, the panic of 1873, just to name a few. In each of these previous cases, political leaders agreed that the best policy was: do nothing. Depressions, the reasoning went, were like bad weather or an illness. Wait long enough, and the good times would return. The most dangerous thing the government could do was provide assistance to the people because, so the logic went, that would only foster dependence and lead the US down the path to socialism. Here’s how President Grover Cleveland put it in his second inaugural address, in March 1893. “The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned,” said Cleveland, “and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their Government its functions do not include the support of the people.” But despite proclamations such as these, there was growing support among many Americans in this period known as the Gilded Age for the government to take a more active role in the economy to protect the vulnerable from exploitation and promote the greatest possible amount of opportunity for all. They argued that laissez-faire might have made sense back in the late-18th century when the US took form. But not anymore in an age of industry, wage work, mass immigration, huge cities, and giant corporations. That was the view that inspired Jacob Coxey. He was no radical, at least compared to the socialists, communists, and anarchists of the day. He was a successful farmer who also bred horses for sale and owned a sand quarry business. But as a farmer in the 1880s, he’d gotten involved in the burgeoning protest movement among farmers that came to be called Populism. Its leaders argued that the only way to effectively battle the power of the monopolies and trusts was to create a political movement that would elect farmers or pro-farmer politicians to office, so they could use political power to curb the power of banks, railroads, and brokers and save the honest American farmer from ruin. And in 1892 they established a new national party called the People’s Party that called for a wide range of new government policies, everything from taking over the railroads and telegraphs, to the adoption of a graduated income tax that would make the rich pay their fair share. Its candidate for president that year polled a million votes and won four states. It was no joke. So his embrace of Populism explains Jacob Coxey’s motivation behind his protest march. He advocated that, given the severity of the depression, the federal government must abandon its traditional commitment to laissez-faire and provide funding to states to create public works projects such as road building to alleviate mass unemployment and stimulate the economy. Now, if this sounds familiar, it’s because Coxey was advocating an approach to economic crisis that 40 years later would be embraced by Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. And succeeding administrations, of course, have turned to varying forms of “stimulus packages” to boost the economy and help workers in times of economic crisis. To draw attention to this idea, Coxey organized his march to Washington, D.C. He actually got the idea from a fellow activist named Carl Browne who was more of a true blue radical. He not only came up with the idea of a march, but also the group’s official name, the “Commonweal of Christ,” which was intended to evoke both the ideals of the common good and Christianity. About 120 men gathered in Massillon, OH and on Easter Sunday 1894 they set off for the nation’s capital. As the press picked up the story, the group acquired a new name, “Coxey’s Army.” It was meant on the one hand to evoke ridicule and on the other to stoke fears of radicalism and civil unrest. The press alternately dismissed them as a bunch of delusional cranks, or a dangerous group of losers who wanted handouts and a socialist revolution. But Coxey dismissed this talk and declared that his army’s campaign was one to save the republic and honest capitalism from the clutches of corporate trusts and the politicians they controlled. Despite the negative press, as they marched, more men joined the ranks, including some African American men. Coxey had hoped to assemble an "army" of 100,000 men. But he had to settle for a peak of 500. In some places they were met by hostile townspeople and policemen who threatened arrest if they set up camp. But in many places Coxey and his growing number of followers were greeted by enthusiastic supporters who offered money, food, clothing, and shoes, as well as words of support. Finally, after walking 400 miles in 35 days, Coxey’s Army arrived in Washington on April 30, 1894. As this was the first ever protest march on Washington, apprehension was in the air as the men set up a makeshift camp. Hundreds of police and 1,500 soldiers stood by, ready for a confrontation. The next day, May 1, Coxey tried to enter the US Capitol to deliver a speech before Congress, but security guards turned him away. So, Coxey tried the next best thing: delivering the speech in front of the Capitol. But before he started speaking, police arrested him and took him off to jail.  He was charged with “disturbing the peace,” but the charges were eventually reduced and he was convicted only for walking on the lawn of the Capitol grounds. Had he spoken, Jacob Coxey would have said, in part: “We stand here to-day in behalf of millions of toilers whose petitions have been buried in committee rooms, whose prayers have been unresponded to, and whose opportunities for honest, remunerative, productive labor have been taken from them by unjust legislation, which protects idlers, speculators, and gamblers.” While Jacob Coxey did not get what he came for in Washington DC, the larger Populist movement to which he belonged did influence a generation of reformers who, in what we now call the Progressive Era, achieved notable successes in enacting many of the Populist Party demands, and so much more, ranging from regulations on trusts to measures to improve working conditions, public health, and political reform. And then there’s this - 50 years later to the day after he was arrested for trying to give a speech on the steps of the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, a 90-year old Jacob Coxey was allowed to deliver that speech. On May 1, 1944, he stood on the Capitol steps and said what had been on his mind back in 1894. But by then, in the wake of the New Deal and its vast array of government programs to alleviate suffering during the Great Depression, Coxey’s speech seemed hardly radical at all. What a difference half a century makes. So what else of note happened this week in US history? April 28, 1967 heavyweight champion boxer Muhammad Ali defies the draft and refuses to be inducted into the US military to fight in Vietnam. Ali argued that his religious beliefs prohibited him from participating in a war against the poor, nonwhite people of Vietnam. He was widely condemned for his stand, and subsequently stripped of his boxing title and sentenced to five years in prison. “I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs,” said Ali. “So I'll go to jail, so what? We've been in jail for 400 years.” The sentence was later overturned. April 30, 1789 The first presidential inauguration took place in New York City. George Washington took the oath of office at Federal Hall on Wall St before a crowd of thousands. April 30, 1975 South Vietnam fell to the forces of North Vietnam, marking the unofficial end of the Vietnam War. For Americans, this moment is captured in the photograph of people boarding a helicopter on the roof of the American embassy in Saigon. If you want to learn more about the Vietnam War, check out ITPL episode 39 featuring my interview with Ken Burns about his documentary on the war. And what notable people were born this week in American history?   April 27, 1822 – Union Army general and 18th POTUS, Ulysses S. Grant April 28, 1758 – 5th POTUS James Monroe April 29, 1899 - composer and jazz orchestra leader Duke Ellington May 2, 1903 - Dr Benjamin Spock, author of the best selling book on baby care May 3, 1919 – folk singer and social justice activist Pete Seeger The Last Word Let’s give it to Jacob Coxey, who 126 years ago this week arrived at the head of the first march on Washington. Here’s a passage from the speech he hoped to deliver that day from the steps of the US Capitol. “We stand here to declare by our march of over 400 miles through difficulties and distress…that we are law-abiding citizens, and as men our actions speak louder than words. We are here to petition for legislation which will furnish employment for every man able and willing to work; for legislation which will bring universal prosperity and emancipate our beloved country from financial bondage to the descendants of King George. We have come to the only source which is competent to aid the people in their day of dire distress. We are here to tell our Representatives, who hold their seats by grace of our ballots, that the struggle for existence has become too fierce and relentless. We come and throw up our defenseless hands, and say, help, or we and our loved ones must perish. We are engaged in a bitter and cruel war with the enemies of all mankind—a war with hunger, wretchedness, and despair, and we ask Congress to heed our petitions and issue for the nation’s good a sufficient volume of the same kind of money which carried the country through one awful war and saved the life of the nation. … we appeal to every peace-loving citizen, every liberty-loving man or woman, every one in whose breast the fires of patriotism and love of country have not died out, to assist us in our efforts toward better laws and general benefits.” For more information about the In The Past Lane podcast, head to our website, www.InThePastLane.com  Music for This Episode Jay Graham, ITPL Intro (JayGMusic.com) The Joy Drops, “Track 23,” Not Drunk (Free Music Archive) Sergey Cheremisinov, “Gray Drops” (Free Music Archive) Pictures of the Flow, “Horses” (Free Music Archive) Ondrosik, “Tribute to Louis Braille” (Free Music Archive) Alex Mason, “Cast Away” (Free Music Archive) Squire Tuck, “Nuthin’ Without You” (Free Music Archive) Ketsa, “Multiverse” (Free Music Archive) Ketsa, “Memories Renewed” (Free Music Archive) Dana Boule, “Collective Calm” (Free Music Archive) Borrtex, “Motion” (Free Music Archive) Blue Dot Sessions, "Pat Dog" (Free Music Archive) Jon Luc Hefferman, “Winter Trek” (Free Music Archive) The Bell, “I Am History” (Free Music Archive) Production Credits Executive Producer: Lulu Spencer Graphic Designer: Maggie Cellucci Website by: ERI Design Legal services: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too Social Media management: The Pony Express Risk Assessment: Little Big Horn Associates Growth strategies: 54 40 or Fight © In The Past Lane, 2020 Recommended History Podcasts Ben Franklin’s World with Liz Covart @LizCovart The Age of Jackson Podcast @AgeofJacksonPod Backstory podcast – the history behind today’s headlines @BackstoryRadio Past Present podcast with Nicole Hemmer, Neil J. Young, and Natalia Petrzela @PastPresentPod 99 Percent Invisible with Roman Mars @99piorg Slow Burn podcast about Watergate with @leoncrawl The Memory Palace – with Nate DiMeo, story teller extraordinaire @thememorypalace The Conspirators – creepy true crime stories from the American past @Conspiratorcast The History Chicks podcast @Thehistorychix My History Can Beat Up Your Politics @myhist Professor Buzzkill podcast – Prof B takes on myths about the past @buzzkillprof Footnoting History podcast @HistoryFootnote The History Author Show podcast @HistoryDean More Perfect podcast - the history of key US Supreme Court cases @Radiolab Revisionist History with Malcolm Gladwell @Gladwell Radio Diaries with Joe Richman @RadioDiaries DIG history podcast @dig_history The Story Behind – the hidden histories of everyday things @StoryBehindPod Studio 360 with Kurt Andersen – specifically its American Icons series @Studio360show Uncivil podcast – fascinating takes on the legacy of the Civil War in contemporary US @uncivilshow Stuff You Missed in History Class @MissedinHistory The Whiskey Rebellion – two historians discuss topics from today’s news @WhiskeyRebelPod American History Tellers ‏@ahtellers The Way of Improvement Leads Home with historian John Fea @JohnFea1 The Bowery Boys podcast – all things NYC history @BoweryBoys Ridiculous History @RidiculousHSW The Rogue Historian podcast with historian @MKeithHarris The Road To Now podcast @Road_To_Now Retropod with @mikerosenwald © In The Past Lane 2020

The Greeks have given us a wealth of complex folklore and myths that are full of meaning for our lives. Among them are the stories of the Goddess Artemis and her human counterpart, Atalanta. They give us clues as to how to navigate the zig-zags of life. While demonstrating that life never unfolds in a straight line, the Greek myths give us inspiration to live into our fullness. Bolen declares, “Everybody has setbacks, everybody has suffering, everybody loses and wins at certain times of their lives.” She advises us to not give up; to call on the strengths of the Artemis archetype is to persevere without becoming bitter. Bolen encourages us to persist with what gives our life meaning and purpose.  Bolen is the author of many books, including Goddesses in Every Woman: Powerful Archetypes in Women's Lives (Harper Paperbacks 2004), Crones Don't Whine: Concentrated Wisdom for Juicy Women (Red Wheel/Weiser 2003),The Millionth Circle: How to Change Ourselves and The World--The Essential Guide to Women's Circles (Conari Press 1999), Urgent Message from Mother: Gather the Women, Save the World (Conari Press 2008), Like a Tree: How Trees, Women, and Tree People Can People Can Save the Planet (Conari Press 2010), Artemis: The Indomitable Spirit in Everywoman (Conari Press 2014), The Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Self (reissued HarperSanFrancisco 2005), Close to the Bone: Life-Threatening Illness as a Soul Journey (Conari Press 2007)Interview Date: 7/9/2014       Tags: MP3, Jean Shinoda Bolen, Jean Bolen, Artemis, Goddesses, Atalanta, Dr. Benjamin Spock, raising babies, Calydon Boar, Meleager, Athena, masculine, feminine, Hippomenes, Aphrodite, Three golden apples, heroines, walking the labyrinth, Millionth Circle, Circles, trafficking of girls and women, Fifth Women’s World Conference, 5WCW, Mythology, Women’s studies, social change 

The Greeks have given us a wealth of complex folklore and myths that are full of meaning for our lives. Among them are the stories of the Goddess Artemis and her human counterpart, Atalanta. They give us clues as to how to navigate the zig-zags of life. While demonstrating that life never unfolds in a straight line, the Greek myths give us inspiration to live into our fullness. Bolen declares, “Everybody has setbacks, everybody has suffering, everybody loses and wins at certain times of their lives.” She advises us to not give up; to call on the strengths of the Artemis archetype is to persevere without becoming bitter. Bolen encourages us to persist with what gives our life meaning and purpose. Bolen is the author of many books, including Goddesses in Every Woman: Powerful Archetypes in Women's Lives (Harper Paperbacks 2004), Crones Don't Whine: Concentrated Wisdom for Juicy Women (Red Wheel/Weiser 2003),The Millionth Circle: How to Change Ourselves and The World--The Essential Guide to Women's Circles (Conari Press 1999), Urgent Message from Mother: Gather the Women, Save the World (Conari Press 2008), Like a Tree: How Trees, Women, and Tree People Can People Can Save the Planet (Conari Press 2010), Artemis: The Indomitable Spirit in Everywoman (Conari Press 2014), The Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Self (reissued HarperSanFrancisco 2005), Close to the Bone: Life-Threatening Illness as a Soul Journey (Conari Press 2007)Interview Date: 7/9/2014 Tags: MP3, Jean Shinoda Bolen, Jean Bolen, Artemis, Goddesses, Atalanta, Dr. Benjamin Spock, raising babies, Calydon Boar, Meleager, Athena, masculine, feminine, Hippomenes, Aphrodite, Three golden apples, heroines, walking the labyrinth, Millionth Circle, Circles, trafficking of girls and women, Fifth Women’s World Conference, 5WCW, Mythology, Women’s studies, social change

Remembering Paul Volcker, Dr. Margaret Lawrence, Pete FratesPaul Volcker was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987. At a time when inflation was extremely high, he committed to raising interest rates to tame inflation. Although it brought on a mild recession, his strategy worked and he restored balance to the economy. Despite being denied admission to medical school by her alma mater Cornell, Dr. Margaret Lawrence graduated from Columbia and worked with Dr. Benjamin Spock. She became America’s first African-American child psychologist. Pete Frates was the Boston College baseball player who contracted amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - Lou Gehrig’s disease- but he went on to devise the ice bucket challenge to raise awareness and funds to combat the disease.

Therapists seem to routinely blame parents, particularly mothers, for everything that goes wrong in a child’s development.  Following WWII there was a rise in so-called “child experts” (like Benjamin Spock) who laid responsibility for development at mothers’ doorsteps.  But if looked at objectively, it’s important to remember that a child is utterly dependent on parents for psychological survival, for a sense of reality and morality.  The relationship may be two-way but it is fundamentally asymmetrical. Parents affect children much more than children affect parents. But this doesn’t mean blaming parents, however.  Parents were themselves victims of families when they were children. Most importantly, parents raise children in a social context. One can see that women, following WWII, were straight-jacketed in many ways that led to their unhappiness and distress which was later passed on to their children.  Thus, we should have sympathy for both parents and children, each of which has to contend with forces beyond their control.

Being a mum is the most underrated, underpaid and overtaxing job on the planet, and so today I do not want to just celebrate motherhood, I want to crown each of you mums as what you are… Super-mums!   Mums become super-mums not by being born on the planet krypton, not by being able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. They become super-mums by the things they say and the things they do. So to start today’s super proceedings, let’s hear some of our mum’s super wisdom…   MUM’S SUPER WORDS OF WISDOM   Silence is golden, unless you have kids, then it’s suspicious! Phyllis Dilla: I want my children to have all the things I couldn't afford… then I want to move in with them! Erma Bombeck: when your mother asks if you want a piece of advice, it's a formality. Whatever you answer, you're going to get it. One mum said, My kids call it yelling when I raise my voice. I call it motivational speaking for selective listeners. Another said, My nickname is mum. My real name is mum, mum, mum, mum! Behind every mum is a basket of dirty laundry My house isn’t messy, it’s custom designed by a 2 year old By the time a woman realises her mother was right, she has a daughter who thinks she’s wrong. Another quote I found which is what you have to put up with as a mum sometimes… Benjamin Spock: there are only 2 things a child will share willingly. Communicable diseases and their mother's age. So that's mother's wisdom, let's zero in now on a mother's faith. A MUM’S SUPER POWER   Everybody knows that a super mum’s super power is love, her undying, unconditional love. And this love generates a second super power… faith. If you look at Hebrews 11, the great chapter listing the heroes of the Bible, they are heroes because of their faith. Faith fuelled by love  causes super mum’s to do extraordinary things, to believe in you even when you fail, and to never stop believing in or wanting the best for you.   Scripture has many examples of faithful mums, mums who made a difference in the lives of their children and even the world in which they lived. Moses’ mum is one example, placing him in the little basket in the bulrushes, then becoming his nanny when Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him. Rahab, saved her family by her faith. Mary, Elizabeth, Hannah even Deborah, who was described as the mother of Israel and led her troops to a great victory over Sisera. But today I want to show you one mother’s super power, recorded in Matthew 15, where the faith of a Canaanite woman saved and set her daughter free from demonic oppression. The background to this passage is that Jews hated gentiles, and actually called them dogs! If you think right back to Joshua and Judges, these gentiles were the remnant of the evil nations that the conquering Israelites failed to dislodge. Jews considered them lower than a wombat’s basement. Matthew 15:21-28 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. Today, super mum’s, I want to concentrate on developing this superpower of faith for the salvation of your children. I want to talk about developing your super power to reach a wayward husband, or child, or someone else you care about, with the love of God and the faith of a super mum. We see in this story that the woman had plenty of obstacles, but she stood in the gap for her child. As I share around this passage, take a moment to think about someone you know in your family that isn't walking with the Lord…   A MOTHER’S FAITH MADE HER TAKE A CHANCE   The Canaanite woman knew everything was against her, especially racially. She knew the social stigmas. Certainly her race was against her: She was a Gentile. Her sex was against her, because most Jewish rabbis paid little attention to women. It seemed that the disciples were against her, and even Christ’s words might have led her to believe that He was against her. She could have stopped, she could have said, “ok, fair enough, I’m a dog,” she could have given up even before she started… oh, it's all too hard! But hey, it was her daughter we're talking about here. She decided not to give up on her child, and neither should you! She decided to take a chance, a chance to set her beloved child free! And sometimes we look at people we love who are not walking with the Lord and it all seems too hard! They're doing things we don't approve of, they're making bad decisions, and we can see the consequences of their decisions barrelling down the line towards them,  but they won’t listen. They’re breaking our hearts. They might even been attacking us or pulling away from us! Listen mums, this super mum took a chance, and I want to encourage you to do the same. Sure, our wayward kids may seem distant from us now, they may be ignoring our advice or rebelling, but the faith of a mother is worth much! This super mum’s faith won the day, so maybe today you need to take a chance and trust God for your kid’s salvation!   A MOTHER’S FAITH ASKED THE TOUGH QUESTIONS   This mother's faith drove her to ask the question. Others may accuse you of being pushy or overbearing, but sometimes asking a simple question can make people think. Sometimes even just a look will suffice. I remember being caught doing things as a kid, and mum didn't even have to say anything, she'd just look, and I'd know she knew. Mums do that! Maybe the evil eye is another superpower… she can stop evil or curdle milk with just one look! Trust me, guys, you can't fool mum. Mother's know, they have wider fields of view and eyes in the back of their heads. They see everything, hear everything and read between the lines well. And trust me. I'm married to a mother who is a psychotherapist, sometimes more psycho than therapist. So this Canaanite mum called out to God and asked the question… Matthew 15:22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” Speaking to Jesus, she addressed Him as the Lord, the Son of David, a title which only the Jews used in speaking of the Messiah. Although Jesus was the Son of David, a Gentile had no right to approach Him on that basis. That is why He did not answer her at first. So she had no right to approach, but she did it anyway. And that's the thing: a mother's faith will push through and ask the tough questions, so mums, step up and ask God for your wayward children… you'll be surprised at what God wants to do for you!   A MOTHER’S FAITH SUFFERED ATTACK   Listen ladies, if you step out and ask God, expect opposition. You might get it from your kids, you might get it from their dad, their partner, their friends, somebody. You will find your own feelings being attacked, times when you even doubt that God hears you. It might even come from people in the church who don't believe with you. This super mum faced opposition… Matthew 15:23-24 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The disciples didn't want her around, and she may have even thought Jesus wanted her gone. But she stayed! How many of you have a mother who stays long and doesn’t go. They love us, so they often stick around, despite opposition. Super mum’s, when you face attack, react like this mother of faith did! He came and she said… Matthew 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And mums, I encourage you to just get real and honest with the Lord this morning. Today is Mother's Day, and I sense the heart of God for faithful super mums right now. So get real, get honest and say with all your heart, “Lord help me.” I believe that the prayer of a mother's faithfulness for her kids and grandkids is going to be answered by God. And remember, motherhood is a tough job, and you face opposition all the time. If you want to be great, if you want to influence others, get ready for somebody to attack you!   A MOTHER’S FAITH WAS TESTED WITHOUT OFFENCE   Jesus then decided to probe her faith. Mums, your faith will be tested! Matthew 15:26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” Now it might sound a bit nasty, but in context Jesus wasn't having a shot at her at all. A little bit of Hebrew understanding comes in handy here… You have to remember, this mum wasn't a Jew, she was a gentile. The Jews looked upon the Gentiles as scavenging dogs, prowling the streets for scraps of food. However, Jesus here doesn't use that particular word when He says dogs. Instead, He used the word for little pet puppies. He didn't call her a rabid street dog or mangy mongrel, He called her a little puppy.  Jesus tasted her faith, but in a kind and gentle way. The question was, “Would she take offence or acknowledge her unworthiness to receive the least of His mercies?” One of the great tragedies I see over and over again is mum’s being hurt and taking offence. Super mum’s, listen to me, you need to not take offence at anything your kids say or do, even if you hate what they do! Use your superpowers to love them, pray for them, believe for them and claim them for Jesus. I'd rather be offended and see my kids saved than feel justified and have them silent and distant! So often we believe things so strongly, so vehemently, that we drive away and offend others. As I often say, if you love people more than you love your pet doctrine, opinion of belief we will have unity. But if you value your opinion over people, we will have disunity, conflict and separation! If they do something you don’t approve of, you need to love them unconditionally. If you stand so aggressively for what you believe and drive them away, you may never get them back. We’ve said to our kids, we may not approve of the decision you’ve made, but we will never stop loving and accepting you. We will never stop praying and believing for you… that’s our super power!   A MOTHER’S FAITH PERSISTED   This mum could have taken offence, and crawled away insulted that Jesus spoke that way. But because her superpower was faith, she saw the big picture, she saw eternity rather than what was going on around her, and she decided to persist! Matthew 15:27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” In these few words this super mum was humbling herself for the sake of her daughter. She persisted and believe the best because she loved her child more than her pet beliefs, her doctrine, her reputation or her own personal interests. This super mum wanted to see her child set free at any cost! She said, in effect, “You are right! I am just st a little puppy under the table. But I notice that crumbs sometimes fall from the table to the floor. Won’t You let me have some crumbs? I am not worthy that You should heal my daughter, but I beg You to do it for one of Your undeserving creatures.” Some of you mums here have prayed for years for your kids, and seen little result. Sometimes it seems so discouraging because they never seem to change, even into adulthood. Maybe they're lost in a bad relationship or substance abuse, maybe they are good people but they've crowded God out of their lives and have no time for Him. Whatever they’ve done, whatever they are doing, don’t give up on them, don’t give in to despair, because your super power is Holy Spirit powered faith! You can’t ultimately win someone to Jesus, no matter how strong or persistent you are. The Holy Spirit wins their hearts, not you. You can’t nag a wayward child or husband or friend or anyone else into the Kingdom. But, you can pray, and trust the Lord to use your super powered faith to bring your kids to Him! Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast Christian mums here today, you know that it’s the anointing that breaks the yoke (Isaiah 10:27), and for many of you this truth leads you to pray for your wayward kids or spouses, whether they are successful corporate CEOs or cellar dwelling drug addicts. I want to urge you today to keep praying. Your super power is the faith God stirs up in your heart, and the closer you are to God, the greater this faith within you. So read His Word, pray, come to church, to Bible study, listen to worship music, and never, never give up on your kids, grandkids and even husbands or exes. I can't change them, you can't change them, but God can. You must persist, and have super mum faith.   A MOTHER’S FAITH WAS REWARDED   Jesus was so delighted with this super mum’s faith when she persisted, He commended her! Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. Jesus commended her for her great faith. While the unbelieving children, the Jews, had no hunger for the bread, here was a self-confessed “doggie” crying out for it. This super mum’s super faith was rewarded; her daughter was healed instantly. Interestingly Jesus never complimented the religious leaders or the disciples saying “Great is your faith”, only a gentile, despised woman. And that, mums, is my challenge to you today. Whatever you are believing for with your family, partners, children or grandchildren, I believe that today is the day when you can stand and believe, and we want to stand with you. Today is your day, super mums! On Mother’s Day, we are going to pray for your children and grandchildren. If you are a in church today just to make your mum happy, why not really make her dreams come true and her prayers be answered by asking Jesus into your heart right now.   THE GREATEST GIFT OF ALL   Mum’s, today you might have got breakfast in bed, or lovely presents, something cute or special. Those gifts are precious, but they don’t last into eternity. The greatest gift you could give your mum this Mother’s Day is to give your life to Jesus. She’s been praying for you, she’s been using her superpowers of faith and love because she wants you to join her in heaven. God gave us the greatest gift of His Son to bring us back to Him. This gift is free, it’s a gift, and it is here for you today, and will bless her on this special day. In a moment, I'm going to ask all the mums to stand and come forward and let us pray for your wayward children, grandchildren or even husbands. Let's join our faith together and believe for God to reward your super power of faith today! We’ve been praying a lot for our nation at this time, but it’s time we prayed for our children and families. You may have been fighting for them in prayer for years, but I'm going to ask you to stand for them in faith, right here and right now, so let us stand together as a church and fight! If you as a mum have a child or grandchild on your heart and you are praying specifically for their salvation, I'm going to ask you to stand, come to the front and our elders will pray and believe with you for the greatest Mother's Day gift of all… your kids coming to Jesus. If you have other loved ones, husbands, wives, parents, let’s pray for their salvation too.

Maxwell King brings us The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers, the first full-length biography of American's unique and enduring icon. Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Rogers' program that changed the face of children's television and influenced tens of millions of children, reaches its 5oth anniversary. Now, beginning with Rogers' childhood, King captures his life of kindness, compassion, and authenticity by drawing on original interviews, oral histories, and archival documents. Fred Rogers, whose life and work continue to be loved by multiple generations, is captured in The Good Neighbor as, above all, a champion of children. 00:15   Intro to Maxwell King’s book, The Good Neighbor 00:25   Background of Fred Rogers, children’s television personality 01:00   King given permission to write first full-length biography of Mr. Rogers 01:30   2018 marks the 50th anniversary of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood 02:00   Intro to Maxwell King: author, journalist, former President of Heinz Endowments, former Executive Director of the Fred Rogers Center, CEO of the Pittsburgh Foundation 03:00   King designs the book to have two lives: biography and academic source 03:30   How King gets involved in writing the book after meeting Rogers only twice 05:30   Rogers’ early life and background profoundly affect his life and work 06:45   King aims to explain how Fred becomes “Mr. Rogers” 08:00   His understanding mother listens to Fred, not as an adult but as an equal 08:45   Family’s wealth makes Rogers more of a target for mean kids 09:10   Bullies chase and call him “Fat Freddy”; runs to safety at neighbor’s house 09:40   Adults wrongly advise him, “Just pretend you don’t care.” 10:00   Transformative moment: refuses to adopt a strategy of not caring 10:30   Teenage Rogers turns sensitivities into strengths; becomes leader and scholar 11:30   Great reader and student of French and philosophy 12:40   At 10 years old, selects an ebonized Steinway concert grand piano 14:25   Wealthy grandmother keeps her promise to buy him piano, transforming his life 15:55   Rogers’ piano now sits in the Fred Rogers Center at St. Vincent’s College 16:45   Fills lonely early years with music and puppets 17:20   Channels his personas in iconic puppets (Lady Elaine Fairchilde, King Friday, Daniel Tiger) 18:30   Packs away puppets for years until he needs them in an emergency 20:00   Josie Carey, live character on The Children’s Corner, forms relationship with puppets 20:50   Carey and puppets model adult/child relationship 21:35   Unlikely friend: John Pastore of Senate Subcommittee of Communications 21:45   Their televised encounter becomes most studied clip of all time 22:30   Fred testifies to help save funding for public television 23:00   First and foremost, Rogers considers himself a friend and neighbor 23:20   Most important thing in Fred Rogers’ life 25:30   Rogers’ key tactic for presenting on television 26:10   Dr. Margaret McFarland, child psychologist, becomes Rogers’ lifelong mentor and friend 26:50   Works with Univ. of Pittsburg scholars: Benjamin Spock, T. Berry Brazelton, Erik Erickson, McFarland 27:30   Group dramatically reshapes child development philosophies and practices 29:00   They depart from Victorian notions; determine ages 0-3 most critical for development 29:30   Rogers longs to do more than entertain 29:50   Weaves child development learnings into Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood 30:00   Rogers’ program goes national in 1968 30:30   Helps promote what really matters in child development 31:40   Cares much more about content than presentation (in contrast to Sesame Street) 32:15   Opposes fast pacing in children’s television 32:45  Designs “theme weeks" to discuss difficult topics (divorce, war, loss) for 5 consecutive days 34:30   Leans into tough topics and keeps an intentionally slow pace, including silence 35:30   Story of Rogers’ courage: “Feeding the Fish” 37:15   Children never tire of lyrics from Rogers’ signature opening song and closing remarks 38:45   Recognizes universal values of respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and kindness 39:15   Rogers' core philosophy: “Slow down. Be kind.” 41:00   Teaches human values, letting Christianity shine through 42:00   Rogers character, style, and personality congruent (on and off screen) 42:45   King surprised by Rogers’ simple exterior and deeply complicated interior 43:15   After his death in 2003, Mr. Rogers’ ideas and influence live on 45:35   Recommendation: YouTube video of Fred Rogers testifying before the Senate committee Connect with us on social media! Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube  Website Special thanks! Music Credit Sound Editing Credit

Writer and audio producer Jessica Weisberg talks with Recode’s Kara Swisher about her new book, “Asking for a Friend: Three Centuries of Advice on Life, Love, Money, and Other Burning Questions from a Nation Obsessed.” Starting in 1690s London, Weisberg examines how advice became a cultural force in America, and how professional advice-givers presaged the internet by creating the first platform for people to ask difficult questions anonymously. She discusses Ben Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” which made earnest advice more palatable through comedy; the bitter rivalry between twin sisters who both became advice columnists, using the pen names “Ann Landers” and “Dear Abby”; and how the once-strict views of parenting guru Benjamin Spock and other columnists mellowed over their long careers. Weisberg says Google and other internet forums are the new advice-givers for millions of people, and questions whether any one writer today could be as widely read and trusted as these predecessors. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sometimes our activity for positive change in the world makes a visible leap and other times the impact of our work takes a seemingly long time to show any results. As Loeb points out, “You draw hope from the knowledge that whatever it is that you do, something unexpected is going to happen. And, it often happens at the periphery of your vision.”Tags: Paul Rogat Loeb, Paul Loeb, Vaclav Havel, Velvet Revolution, Keystone Pipeline, Rosa Parks, Raymond Parks, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Anti-Nuclear Proliferation, grassroots movements, Clarence Jordan, Koinonia Farm, Tiananmen Square, Tank man, Tolstoy, David Roberts, Grist Magazine, Climate Change, hope, optimism, renewable energy, Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Dan Savage, Gay Rights Movement, getting out the vote, Walter Wink, Jesus and Alinsky, Bible stories, Turn the other cheek, nonviolent resistance, minimum wage, bike lanes, Cuiritiba Brazil, Bill McKibben, Peace/Nonviolence

Sometimes our activity for positive change in the world makes a visible leap and other times the impact of our work takes a seemingly long time to show any results. As Loeb points out, “You draw hope from the knowledge that whatever it is that you do, something unexpected is going to happen. And, it often happens at the periphery of your vision.”Tags: Paul Rogat Loeb, Paul Loeb, Vaclav Havel, Velvet Revolution, Keystone Pipeline, Rosa Parks, Raymond Parks, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Anti-Nuclear Proliferation, grassroots movements, Clarence Jordan, Koinonia Farm, Tiananmen Square, Tank man, Tolstoy, David Roberts, Grist Magazine, Climate Change, hope, optimism, renewable energy, Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Dan Savage, Gay Rights Movement, getting out the vote, Walter Wink, Jesus and Alinsky, Bible stories, Turn the other cheek, nonviolent resistance, minimum wage, bike lanes, Cuiritiba Brazil, Bill McKibben, Peace/Nonviolence

Meet Antoinette Kuritz Book Developer, Publicist, Media Coach, Author, Publishing Expert and  Founder of the LaJolla Writers Conference …is up-to-her-keyboard in the art craft and business of writing.  Former educator and bookseller, Antoinette turned her love of words into a multi-media enterprise, taking writers from inspiration to publication; and representing authors from new to New York Times Bestsellers. Antoinette has inspired Chicken Soup mogul Mark Victor Hanson, launched the national career of psychic medium John Edward, worked with Carl Reiner, Betty White, Joseph Wambaugh, Depak Chopra, and her favorite, Dr. Benjamin Spock. Going Gray- with something to say! - Getting your words out  in the new world of Publishing. Wisdom is often associated with grey hair, especially among those with grey hair.  And yet, with the democratization of publishing, the people who write to publish run the entire spectrum of age, gender, race, and sexuality.  What they all have in common is the need to learn the business side of the art craft and business of writing. Those of us grey enough to remember the “ Who's on first” skit, perhaps the best remembered, best written comedic skit of all time, performed by the greats Bud Abbot and Lou Costello- is a great description to the confusion, misinformation and outright fraud that is now part and parcel of the newly democratized world of publishing. Now that you have joined the 80% of Americans who think they have a book in them, you had better learn the game before you get up to bat! Self- publishing and the internet surely did open the gate for you to get onto the field. But the tenfold increase in published books has also helped the crooks, so the publishing game just got bigger---not easier!

06:54 - Gilbert Godfrey's podcast http://www.gilbertpodcast.com 07:25 - Gilbert's documentary http://www.indiewire.com/2017/04/gilbert-gottfried-documentary-review-tribeca-film-festival-2017-1201807032/ 09:47 - What has Nilsa been up to? 14:50 - Nilsa was asked to join the company New York Madness https://nymadness.com Lonestar Theatre Company http://www.lonestartheatre.com 20:06 - Nilsa is also writing for "The Lost Girls Blog" http://www.lostgirlsworld.com/blog/ I am Not Your Negro, documentary about James Baldwin http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5804038/ 25:01 - Jake remembers bit about when Bryn and Nilsa would imitate each other 31:08 - Cultural events of the last few years have been hard for Bryn to reckon with and he's been writing about it. 41:15 - Jake would like to talk a little more concretely about what Bryn has been doing: played the ghost of Benjamin Spock in the play, "Baby Hubris," by Jacqui Rego http://www.babyhubris.com You can listen to our podcast episode about this here: http://areyoufamousyet.libsyn.com/jacqui-rgo-and-the-cast-of-baby-hubris-episode-182 Festival show, "From A to Double D" https://www.facebook.com/events/1915146762090057/ 47:35 - Now they're doing another run of "From A to Double D." 48:29 - And the marketing is great, with Instagram http://toptagram.com/user/fromatodoubledplay Twitter https://twitter.com/FromAtoDoubleD and Facebook https://www.facebook.com/FromAtoDoubleD/ 50:30 - Bryn gets sucked into reading/watching the news. 55:05 - Softball: a retreat with the twins! 56:15 - The MTA has been falling apart. 1:01:43 - Bryn is trying to get a job now. 1:03:59 - Cats and the next CJ3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy28it0ul6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLV44zOUusY Follow us on Twitter or Facebook Intro Music: "Are You Famous, Yet?" - Laura Scruggs. Outro Music: "AYFY 1" - Christopher Kriz

Initially an outgrowth of the desire to keep newborns and infants alive, the American child-rearing advice industry grew to become a means to influence American children of all ages. During the twentieth century, advice moved from issues of physical survival to psychological well-being, and from normal development to cognitive success. As doctors, psychologists and other professionals penetrated into the lives of middle class parents and their children, they contributed to the growing self-consciousness and accompanying anxiety of mothers regarding their responsibilities. In this context, Dr. Benjamin Spock emerged as the towering figure in post-World War II America parenting advice.

Initially an outgrowth of the desire to keep newborns and infants alive, the American child-rearing advice industry grew to become a means to influence American children of all ages. During the twentieth century, advice moved from issues of physical survival to psychological well-being, and from normal development to cognitive success. As doctors, psychologists and other professionals penetrated into the lives of middle class parents and their children, they contributed to the growing self-consciousness and accompanying anxiety of mothers regarding their responsibilities. In this context, Dr. Benjamin Spock emerged as the towering figure in post-World War II America parenting advice.

Program Six. "Are you giving your kids too much?", written by Benjamin Spock. 大家好！欢迎收听 Pilot4U 阅读时间。在本期节目中，Pilot4U 阅读时间 将会为您带来一篇《你给孩子的东西是不是太多？》，是美国医学博士 本杰明·思博克的一篇随笔。

Baby and Child Care by Dr Benjamin Spock sold half a million copies just six months after its publication in 1946. Witness hears from Lynn Bloom, a friend and biographer of the famous paediatrician. (Photo: Dr Benjamin Spock. Credit: Keystone/Getty Images)

Who's on first!  What's on Second! I don't know is on third. Perhaps the best written and remembered comedic skit of all time, performed by the greats Bud Abbot and Lou Costello, this is a great description to the confusion, misinformation and outright fraud that is now part and parcel of the newly democratized world of publishing. Now that you've joined the 80% of Americans who think they have a book in them, you had better learn the game before you get up to bat! Continuing with the baseball metaphor:  Self-Publishing and the internet certainly opened the gate for you to get onto the field, but the tenfold increase in published books has also helped the crooks, so the publishing game just got bigger—not easier! Antoinette Kuritz: Book Developer, Publicist, Media Coach, Author and Publishing Expert is up-to-her-keyboard in the art, craft and business of writing. Former educator and bookseller, Antoinette turned her love of words into a multi-media enterprise, taking writers from inspiration to publication; and representing authors from new to New York Times Bestsellers. Antoinette inspired Chicken Soup mogul Mark Victor Hanson and launched the national career of psychic medium John Edward. She has also worked with Carl Reiner, Betty White, Deepak Chopra and her favorite, Dr. Benjamin Spock. Her insights appear on radio, TV and in numerous articles nationwide.  In 2001 Antoinette founded the LaJolla Writers Conference. Each November in San Diego, the conference provides an inexpensive, informative and intimate gathering of established authors, agents and editors, guiding writers of all levels to success. Visit www.LaJollaWritersConference.com to register.

According to your parents, you can do anything. This sort of over-compensating encouragement presents a number of challenges for adults doing stuff in the world. Sam and Simon discuss this and other things.Stuff mentioned in this conversation:Google’s gay doodle.Sherlock.Carol S. Dweck.Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin.NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman.Benjamin McLane Spock.Vladimir Putin.Krav Maga.Sochi’s hotel disaster.Mitchell and Webb’s Football, Football, Football and also Peep Show.Zen Pencils.Slack: Be less busy.22seven for Android.Buzzfeed.

Between WWII and the 1970s, prominent researchers from various fields established and defended a view that emotions are integral to the self, and that a mother's love determines an individual's emotional development. In Marga Vicedo, The Nature and Nurture of Love: From Imprinting to Attachment in Cold War America  (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Marga Vicedo explores the emergence of the science of children's emotional needs in the twentieth century. Masterfully bringing together approaches from the history and philosophy of the biological sciences, Vicedo's book focuses on British psychoanalyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby (1907-1990), whose ethological work became one of the most influential and controversial psychological theories of the 20th century. Vicedo uses the story of Bowlby's science to explore a broader modern history of work on animal and human behavior that includes Konrad Lorenz, Anna Freud, Benjamin Spock, and Niko Tinbergen, among others. Along the way, The Nature & Nurture of Love chronicles the emergence of a kind of anthropomorphic material culture of the human sciences, inhabiting its story with a fascinating cast of robots, dolls, geese, monkeys, and stuffed animals, as well as humans. It is a fascinating and gripping trans-disciplinary story and an absolute pleasure to read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Between WWII and the 1970s, prominent researchers from various fields established and defended a view that emotions are integral to the self, and that a mother’s love determines an individual’s emotional development. In Marga Vicedo, The Nature and Nurture of Love: From Imprinting to Attachment in Cold War America  (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Marga Vicedo explores the emergence of the science of children’s emotional needs in the twentieth century. Masterfully bringing together approaches from the history and philosophy of the biological sciences, Vicedo’s book focuses on British psychoanalyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby (1907-1990), whose ethological work became one of the most influential and controversial psychological theories of the 20th century. Vicedo uses the story of Bowlby’s science to explore a broader modern history of work on animal and human behavior that includes Konrad Lorenz, Anna Freud, Benjamin Spock, and Niko Tinbergen, among others. Along the way, The Nature & Nurture of Love chronicles the emergence of a kind of anthropomorphic material culture of the human sciences, inhabiting its story with a fascinating cast of robots, dolls, geese, monkeys, and stuffed animals, as well as humans. It is a fascinating and gripping trans-disciplinary story and an absolute pleasure to read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Between WWII and the 1970s, prominent researchers from various fields established and defended a view that emotions are integral to the self, and that a mother's love determines an individual's emotional development. In Marga Vicedo, The Nature and Nurture of Love: From Imprinting to Attachment in Cold War America  (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Marga Vicedo explores the emergence of the science of children's emotional needs in the twentieth century. Masterfully bringing together approaches from the history and philosophy of the biological sciences, Vicedo's book focuses on British psychoanalyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby (1907-1990), whose ethological work became one of the most influential and controversial psychological theories of the 20th century. Vicedo uses the story of Bowlby's science to explore a broader modern history of work on animal and human behavior that includes Konrad Lorenz, Anna Freud, Benjamin Spock, and Niko Tinbergen, among others. Along the way, The Nature & Nurture of Love chronicles the emergence of a kind of anthropomorphic material culture of the human sciences, inhabiting its story with a fascinating cast of robots, dolls, geese, monkeys, and stuffed animals, as well as humans. It is a fascinating and gripping trans-disciplinary story and an absolute pleasure to read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Between WWII and the 1970s, prominent researchers from various fields established and defended a view that emotions are integral to the self, and that a mother's love determines an individual's emotional development. In Marga Vicedo, The Nature and Nurture of Love: From Imprinting to Attachment in Cold War America  (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Marga Vicedo explores the emergence of the science of children's emotional needs in the twentieth century. Masterfully bringing together approaches from the history and philosophy of the biological sciences, Vicedo's book focuses on British psychoanalyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby (1907-1990), whose ethological work became one of the most influential and controversial psychological theories of the 20th century. Vicedo uses the story of Bowlby's science to explore a broader modern history of work on animal and human behavior that includes Konrad Lorenz, Anna Freud, Benjamin Spock, and Niko Tinbergen, among others. Along the way, The Nature & Nurture of Love chronicles the emergence of a kind of anthropomorphic material culture of the human sciences, inhabiting its story with a fascinating cast of robots, dolls, geese, monkeys, and stuffed animals, as well as humans. It is a fascinating and gripping trans-disciplinary story and an absolute pleasure to read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Between WWII and the 1970s, prominent researchers from various fields established and defended a view that emotions are integral to the self, and that a mother’s love determines an individual’s emotional development. In Marga Vicedo, The Nature and Nurture of Love: From Imprinting to Attachment in Cold War America  (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Marga Vicedo explores the emergence of the science of children’s emotional needs in the twentieth century. Masterfully bringing together approaches from the history and philosophy of the biological sciences, Vicedo’s book focuses on British psychoanalyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby (1907-1990), whose ethological work became one of the most influential and controversial psychological theories of the 20th century. Vicedo uses the story of Bowlby’s science to explore a broader modern history of work on animal and human behavior that includes Konrad Lorenz, Anna Freud, Benjamin Spock, and Niko Tinbergen, among others. Along the way, The Nature & Nurture of Love chronicles the emergence of a kind of anthropomorphic material culture of the human sciences, inhabiting its story with a fascinating cast of robots, dolls, geese, monkeys, and stuffed animals, as well as humans. It is a fascinating and gripping trans-disciplinary story and an absolute pleasure to read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Between WWII and the 1970s, prominent researchers from various fields established and defended a view that emotions are integral to the self, and that a mother’s love determines an individual’s emotional development. In Marga Vicedo, The Nature and Nurture of Love: From Imprinting to Attachment in Cold War America  (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Marga Vicedo explores the emergence of the science of children’s emotional needs in the twentieth century. Masterfully bringing together approaches from the history and philosophy of the biological sciences, Vicedo’s book focuses on British psychoanalyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby (1907-1990), whose ethological work became one of the most influential and controversial psychological theories of the 20th century. Vicedo uses the story of Bowlby’s science to explore a broader modern history of work on animal and human behavior that includes Konrad Lorenz, Anna Freud, Benjamin Spock, and Niko Tinbergen, among others. Along the way, The Nature & Nurture of Love chronicles the emergence of a kind of anthropomorphic material culture of the human sciences, inhabiting its story with a fascinating cast of robots, dolls, geese, monkeys, and stuffed animals, as well as humans. It is a fascinating and gripping trans-disciplinary story and an absolute pleasure to read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Between WWII and the 1970s, prominent researchers from various fields established and defended a view that emotions are integral to the self, and that a mother’s love determines an individual’s emotional development. In Marga Vicedo, The Nature and Nurture of Love: From Imprinting to Attachment in Cold War America  (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Marga Vicedo explores the emergence of the science of children’s emotional needs in the twentieth century. Masterfully bringing together approaches from the history and philosophy of the biological sciences, Vicedo’s book focuses on British psychoanalyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby (1907-1990), whose ethological work became one of the most influential and controversial psychological theories of the 20th century. Vicedo uses the story of Bowlby’s science to explore a broader modern history of work on animal and human behavior that includes Konrad Lorenz, Anna Freud, Benjamin Spock, and Niko Tinbergen, among others. Along the way, The Nature & Nurture of Love chronicles the emergence of a kind of anthropomorphic material culture of the human sciences, inhabiting its story with a fascinating cast of robots, dolls, geese, monkeys, and stuffed animals, as well as humans. It is a fascinating and gripping trans-disciplinary story and an absolute pleasure to read. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over 1.5 million new books were published in 2012 — over 10 times the number in 2007. 80% of Americans say they have a book inside them. If so, who will buy them? Why is one book a success and another just a paperweight? With each turn of a page, the changes in the publishing industry create new opportunities, yet still demand the basics as well as innovation. If you want to know how to make your book a success story, ask the woman who built a business of making book success stories possible. Antoinette Kuritz, CEO of The Kuritz Group, Inc., an organization that includes Strategies Literary PR in San Diego, CA, The La Jolla Writers Conference, and Writer's Roundtable radio show, is known for taking writers from idea to successful publication and beyond. She helps authors determine the marketability of their idea, build their platforms, determines the best publication method and works with them on PR and Marketing. Antoinette inspired Chicken Soup mogul Mark Victor Hanson and launched the national career of psychic medium John Edward. She has also worked with Carl Reiner, Betty White, Deepak Chopra and her favorite, Dr. Benjamin Spock. In her 350 radio shows, she interviewed top authors, publishers and agents; in her regular KUSI-TV spot she recommends books from her “Nightstand Reads”. In 2001, combining her “behind-the-book-cover” expertise and her love of teaching, Antoinette founded the LaJolla Writers Conference. Each November in San Diego, the conference provides an inexpensive, informative and intimate gathering of established authors, agents and editors, guiding writers of all levels to success. Website: www.LaJollaWritersConference.com Book: 1001 Ways to Celebrate America (2001) Phone: 858 467-1978

Szódás alaplé-vadászat és az IKEA névadási konvenciói, gyerekboldogság és anya-lelkiismeret, Spock és Suttogó, az óvszerreklámok filozófiája és Serge Gainsbourg, a bolond énekes. Kandi alaplevest hajkurászott szódával, de az alaplé bizony

Guest speakers: Dr. Timothy Leary and Eldridge Cleaver PROGRAM NOTES: [NOTE: The following quotes are by Dr. Timothy Leary.] "We know that typically the real changes in human nature, the changes in human politics and economics and society, are brought about by two things: By people who have a map or a vision or a model of where we're going to go, these are the philosophers. And then the technicians, the people who get together the printing presses, or the compasses, or the high technology that can take us where we want to go." "Viewed in the 1930s, when Einstein came to America, he was considered as far out as a crack dealer." "Heisenberg taught us to take the universe very personally … in both senses of the word." "So who? Who's gonna prepare a civilization of factory workers and farmers and people who haven't even got the Model T Ford yet? Who's gonna prepare them for an Einsteinian, relativistic, quantum physical, ever-changing, probabilistic universe? Who? Well you know who you can count on at every time in human history when we had to make a big philosophic lurch forward. Who always came to the front and saved the day and made us feel happy and comfortable with a new future? I'm talking about those friends of ours who have always been around when we needed them, the musicians, and the artists, and the poets, and the writers, and the bards, and the performers, and the storytellers, and, OK, the minstrels, the rock n' rollers. Right! The actors, the script writers." "The whole 20th Century, to me, is the story of how artists and writers prepared us to be comfortable in a quantum-physical world." "We're talking about a generation of people who, since the time they were born, have been inundate by data, electronic data. To the Baby Boomers and subsequent generations electronic data is the ocean they swim in." "Of course, everybody got down on the poor doctor [Benjamin Spock]. He was blamed for the excesses of the sixties, ha ha. I was glad to have him get blamed otherwise I would have gotten blamed." "The psychedelic pudding hit the fan in the sixties when the Spock kids hit high school and college, and they wanted a gourmet education, and they wanted connoisseur sex. … Gee, we said you're the best, but we didn't realize that you guys would take us seriously." "The Cyber Society is a society made up of individuals who think for themselves, linked up with other individuals who think for themselves." "The Sixties were the adolescence of the Baby Boom." Following the talk by Dr. Leary I play a short personal message from Eldrige Cleaver to Timothy Leary that was recorded on January 7, 1995. The message Cleaver was so intensely trying to convey to his friend, Tim Leary, was that he believed it was imperative that the U.S. elect a woman president in the year 2000. Unfortunately, neither of these two important historical figures are alive today, and thus we can only speculate as to what they would think about the state of affairs in 2008. Download MP3 PCs – Right click, select option Macs – Ctrl-Click, select option KMO'S C-Realm Podcasts KMO'S Personal Blog The 4th International Amazonian Shamanism Conference "Flashbacks: An Autobiography"by Timothy Leary "The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time" by Hunter S. Thompson And by William Gibson: Neuromancer Mona Lisa Overdrive Count Zero