Podcasts about c span

Richard Harris and Cheryl Chumley discuss her "Bold and Blunt" podcast, her new fiction book, Chloe. "Chumley is an in-demand public speaker and media guest whose publication credits include The Blaze, The Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, the Heritage Foundation, and more. She has made hundreds of appearances on national and local television and radio (including Fox News, C-SPAN, CBN, and Newsmax TV), and in person at various forums and events, including the NRB Convention. Chumley has been an NRB member since 2023.

50 years ago, the Vietnam War ended.. The South Vietnamese capital of Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese Army…. North Vietnam achieved its objective of reunifying Vietnam under communist rule.... There were 58,220 U.S. military fatalities …. America effectively lost the Vietnam War.... "It was a sad day to sit in the Oval Office and see on television the American troops being literally kicked off of an American embassy before it surrendered. I hope no American president goes through that experience again." That was Gerald Ford on C-SPAN in 1998… On April 29th 1975, as President, Gerald Ford told America about the fall of Saigon: "This action closes a chapter in the American experience." Since then, new chapters have opened in the American experience with Vietnam .... For this year's Memorial Day, this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" observes America's relationship with Vietnam changing in the 50 years since the fall of Saigon ... and we do so by checking in with a President every ten years after 1975. How has American policy toward Vietnam changed over 50 years? And how has American presidential language about Vietnam and the War changed? This Memorial Day, find out in C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly." Find C-SPAN's "The Weekly" wherever you get podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Todd Bensman, the Center's Texas-based Senior National Security Fellow, discusses his experiences at the Center as he prepares to depart for a new role working with Border Czar Tom Homan. Bensman and host Mark Krikorian reflect on his nearly seven-year tenure at the Center, focusing on his firsthand experiences with border issues, extensively documented in two books authored while at the Center.Growing out of field research for the Center in Latin America and his graduate studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, Bensman's first book, America's Covert Border War, addressed the national security challenges of the border, specifically focusing on “special interest aliens” – i.e. illegal border-crossers from countries where jihadist terror groups operate.Bensman's second book, Overrun, is a history of the Biden border crisis, based also on numerous visits to Mexico and Central and South America, where he interviewed hundreds of migrants, officials, aid workers, and others. Bensman uncovered the CBP One program during its pilot phase, prior to its public disclosure, shed light on UN funding for illegal immigration, and provided on-the-ground reporting during significant events such as the Del Rio migrant crisis and the lead-up to the end of Title 42.In his closing commentary, Krikorian weighed in on the recent admission of several dozen Afrikaners from South Africa into the United States as refugees, highlighting facets of the issue not addressed in most media coverage.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestTodd Bensman is the (soon to be former) Senior National Security Fellow.RelatedBenman's Author PageBensman's Video PlaylistAmerica's Covert Border War: The Untold Story of the Nation's Battle to Prevent Jihadist InfiltrationOverrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. HistoryAfrikaners: Persecuted Refugees or White-Privileged Aliens?Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Fox News Supreme Court is a political weapon, and it's being wielded to wreck what remains of American democracy. What happens if Trump declares martial law?  This week on Gaslit Nation, Andrea interviews Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, co-host of the award-winning Strict Scrutiny podcast, and author of the new book LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. This Court is a multi-decade effort by conservatives to seize power they couldn't win through democratic means. Litman warns about what the Fox News Court is up to. If you thought things were bad, we're staring down a term packed with cases that could fundamentally rewrite public education, religious liberty, and basic civil rights. Take Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. This case actually asks whether the Constitution requires states to allow religious public charter schools. Yes, you read that right: requires. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from funding religious education. But now, thanks to the conservative justices' persecution complex, where white Christian nationalism is the most oppressed identity in America, obviously, the Court may rule that denying public funding to religious schools is unconstitutional discrimination. Then there's the challenge to a Maryland school district's decision to include LGBTQ+ inclusive books in elementary schools. A group of religious parents is arguing that merely exposing children to stories with queer characters violates their religious freedom. If the Court agrees, it could hand conservative parents a veto power over what public schools teach, effectively outlawing inclusive education if it makes anyone clutch their pearls. What Litman makes clear is that these cases are about redefining public life, turning schools into vehicles for a theocratic agenda. And let's be honest: they're not talking about funding schools for Wiccans or the Church of Satan. This is about establishing a Christian nationalism dictatorship. Yes, it can happen here. Yes, it's happening here. But we are not powerless. Reform is not a fantasy. Term limits. Ethics rules. Court expansion. These are tools, if we find the courage to use them. Because democracy doesn't die in darkness. It's strangled in broad daylight by men in robes, funded by billionaires, and broadcast live on C-SPAN. And if we don't fight back? We're just letting them get away with it. EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: May 26 4pm ET – Book club discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Stride Toward Freeom: The Montgomery Story Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon.  Have you taken Gaslit Nation's HyperNormalization Survey Yet? Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community The recent storms have devastated so many in St. Louis, and the Urban League needs our help now more than ever. Please donate what you can to support their relief efforts and help communities rebuild: https://www.ulstl.com/#/   What's as gratifying as a Tesla Takedown protest? A Fox News Takedown protest! https://www.foxtakedown.com/

Despite the fact that so many of them make it look easy, the daily lives of senior U.S. military leaders can be incredibly demanding. Laura Weimer examined how senior leaders manage their well-being (or, at times, struggle to do so) amidst these demanding careers, and she's in the studio with host JP Clark to share her discoveries. Drawing from her research, Weimer highlighted the unique pressures of senior roles, including frequent relocations, intense scrutiny, and the weight of consequential decisions. She also discussed the inevitable challenges of mid-life, such as caring for aging parents and navigating evolving family dynamics, which compound work-related stress. Weimer's key takeaway? Developing a strong sense of identity, meaning, and purpose is essential for fostering resilience and sustaining leadership effectiveness. I don't know if necessarily it's the Army's job to help us figure out our identity. I do think it would be valuable for the Army to acknowledge the value of those conversations and maybe even prompt those conversations. Links to resources referenced by Laura in the episode: Joe Byerly, “Learning to Live a Halfway Interesting Life,” From the Green Notebook (March 19, 2025) https://fromthegreennotebook.com/2025/03/19/learning-to-live-a-halfway-interesting-life/  Briana Barker Caza, Lakshmi Ramarajan, Erin Reid, and Stephanie Creary. "How to Make Room in Your Work Life for the Rest of Your Self." Harvard Business Review (May 30, 2018), https://hbr.org/2018/05/how-to-make-room-in-your-work-life-for-the-rest-of-your-self Cal Newport, “The Most Important Piece of Career Advice You Probably Never Heard,” Cal Newport, May 21, 2008, https://calnewport.com/the-most-important-piece-of-career-advice-you-probably-never-heard/ Nick Craig and Scott A. Snook. 2014. “From Purpose to Impact.” Harvard Business Review, May. https://hbr.org/2014/05/from-purpose-to-impact. Arthur C. Brooks, From Strength to Strength: Finding Success, Happiness, and Deep Purpose in the Second Half of Life (Penguin, 2022). Simon Sinek, "The Cure for Loneliness with U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy," A Bit of Optimism Podcast, 7 January 2025. https://open.spotify.com/episode/6wnHgVpkuX0i4CdCEHSFkg?si=c58cf2607d274eb7 This is restricted access (academic): Herminia Ibarra, “Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (4) (1999): 764–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667055. Laura Weimer is an Active Duty Army lieutenant colonel (Military Police) and a graduate of the AY25 Resident course at the U.S. Army War College. She most recently commanded the Headquarters Battalion of the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, TX, and will be returning to Texas in June to serve in U.S. Army Futures Command (soon to be Transformation and Training Command). She taught Military Leadership and Intro to Sociology at West Point from 2013-2016 and holds a Ph.D. In Management from Harvard University, an M.A. in Sociology from Duke University, and a B.S. In Chemistry/Life Sciences from West Point. Her research and writing is focused on leader identity, development, and personal well-being. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense. Photo Description: Then Lieutenant General (Ret.) Dan Caine, USAF, when he appeared before the 1 April, 2025 Senate Confirmation Committee. Caine was nominated and later confirmed as the 22nd Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chairman is the highest-ranking and most senior military officer in the United States Armed Forces and the principal military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. Photo Credit: Screen capture from CSPAN video of 1 April, 2025 Senate Confirmation Hearing.

House Budget Committee votes down the Republican tax cut, spending cut, border and defense Budget Reconciliation, the one they call the One Big Beautiful Bill, after four Republicans join Democrats in voting no; President Donald Trump finishes up his Middle East trip at a business breakfast in the United Arab Emirates, saying UAE could buy advanced computer chips for AI development; Russian & Ukrainian officials hold peace talks in Turkey, with no ceasefire announced. President Trump is asked about his desire to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to settle the matter for good; Republican chair of the FCC and a Democratic Commissioner both speaking today at separate events in Washington about the agency's role in preserving freedom of speech, but with very different conclusions about the problems and solutions; C-SPAN's CEO Sam Feist previews a new program coming to C-SPAN this fall called CeaseFire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Ah -- Romance is in the air. And by romance in the air – we mean Governors giving their annual state of the state addresses and budget speeches in front of state legislatures. Like Tony Evers. Here's what the Wisconsin Governor said during his 2025 state of the state address:    “My forever prom date, Kathy, is up in the gallery, as well. Kathleen Frances, you are the cream to fill my cream puff.”   In the next episode of C-SPAN's podcast “The Weekly” – we hear more governors say more lovely things about their spouses – just like Governor Evers did.   • How long has Kathleen Frances Evers been the cream to fill Governor Tony Evers' cream puff?   • Which Governor revealed a – shhhh -- bedroom secret?   • And which Governor not only said something lovely about her husband – but then said something lovely about her in-laws?   Find out in “The Weekly” – as we present the loveliest things governors said about their spouses in 2025 State of the State addresses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy focuses on the re-opening of ICE's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office. Originally established by the Trump administration in 2017 to provide critical support to victims and families affected by crimes linked to illegal immigration, the VOICE office was shut down by the Biden administration, but has been reinstated by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.ImageGuest host Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, is joined by two parents who lost their children to crimes committed by illegal aliens. They share their personal stories and experiences, highlighting how the VOICE office provided them with support and resources.Don Rosenberg, President of Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), whose son Drew was killed by an unlicensed illegal immigrant in a hit-and-run crash.Tammy Nobles, mother of Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old autistic woman who was raped and murdered by an MS-13 gang member illegally present in the U.S.Vaughan then highlights Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's warning to federal highway fund recipients: comply with federal immigration law or risk losing funding. On his list of public safety concerns: states that issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia presently issue licenses to this population.Rosenburg, the president of AVIAC and an activist focused on unlicensed drivers and road safety, discusses his research into the impact of this policy, stating that there is no evidence that providing driver's licenses to illegal aliens improves road safety. In fact, he shares data showing that fatal crashes rise, as do hit-and-runs, in the first few years after such a policy is implemented.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsDon Rosenberg, President of Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), whose son Drew was killed by an unlicensed illegal immigrant in a hit-and-run crash.Tammy Nobles, mother of Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old autistic woman who was raped and murdered by an MS-13 gang member illegally present in the U.S.RelatedVictims and Their Families Finally Get a VOICESilencing VOICE: Despite being shuttered by Biden, the need for ICE's victim-assistance office is greater than everVOICE websiteAVIAC: Advocates For Victims of Illegal Alien CrimeIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

B.J. Hollars is the author of several books, most recently Wisconsin for Kennedy: The Primary That Launched a President and Changed The Course of History, Year of Plenty: A Family's Season of Grief, Go West Young Man: A Father and Son Rediscover America on the Oregon Trail, Midwestern Strange: Hunting Monsters, Martians and the Weird in Flyover Country.Visit his website here: http://www.bjhollars.com/He and his film partner, Steve Dayton, have also completed a documentary: When Rubber Hit The Road,Hollars is the recipient of the Truman Capote Prize for Literary Nonfiction, the Anne B. and James B. McMillan Prize, the Council of Wisconsin Writers' Blei-Derleth Award, the Society of Midland Authors Award, and received a 2022 silver medal from the Midwest Book Awards. His work has been featured on C-SPAN, Lit Hub, Washington Post, Inside Edition, Star-Tribune, The Millions, and Wisconsin Life.B.J. vists with Talking Weird to chat about his research into the strangest tales of the American midwest, which he chronicles in his fantastic book MIDWESTERN STRANGE: HUNTING MONSTERS, MARTIANS, AND THE WEIRD IN FLYOVER COUNTRY: From Werewolves and Mothman, through the Hodag and giant turtles, to UFOs and strange Viking relics.The book is available at all good book stores, and at Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/Midwestern-Strange-Hunting-Monsters-Martians/dp/1496215605This is a fun show, jam-packed with midwestern weirdness!

Listen to ASCO's JCO Oncology Practice, Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last” by Dr. David Johnson, who is a clinical oncologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. The article is followed by an interview with Johnson and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Through humor and irony, Johnson critiques how overspecialization and poor presentation practices have eroded what was once internal medicine's premier educational forum. Transcript Narrator: An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last, by David H. Johnson, MD, MACP, FASCO   Over the past five decades, I have attended hundreds of medical conferences—some insightful and illuminating, others tedious and forgettable. Among these countless gatherings, Medical Grand Rounds (MGRs) has always held a special place. Originally conceived as a forum for discussing complex clinical cases, emerging research, and best practices in patient care, MGRs served as a unifying platform for clinicians across all specialties, along with medical students, residents, and other health care professionals. Expert speakers—whether esteemed faculty or distinguished guests—would discuss challenging cases, using them as a springboard to explore the latest advances in diagnosis and treatment. During my early years as a medical student, resident, and junior faculty member, Grand Rounds consistently attracted large, engaged audiences. However, as medicine became increasingly subspecialized, attendance began to wane. Lectures grew more technically intricate, often straying from broad clinical relevance. The patient-centered discussions that once brought together diverse medical professionals gradually gave way to hyperspecialized presentations. Subspecialists, once eager to share their insights with the wider medical community, increasingly withdrew to their own specialty-specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. As a former Chair of Internal Medicine and a veteran of numerous MGRs, I observed firsthand how these sessions shifted from dynamic educational exchanges to highly specialized, often impenetrable discussions. One of the most striking trends in recent years has been the decline in presentation quality at MGR—even among local and visiting world-renowned experts. While these speakers are often brilliant clinicians and investigators, they can also be remarkably poor lecturers, delivering some of the most uninspiring talks I have encountered. Their presentations are so consistently lackluster that one might suspect an underlying strategy at play—an unspoken method to ensure that they are never invited back. Having observed this pattern repeatedly, I am convinced that these speakers must be adhering to a set of unwritten rules to avoid future MGR presentations. To assist those unfamiliar with this apparent strategy, I have distilled the key principles that, when followed correctly, all but guarantee that a presenter will not be asked to give another MGR lecture—thus sparing them the burden of preparing one in the future. Drawing on my experience as an oncologist, I illustrate these principles using an oncology-based example although I suspect similar rules apply across other subspecialties. It will be up to my colleagues in cardiology, endocrinology, rheumatology, and beyond to identify and document their own versions—tasks for which I claim no expertise. What follows are the seven “Rules for Presenting a Bad Medical Oncology Medical Grand Rounds.” 1.  Microscopic Mayhem: Always begin with an excruciatingly detailed breakdown of the tumor's histology and molecular markers, emphasizing how these have evolved over the years (eg, PAP v prostate-specific antigen)—except, of course, when they have not (eg, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, etc). These nuances, while of limited relevance to general internists or most subspecialists (aside from oncologists), are guaranteed to induce eye-glazing boredom and quiet despair among your audience. 2. TNM Torture: Next, cover every nuance of the newest staging system … this is always a real crowd pleaser. For illustrative purposes, show a TNM chart in the smallest possible font. It is particularly helpful if you provide a lengthy review of previous versions of the staging system and painstakingly cover each and every change in the system. Importantly, this activity will allow you to disavow the relevance of all previous literature studies to which you will subsequently refer during the course of your presentation … to wit—“these data are based on the OLD staging system and therefore may not pertain …” This phrase is pure gold—use it often if you can. NB: You will know you have “captured” your audience if you observe audience members “shifting in their seats” … it occurs almost every time … but if you have failed to “move” the audience … by all means, continue reading … there is more! 3. Mechanism of Action Meltdown: Discuss in detail every drug ever used to treat the cancer under discussion; this works best if you also give a detailed description of each drug's mechanism of action (MOA). General internists and subspecialists just LOVE hearing a detailed discussion of the drug's MOA … especially if it is not at all relevant to the objectives of your talk. At this point, if you observe a wave of slack-jawed faces slowly slumping toward their desktops, you will know you are on your way to successfully crushing your audience's collective spirit. Keep going—you are almost there. 4. Dosage Deadlock: One must discuss “dose response” … there is absolutely nothing like a dose response presentation to a group of internists to induce cries of anguish. A wonderful example of how one might weave this into a lecture to generalists or a mixed audience of subspecialists is to discuss details that ONLY an oncologist would care about—such as the need to dose escalate imatinib in GIST patients with exon 9 mutations as compared with those with exon 11 mutations. This is a definite winner! 5. Criteria Catatonia: Do not forget to discuss the newest computed tomography or positron emission tomography criteria for determining response … especially if you plan to discuss an obscure malignancy that even oncologists rarely encounter (eg, esthesioneuroblastoma). Should you plan to discuss a common disease you can ensure ennui only if you will spend extra time discussing RECIST criteria. Now if you do this well, some audience members may begin fashioning their breakfast burritos into projectiles—each one aimed squarely at YOU. Be brave … soldier on! 6. Kaplan-Meier Killer: Make sure to discuss the arcane details of multiple negative phase II and III trials pertaining to the cancer under discussion. It is best to show several inconsequential and hard-to-read Kaplan-Meier plots. To make sure that you do a bad job, divide this portion of your presentation into two sections … one focused on adjuvant treatment; the second part should consist of a long boring soliloquy on the management of metastatic disease. Provide detailed information of little interest even to the most ardent fan of the disease you are discussing. This alone will almost certainly ensure that you will never, ever be asked to give Medicine Grand Rounds again. 7. Lymph Node Lobotomy: For the coup de grâce, be sure to include an exhaustive discussion of the latest surgical techniques, down to the precise number of lymph nodes required for an “adequate dissection.” To be fair, such details can be invaluable in specialized settings like a tumor board, where they send subspecialists into rapturous delight. But in the context of MGR—where the audience spans multiple disciplines—it will almost certainly induce a stultifying torpor. If dullness were an art, this would be its masterpiece—capable of lulling even the most caffeinated minds into a stupor. If you have carefully followed the above set of rules, at this point, some members of the audience should be banging their heads against the nearest hard surface. If you then hear a loud THUD … and you're still standing … you will know you have succeeded in giving the world's worst Medical Grand Rounds!   Final Thoughts I hope that these rules shed light on what makes for a truly dreadful oncology MGR presentation—which, by inverse reasoning, might just serve as a blueprint for an excellent one. At its best, an outstanding lecture defies expectations. One of the most memorable MGRs I have attended, for instance, was on prostaglandin function—not a subject typically associated with edge-of-your-seat suspense. Given by a biochemist and physician from another subspecialty, it could have easily devolved into a labyrinth of enzymatic pathways and chemical structures. Instead, the speaker took a different approach: rather than focusing on biochemical minutiae, he illustrated how prostaglandins influence nearly every major physiologic system—modulating inflammation, regulating cardiovascular function, protecting the gut, aiding reproduction, supporting renal function, and even influencing the nervous system—without a single slide depicting the prostaglandin structure. The result? A room full of clinicians—not biochemists—walked away with a far richer understanding of how prostaglandins affect their daily practice. What is even more remarkable is that the talk's clarity did not just inform—it sparked new collaborations that shaped years of NIH-funded research. Now that was an MGR masterpiece. At its core, effective scientific communication boils down to three deceptively simple principles: understanding your audience, focusing on relevance, and making complex information accessible.2 The best MGRs do not drown the audience in details, but rather illuminate why those details matter. A great lecture is not about showing how much you know, but about ensuring your audience leaves knowing something they didn't before. For those who prefer the structured wisdom of a written guide over the ramblings of a curmudgeon, an excellent review of these principles—complete with a handy checklist—is available.2 But fair warning: if you follow these principles, you may find yourself invited back to present another stellar MGRs. Perish the thought! Dr. Mikkael SekeresHello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.  What a pleasure it is today to be joined by Dr. David Johnson, clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  David, welcome to our podcast and thanks so much for joining us. Dr. David JohnsonGreat to be here, Mikkael. Thanks for inviting me. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI was wondering if we could start with just- give us a sense about you. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? And walk us through your career. Dr. David JohnsonSure. I grew up in a small rural community in Northwest Georgia about 30 miles south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains. I met my wife in kindergarten. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh my. Dr. David JohnsonThere are laws in Georgia. We didn't get married till the third grade. But we dated in high school and got married after college. And so we've literally been with one another my entire life, our entire lives. Dr. Mikkael SekeresMy word. Dr. David JohnsonI went to medical school in Georgia. I did my training in multiple sites, including my oncology training at Vanderbilt, where I completed my training. I spent the next 30 years there, where I had a wonderful career. Got an opportunity to be a Division Chief and a Deputy Director of, and the founder of, a cancer center there. And in 2010, I was recruited to UT Southwestern as the Chairman of Medicine. Not a position I had particularly aspired to, but I was interested in taking on that challenge, and it proved to be quite a challenge for me. I had to relearn internal medicine, and really all the subspecialties of medicine really became quite challenging to me. So my career has spanned sort of the entire spectrum, I suppose, as a clinical investigator, as an administrator, and now as a near end-of-my-career guy who writes ridiculous articles about grand rounds. Dr. Mikkael SekeresNot ridiculous at all. It was terrific. What was that like, having to retool? And this is a theme you cover a little bit in your essay, also, from something that's super specialized. I mean, you have had this storied career with the focus on lung cancer, and then having to expand not only to all of hematology oncology, but all of medicine. Dr. David JohnsonIt was a challenge, but it was also incredibly fun. My first few days in the chair's office, I met with a number of individuals, but perhaps the most important individuals I met with were the incoming chief residents who were, and are, brilliant men and women. And we made a pact. I promised to teach them as much as I could about oncology if they would teach me as much as they could about internal medicine. And so I spent that first year literally trying to relearn medicine. And I had great teachers. Several of those chiefs are now on the faculty here or elsewhere. And that continued on for the next several years. Every group of chief residents imparted their wisdom to me, and I gave them what little bit I could provide back to them in the oncology world. It was a lot of fun. And I have to say, I don't necessarily recommend everybody go into administration. It's not necessarily the most fun thing in the world to do. But the opportunity to deal one-on-one closely with really brilliant men and women like the chief residents was probably the highlight of my time as Chair of Medicine. Dr. Mikkael SekeresThat sounds incredible. I can imagine, just reflecting over the two decades that I've been in hematology oncology and thinking about the changes in how we diagnose and care for people over that time period, I can only imagine what the changes had been in internal medicine since I was last immersed in that, which would be my residency. Dr. David JohnsonWell, I trained in the 70s in internal medicine, and what transpired in the 70s was kind of ‘monkey see, monkey do'. We didn't really have a lot of understanding of pathophysiology except at the most basic level. Things have changed enormously, as you well know, certainly in the field of oncology and hematology, but in all the other fields as well. And so I came in with what I thought was a pretty good foundation of knowledge, and I realized it was completely worthless, what I had learned as an intern and resident. And when I say I had to relearn medicine, I mean, I had to relearn medicine. It was like being an intern. Actually, it was like being a medical student all over again. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh, wow. Dr. David JohnsonSo it's quite challenging.  Dr. Mikkael SekeresWell, and it's just so interesting. You're so deliberate in your writing and thinking through something like grand rounds. It's not a surprise, David, that you were also deliberate in how you were going to approach relearning medicine. So I wonder if we could pivot to talking about grand rounds, because part of being a Chair of Medicine, of course, is having Department of Medicine grand rounds. And whether those are in a cancer center or a department of medicine, it's an honor to be invited to give a grand rounds talk. How do you think grand rounds have changed over the past few decades? Can you give an example of what grand rounds looked like in the 1990s compared to what they look like now? Dr. David JohnsonWell, I should all go back to the 70s and and talk about grand rounds in the 70s. And I referenced an article in my essay written by Dr. Ingelfinger, who many people remember Dr. Ingelfinger as the Ingelfinger Rule, which the New England Journal used to apply. You couldn't publish in the New England Journal if you had published or publicly presented your data prior to its presentation in the New England Journal. Anyway, Dr. Ingelfinger wrote an article which, as I say, I referenced in my essay, about the graying of grand rounds, when he talked about what grand rounds used to be like. It was a very almost sacred event where patients were presented, and then experts in the field would discuss the case and impart to the audience their wisdom and knowledge garnered over years of caring for patients with that particular problem, might- a disease like AML, or lung cancer, or adrenal insufficiency, and talk about it not just from a pathophysiologic standpoint, but from a clinician standpoint. How do these patients present? What do you do? How do you go about diagnosing and what can you do to take care of those kinds of patients? It was very patient-centric. And often times the patient, him or herself, was presented at the grand rounds. And then experts sitting in the front row would often query the speaker and put him or her under a lot of stress to answer very specific questions about the case or about the disease itself.  Over time, that evolved, and some would say devolved, but evolved into more specialized and nuanced presentations, generally without a patient present, or maybe even not even referred to, but very specifically about the molecular biology of disease, which is marvelous and wonderful to talk about, but not necessarily in a grand round setting where you've got cardiologists sitting next to endocrinologists, seated next to nephrologists, seated next to primary care physicians and, you know, an MS1 and an MS2 and et cetera. So it was very evident to me that what I had witnessed in my early years in medicine had really become more and more subspecialized. As a result, grand rounds, which used to be packed and standing room only, became echo chambers. It was like a C-SPAN presentation, you know, where local representative got up and gave a talk and the chambers were completely empty. And so we had to go to do things like force people to attend grand rounds like a Soviet Union-style rally or something, you know. You have to pay them to go. But it was really that observation that got me to thinking about it.  And by the way, I love oncology and I'm, I think there's so much exciting progress that's being made that I want the presentations to be exciting to everybody, not just to the oncologist or the hematologist, for example. And what I was witnessing was kind of a formula that, almost like a pancake formula, that everybody followed the same rules. You know, “This disease is the third most common cancer and it presents in this way and that way.” And it was very, very formulaic. It wasn't energizing and exciting as it had been when we were discussing individual patients. So, you know, it just is what it is. I mean, progress is progress and you can't stop it. And I'm not trying to make America great again, you know, by going back to the 70s, but I do think sometimes we overthink what medical grand rounds ought to be as compared to a presentation at ASH or ASCO where you're talking to subspecialists who understand the nuances and you don't have to explain the abbreviations, you know, that type of thing. Dr. Mikkael SekeresSo I wonder, you talk about the echo chamber of the grand rounds nowadays, right? It's not as well attended. It used to be a packed event, and it used to be almost a who's who of, of who's in the department. You'd see some very famous people who would attend every grand rounds and some up-and-comers, and it was a chance for the chief residents to shine as well. How do you think COVID and the use of Zoom has changed the personality and energy of grand rounds? Is it better because, frankly, more people attend—they just attend virtually. Last time I attended, I mean, I attend our Department of Medicine grand rounds weekly, and I'll often see 150, 200 people on the Zoom. Or is it worse because the interaction's limited? Dr. David JohnsonYeah, I don't want to be one of those old curmudgeons that says, you know, the way it used to be is always better. But there's no question that the convenience of Zoom or similar media, virtual events, is remarkable. I do like being able to sit in my office where I am right now and watch a conference across campus that I don't have to walk 30 minutes to get to. I like that, although I need the exercise. But at the same time, I think one of the most important aspects of coming together is lost with virtual meetings, and that's the casual conversation that takes place. I mentioned in my essay an example of the grand rounds that I attended given by someone in a different specialty who was both a physician and a PhD in biochemistry, and he was talking about prostaglandin metabolism. And talk about a yawner of a title; you almost have to prop your eyelids open with toothpicks. But it turned out to be one of the most fascinating, engaging conversations I've ever encountered. And moreover, it completely opened my eyes to an area of research that I had not been exposed to at all. And it became immediately obvious to me that it was relevant to the area of my interest, which was lung cancer. This individual happened to be just studying colon cancer. He's not an oncologist, but he was studying colon cancer. But it was really interesting what he was talking about. And he made it very relevant to every subspecialist and generalist in the audience because he talked about how prostaglandin has made a difference in various aspects of human physiology.  The other grand rounds which always sticks in my mind was presented by a long standing program director at my former institution of Vanderbilt. He's passed away many years ago, but he gave a fascinating grand rounds where he presented the case of a homeless person. I can't remember the title of his grand rounds exactly, but I think it was “Care of the Homeless” or something like that. So again, not something that necessarily had people rushing to the audience. What he did is he presented this case as a mysterious case, you know, “what is it?” And he slowly built up the presentation of this individual who repeatedly came to the emergency department for various and sundry complaints. And to make a long story short, he presented a case that turned out to be lead poisoning. Everybody was on the edge of their seat trying to figure out what it was. And he was challenging members of the audience and senior members of the audience, including the Cair, and saying, “What do you think?” And it turned out that the patient became intoxicated not by eating paint chips or drinking lead infused liquids. He was burning car batteries to stay alive and inhaling lead fumes, which itself was fascinating, you know, so it was a fabulous grand rounds. And I mean, everybody learned something about the disease that they might otherwise have ignored, you know, if it'd been a title “Lead Poisoning”, I'm not sure a lot of people would have shown up. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres That story, David, reminds me of Tracy Kidder, who's a master of the nonfiction narrative, will choose a subject and kind of just go into great depth about it, and that subject could be a person. And he wrote a book called Rough Sleepers about Jim O'Connell - and Jim O'Connell was one of my attendings when I did my residency at Mass General - and about his life and what he learned about the homeless. And it's this same kind of engaging, “Wow, I never thought about that.” And it takes you in a different direction.  And you know, in your essay, you make a really interesting comment. You reflect that subspecialists, once eager to share their insight with the wider medical community, increasingly withdraw to their own specialty specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. How do you think this affects their ability to gain new insights into their research when they hear from a broader audience and get questions that they usually don't face, as opposed to being sucked into the groupthink of other subspecialists who are similarly isolated? Dr. David Johnson That's one of the reasons I chose to illustrate that prostaglandin presentation, because again, that was not something that I specifically knew much about. And as I said, I went to the grand rounds more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of engagement. Moreover, our Chair at that institution forced us to go, so I was there, not by choice, but I'm so glad I was, because like you say, I got insight into an area that I had not really thought about and that cross pollination and fertilization is really a critical aspect. I think that you can gain at a broad conference like Medical Grand Rounds as opposed to a niche conference where you're talking about APL. You know, everybody's an APL expert, but they never thought about diabetes and how that might impact on their research. So it's not like there's an ‘aha' moment at every Grand Rounds, but I do think that those kinds of broad based audiences can sometimes bring a different perspective that even the speaker, him or herself had not thought of. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI think that's a great place to end and to thank David Johnson, who's a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and just penned the essay in JCO Art of Oncology Practice entitled "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts.  David, once again, I want to thank you for joining me today. Dr. David JohnsonThank you very much for having me. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr David Johnson is a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.

Episode 2273 - Magnum grabs the mic and immediately flips the script—declaring it a pussy-powered takeover while The Kid is demoted to the “two-hole.” Studio guest Betty brings the heat (and five-inch heels), Eckler tries to keep his dick jokes straight, and the convo ricochets from ass-checks to pole dancing, masturbation fantasies, and an all-out political meltdown. It's like a live-action bar fight between Cosmo and Hustler with a splash of C-SPAN thrown in for good measure.

Shannon Bream, chief legal correspondent and anchor of Fox News Sunday (check your local listings), joined The Guy Benson Show today to react to the historic selection of Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, and what his selection means to the American catholic church. Bream also reflected on the life and legacy of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter and weighed in on CSPAN's push to televise the upcoming SCOTUS debate on birthright citizenship, and why the Court has remained silent on the request. Plus, she offered a preview of what's ahead on this week's edition of Fox News Sunday. Listen to the full interview below. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At some point, close listeners to C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" might have wondered: Why have we never done an episode featuring the best-of James Traficant? Well – wonder no more. Because – it's this week's episode! Why now? Two reasons: 1. This podcast is running on May 8th - That's right – Congressman James Traficant's birthday … he was born on May 8th, 1941; 2. We have a very special guest for this podcast … We're joined by one of America's foremost James Traficant experts – he's the editor at large of Reason magazine – Nick Gillespie We mark what would have been James Traficant's 84th birthday by playing best-of clips from his House floor speeches … spanning his 15 and a half years as a Democratic Congressman from Ohio -- then we'll hear Nick Gillespie react to each of them. Which James Traficant clips will you hear? Here's a hint: They all have one thing in common. They all include his iconic catch phrase, "Beam me up." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, guest host Jessica Vaughan, the Center's director of policy studies, discusses the intersection of immigration policy and municipal finance with Ed Grebeck, a veteran credit market risk expert. About one-third of all municipal bonds issued in 2024 and outstanding through 2024 are from sanctuary jurisdictions, concentrated in large cities and states, such as California, New York, and Massachusetts.Vaughan and Grebeck explore the fiscal implications of sanctuary policies and the need for comprehensive risk assessment in municipal finance. The absence of truly objective bond ratings or comprehensive risk assessments for sanctuary jurisdictions may place investors, particularly individual investors, who own a significant share of this market, at a disadvantage. Sanctuary policies can impose significant burdens on taxpayers, potentially affecting a municipality's fiscal health and its ability to meet financial obligations. Key discussion points include:Why are credit ratings important?Do sanctuary policies compromise a city's creditworthiness?Why might credit rating agencies overlook political risks associated with sanctuary jurisdictions?How does the influx of illegal immigrants strain public resources and affect taxpayers?Would legislative measures, like Rep. Nancy Mace's "No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act", address these concerns?In the closing commentary, Vaughan presents the findings from her most recent report on sanctuary jurisdictions, identifying the states and localities that have the most egregious non-cooperation policies leading to the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestEd Grebeck is a veteran credit market risk expert.RelatedSanctuary MapWhich Sanctuary Jurisdictions Have Released the Most CriminalsNo Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities ActContact Details for Ed GrebeckIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

An interruption to your regular podcast feed: the first episode of a new BBC Radio 4 series investigating the steep rise in autism diagnoses. The Autism Curve looks into the data that has prompted arguments - and conspiracy theories - about what's behind the rapid rise. It goes on to explore changes in what autism is, who gets to define it, and whose experience counts.In this first episode, Ginny Russell discusses her 20-year study that showed an astonishing eightfold rise in new autism diagnoses in the UK on an exponential curve. And Professor Joshua Stott explains how a surprising discovery at a dementia clinic led him to calculate that that enormous rise in diagnoses may still undercount the country's autistic population by as much as 1.2 million.Listen to the rest of The Autism Curve here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002bszlArchive: BBC; CSPAN; Fox News; CNN.Presenter: Michael Blastland Series Producer: Simon Maybin Editor: Clare Fordham Sound mix: Neil Churchill Production Co-ordinator: Gemma Ashman

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveTrump has been in office for one hundred days, and Damir Marusic thinks America deserves him: “I do tend to intuitively see Trump and Trumpism as a correction on a social order that has lost its way and is somehow badly out of tune,” Damir wrote earlier this week. “Something is broken and unsustainable, and has been so for a while.”Christine Emba and Shadi Hamid have questions. Why is Damir still “ebullient” (his words) and “giddy” (also his words) about the current political situation? Why does Damir still believe that Trump is “a symptom, not a cause” of the nation's problems? In response, Damir argues that “immigration and the war in Ukraine” are two of the issues that the Democrats were not addressing and that were unsustainable in the status quo.Shadi, for his part, feels much more appalled by Trump than he ever expected he would be, and is rediscovering is “left populist” roots. Christine offers an interesting couterfactual: “Not totally joking here … four to eight years of a sort of Kamala Harris-led Democratic party with, you know, a tech alliance could have eased us into sort of Brave New World-esque Soma-induced quiescence once AI had grown up a little bit and the Internet and mega-tech corporations were given even more power.”Ultimately, disagreements emerge: Christine believes that the Democrats, for all their faults, still follow the basics of rule of law — unlike Trump — and she argues that what Damir thinks of us a failed system might actually be, for most people, just the normal, mediocre running of a democracy. Shadi ponders the Great Man theory of history, and argues with Damir about whether history is determined or whether free will plays a role. In our bonus section for paid subscribers, Christine muses on the importance of TikTok in American politics; Damir utters the phrase, “nation of Trumps”; Damir argues that, without Trump, “by 2030 we'd be constitutionally in the same place”; Shadi argues that “postponing the inevitable seems good”; Christine muses on the theoretical reign of President Rahm Emmanuel; the gang discusses whether the GOP is an effective political party; and more!Required Reading:* Damir's Tuesday Note: “We Deserve It All” (WoC).* “ ‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.” (X).* Ross Douthat, “Donald Trump, Man of Destiny” (New York Times).* First Trump inaugural address (possibly written by Steve Bannon): “American Carnage” (White House Archives).* Pat Buchanan's 1992 “Culture War” RNC convention speech (C-Span).* Joseph De Maistre, Considerations on France (Archive.org) * Second Lincoln inaugural address (Constitution Center).* “Fact Check: Did Biden Ignore Supreme Court Over Student Loan Forgiveness?” (Newsweek).* Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (Amazon). * Great Man theory of history (Wikipedia). Free preview video:Full video for paid subscribers below:

Chris and Eliana are back, starting with Trump's 100-day media blitz, Tim Walz's code-switching, the private group chats shaping American politics, and—most importantly—the origin of Jo Jo potatoes. Wretch on! Time Stamps: Front Page: 1:29 Obsessions: 1:03:31 Reader Mail: 1:11:31 Favorite Items: 1:18:36 Show Notes: The Atlantic: Read The Atlantic's Interview With Donald Trump Time: Read the Full Transcript of Donald Trump's ‘100 Days' Interview With TIME Axios: Scoop: White House launches Drudge-style website to promote Trump The Atlantic: The War That Would Not End Semafor: The group chats that changed America The New York Times: A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere' The Wall Street Journal: Questioning Biden's Capacities Was Taboo a Year Ago. Now It's Everywhere. The New York Times: The Dispatch Buys SCOTUSblog, a Supreme Court Mainstay  The New York Times: A Hot Accessory, at the Intersection of Faith and Culture  The New York Times: Vietnam on The Move Awful Announcing: Bill Belichick issues statement defending Jordon Hudson's actions during CBS interview  ESPN: Son of Falcons coordinator Ulbrich admits to Sanders prank  The New York Times: How Ozempic Is Shaping Weddings  The New York Times: ‘60 Minutes' Chief Resigns in Emotional Meeting: ‘The Company Is Done With Me'  The New York Times: Paramount Board Clears Possible Path for Settling Trump's ‘60 Minutes' Lawsuit The Washington Post: She tried to expose Russia's brutal detention system — and ended up dead The Washington Post: Streaming services should step up to make C-SPAN great again  The New York Times: The Unabomber's Brother Turned Him In. Then Spent 27 Years Trying to Win Him Back.

Can you imagine a time when a U.S. President and a Canadian Prime Minister were friends? ... And said nice things about each other in public? ... And the nice things they said about each other in public were neither remarkable nor newsworthy? Well, here's proof that such a time once existed: "The fact that we go on, we got along, President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney, two some said Irish, we were Irish, now that I think of it, and we became friends. But more to the point. We recognized the importance of getting along. It sent a positive message not only to our senior officials and our governments to work together, but to the people of Canada and the United States." That was the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada ... April 5th 1993 ... At a tribute in his honor ... Hosted by Ronald Reagan ...The event was held in Simi Valley California at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. Not used to hearing such language? Want to hear Brian Mulroney say more lovely things about Ronald Reagan — and hear Ronald Reagan say lovely things about Brian Mulroney? Then listen to the latest episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly." Remembering when Canada and the United States were partners in trade — and partners in friendship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features a discussion of a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which reveals that both immigrant and U.S.-born women are having fewer children than they did 15 years ago. Based on data from the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS), collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, the report finds that although immigrant women continue to have somewhat higher fertility rates than their U.S.-born counterparts, the gap is small.Guest Steven Camarota, the Center's Research Director and co-author of the report, highlights a critical reality: Immigration, while adding to population growth, does not significantly slow the aging of the population or reverse declining birth rates.The podcast's second guest, Center Resident Scholar Jason Richwine, provides some evidence that immigration may actually reduce the fertility of the U.S.-born, reducing or potentially erasing immigration's small positive impact on overall U.S. fertility.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.Jason Richwine is a Resident Scholar at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Fertility of Immigrants and Natives in the United States, 2023Jobs Americans Will Do: Just About All of ThemImmigration in Trump's First 100 DaysIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Harvard has sued the Trump administration over multibillion-dollar funding cuts in the biggest escalation yet in the battle between the government and higher education. What does the showdown mean for the ideological freedom of American institutions and has Trump taken on a fight he can't win? This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuest: Gerard Baker, Columnist, The Times and Editor-at-Large, The Wall Street Journal. Host: Manveen Rana.Producer: Sam Chantarasak.Clips: Bloomberg, NBC News, NDTV, C-SPAN, Getty/Grinberg, Paramount, Pathe Newsreels. Photo: Getty Images.Get in touch: thestory@thetimes.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's time for the annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner at the Washington Hilton. But this year: No comedian. Which means: No jokes about C-SPAN … or about the Washington Hilton. In the past, at every dinner, there seemed to be at least one joke made about one or the other ... or sometimes both in the same joke — Like Conan O'Brien pulled off in 2013... Congratulations to C-SPAN for winning the bid to broadcast this event. They narrowly beat out HGTVQ, TV South America and the Hilton hotel how to check out channel. C-SPAN doesn't mind the ribbing. In fact, we did a podcast two years ago with the best-of jokes comedians told at the dinner ... about C-SPAN. We imagine the Washington Hilton can take a joke, too. So, in tribute to the hotel being a long-time central gathering spot for the political and media community — a true DC institution — and as a public service to those who still want to hear dinner jokes — this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" is equal parts history and loving roast ... We celebrate the hotel's 60th anniversary by presenting jokes told about it - by a group of people you won't hear at this year's dinner: professional comedians. Find C-SPAN's "The Weekly" wherever you get podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Beatles will be the subject of four interconnected films - one for each member - planned for release close together in April 2028. We asked the author of a recent book on The Beatles to tell us how he'd make the films - and what is still left to discover about the most famous band in history. This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuest: Ian Leslie, author of John and Paul: A Love Story in Songs. To order a copy go to timesbookshop.co.uk. Free UK standard P&P on orders over £25. Special discount available for Times+ membersHost: Manveen Rana. Producer: Sam Chantarasak.Read exclusive extracts from Ian's book: John Lennon, Paul McCartney and the grief that united two lost teens Paul McCartney and the song that made him John Lennon's equal Clips: Sky News, ITN/Getty Images, BBC News/WISH-TV, C-SPAN. Photo: Getty Images.Get in touch: thestory@thetimes.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Center for Immigration Studies hosted a panel discussion examining how immigration is used as a political, economic, and strategic tool by governments, non-state, and sub-state actors worldwide. Whether through mass migration crises, policy-driven border surges, or the manipulation of refugee flows, immigration has become a powerful geopolitical weapon and a means of waging hybrid warfare. Examples have included Cuba's use of the Mariel boatlift in 1980 or the more recent efforts by Belarus to coordinate illegal immigration to the EU.This panel explored the concept of immigration warfare – how immigration is leveraged to gain political leverage; influence legislation, elections, and the economy; shape public opinion; and even destabilize a country. Discussion also covered how nations can respond to this growing challenge. The discussion is an activity of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR), a collaboration among independent policy organizations on three continents sharing the perspective that each sovereign nation has the right to pursue its chosen immigration policies.Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, moderates this rebroadcast of the Center's panel.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsViktor Marsai is the Director of the Migration Research Institute in Budapest.Phillip Linderman is a Retired senior Foreign Service officer from the State Department and a Board Member of the Center for Immigration Studies.Eric Ruark is the Director of Research of Numbers USA.RelatedPanel Press ReleasePanel VideoPanel TranscriptC-Span CoverageIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Adam Haman returns to analyze the continued fallout from the Murray/Smith debate on the Joe Rogan podcast. As always, Adam and Bob have unique video and insights that other commenters have overlooked.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this conversation.The full Murray/Smith debate on Rogan.Douglas Murray on Australia's Sky News. His NY Post op ed.Konstantin Kisin's article.A Spiked analysis of the debate.Pat Buchanan's C-SPAN debate on Churchill.The HamanNature substack.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Dermott Foley won C-SPAN's StudentCam competition with his film Teens, Social Media, and the Fentanyl Overdose Crisis.

The White House Correspondents Association dinner is just a week away. The big annual media black tie shindig in the basement of the Washington Hilton typically has several surprises. Like this film shown during 2000 dinner. "I want to thank the Academy for this tremendous honor. This may be the greatest moment of my life. I mean, hear since i was a little boy I wanted to be a real actor" That was Bill Clinton, his final dinner as president…. Holding a real-life Oscar and, in front of a mirror, practicing his Academy Award acceptance speech – that is, before Kevin Spacey shows up to snatch it back. Just like the dinner has surprises – this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" has its own surprise. We play best-of moments from four dinners – then hear four former presidents of the White House Correspondents Association talk about them. The former WHCA presidents who join us: • Carl Cannon • Ann Compton • Tamara Keith • and Susan Page What memories do they share? What tidbits do we learn about presiding over the big event? And what's it like eating dinner next to the president in front of thousands of people in person and a nationwide C-SPAN audience? Find out directly from these top White House correspondents in the new episode of "The Weekly." Find C-SPAN's "The Weekly" wherever you get podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former Czech President Václav Klaus joins the Center for Immigration Studies podcast to discuss migration, national identity, and the importance of the nation-state. An economist and longtime advocate for national sovereignty, President Klaus challenges prevailing European views on immigration, multiculturalism, and the European Union.Key highlights:Reconciling free market economics with the necessity of limited immigration and secure borders.Differentiating between individual migration and mass migration.Arguing that low birthrates do not justify increased migration.Explaining mass migration as being demand-driven, caused by politics and social policies.Critiquing labor importation as a policy failure that undermines citizens' motivation to work.Emphasizing the importance of national borders and criticizing the Schengen Agreement.Distinguishing between migrants and legitimate refugees as opposed to distinguishing between legal and illegal migrants.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestFormer Czech President Václav KlausRelated"Europe All Inclusive: Understanding the Current Migration Crisis"Václav Klaus' personal websiteIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Thirty years ago, C-SPAN showed the Senate Whitewater Committee hearings. The Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters was created in May 1995. Hearings ran for 300 hours over 60 sessions across 13 months. Did anything concrete come out of those hearings seen on C-SPAN? Well – at least one thing. A hit murder mystery now streaming on Netflix called "The Residence." How do you get from a 1996 Whitewater hearing about possible corruption in politics to a 2025 Netflix series – created by Shondaland -- about possible murder in the White House? Find out in the latest episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" – directly from "The Residence" creator Paul William Davies. Other than the biggest murder mystery of all – whodunnit – what secrets of creating "The Residence" can political and White House history junkies learn from the show's creator? Hear directly from Paul William Davies in the latest episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, National Review's Andy McCarthy and guest host Andrew Arthur, the Center's fellow in law and policy, examine the erosion of legal norms – from immigration enforcement to judicial power – and what this means for how our system of government is supposed to work under the Constitution.Prosecutorial Discretion:McCarthy traces how the Obama and Biden administrations transformed prosecutorial discretion from a tool used on a case-by-case basis into a broad and categorical policy of declining to enforce immigration laws. What was once a resource-based allocation judgment has become, in his view, an unconstitutional end-run around Congress.The Courts as a Political Battleground:With Congress “not doing its job,” McCarthy highlights how activist groups race to friendly judges for nationwide injunctions. He warns the resulting judicial overreach allows unelected judges, often handpicked by advocacy groups, to override elected officials and block policies nationally, replacing democratic accountability with judicial activism. SCOTUS's large emergency docket caseload is a symptom of the resulting dysfunction.The Rise of Progressive Lawyering:McCarthy contrasts originalism, which examines and respects the Constitution's original meaning, with progressive lawyering, which he sees as driven by social outcomes rather than legal process. This shift, he contends, threatens democratic governance.Deportation and Due Process:The two legal experts address Trump-era deportation efforts using both the foreign policy grounds for removal and the Alien Enemies Act. McCarthy, who supports broad executive authority, explains that even aliens have constitutional protections.HostAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew McCarthy is a Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute and Contributing Editor at National Review.RelatedAndrew McCarthy articles at National ReviewSupremes Uphold Due Process While Handling Trump Win in Venezuelan Deportations CaseWhat is 'Shocking' to J.D. Vance Should Shock - and Anger - You, TooTrump Admin Wins First Alien Enemies Act Skirmish before SCOTUS - or Did ItSCOTUS Chief Stays District Order for Alien Deported Due to 'Administrative Error'Tren de Aragua, Alien Enemies Act, and 'State Secrets Privilege'Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The world woke up to a very different economy today. Then, President Trump announced a 90-day pause on his latest round of tariffs. The news was annouced as the official in charge of U.S. trade policy was testifying on Capitol Hill. We'll break down the trade official's tense exchange with lawmakers and the real consequences of this week's market madness. Plus, we'll laugh so we don't cry about the economy.Here's everything we talked about today:"U.S. Trade Rep. Testifies on Pres. Trump's Trade & Tariff Agenda" from CSPAN"Live updates: Trump orders 90-day pause on new tariffs except for China" from CNN Politics Bluesky post from Jeva Lange How are you coping with the tariff whiplash? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

The world woke up to a very different economy today. Then, President Trump announced a 90-day pause on his latest round of tariffs. The news was annouced as the official in charge of U.S. trade policy was testifying on Capitol Hill. We'll break down the trade official's tense exchange with lawmakers and the real consequences of this week's market madness. Plus, we'll laugh so we don't cry about the economy.Here's everything we talked about today:"U.S. Trade Rep. Testifies on Pres. Trump's Trade & Tariff Agenda" from CSPAN"Live updates: Trump orders 90-day pause on new tariffs except for China" from CNN Politics Bluesky post from Jeva Lange How are you coping with the tariff whiplash? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

 CBS's Face the Nation, ABC's Nightline, CBS's Sunday Morning, NBC's Today Show, PBS,, CNN,, Fox; National Public Radio;Washington Post, NewYork Times, are just some of the places you have read or seen him!Civil & Disability Rights are the topics of this show. With Civl Rights History being Preserved for Generations to learn about, What about Disability Rights with it's Multiracial History of Leadership & Activists?? I am concerned.Ralph was an author of the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973&  the American with Disabilities Act along with many others in many Drafts it took to get through a Bi-Partisian Congress as the national law. His work in Civill Rights is amazing as he was trained by many icons including Dorothy Height, Senator Edward Brooke (R, MA), Benjamin Hooks, Roy Wilkins, Wade Henderson. Senator Edward Kennedy, Bayard RustinYou hear very little of  Black Disability Leaders & Activists that are so pivitol to helping in this fight. Brad Lomax, The Black Panters, Dr. Sylvia Walker, (my mentor), Don Galloway or The Honorable Rep. Major Owens ( D, NY). & the Honorable Justin Dart, Tony Coehlo, Ed Roberts, Senator Lowell P. Weicker(R.CT) & others to advance Disability Rights & ADA History.Ralph Neas was both active duty and reserve in the United States Army (1968–1976). In late 1971, he joined the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division at the Library of Congress as a legislative attorney on civil rights. In January 1973, he was hired as a legislative assistant to Republican Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, eventually becoming the Senator's chief legislative assistant.From 1981 through 1995, Neas served as Executive Director of the nonpartisan Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the legislative arm of the civil rights movement. Neas coordinated successful national campaigns that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1991; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Civil Rights Restoration Act; the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988; the Japanese American Civil Liberties Act; the preservation of the Executive Order on Affirmative Action (1985–1986 and 1995–1996);and the 1982 Voting Right Act Extension.Final passage on all these laws averaged 85% in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; in addition, another 15 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights legislative priorities were enacted into law in the 1981–1995 period"The Americans with Disabilities Act Award" from the Task Force on the Rights of the Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities for "historic leadership regarding the enactment of the world's first comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities" October 12, 1990;Benjamin Hooks "Keeper of the Flame" award from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the 91st Annual Convention, Baltimore, Maryland, July 10, 2000"President's Award for Outstanding Service", Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, September, 2007.© 2025 Building Abundant Success!!2025 All Rights ReservedJoin Me ~ iHeart Media @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASAmazon ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBASAudacy:  https://tinyurl.com/BASAud

If you're listening closely to the language currently being used by leaders of the United States and Canada about each other -- what a Republican president once said about the two countries might seem unfamiliar. The American people know that putting up walls around our country is a prescription for ruin, not renewal. What the world and the United States need now is more trade and more open trade. And that's why we've pushed for a new GATT round that includes the most ambitious multilateral trade negotiation agenda in history. That's why we've negotiated an historic trade agreement with Canada that will expand jobs, growth, and opportunity on both sides of the border. That was President Ronald Reagan … March 11th, 1988 .. speaking at the White House with business leaders .. The topic: the recently signed United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Against the backdrop of the current state of U.S.-Canada relations, the latest episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" look back – to the 1980s … when the tone was different and the policies even more different still. What did President Reagan say about Canada? What were his trade policies toward our Northern neighbor? And what did President Reagan think about tariffs? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy discusses the Trump Administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a rarely-used provision in U.S. law passed in 1798 that gives the president the authority to swiftly remove citizens of countries of wartime foes or countries who have made a “predatory incursion” into our territory. Last month, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the AEA to apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove certain documented members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).Guest host and CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan interviews George Fishman, CIS Senior Legal Fellow, who has been writing about the possible use of the AEA since 2023. Three main questions are highlighted during the podcast:How are individuals identified for deportations via the AEA?What legal protections do those targeted for deportation via the AEA have?Who determines whether the administration has met the statutory requirements for the AEA's use?In her closing commentary, Vaughan discusses the recent statewide implementation of the 287(g) partnership program for immigration enforcement in Florida.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGeorge Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedTrump Deploys the Alien Enemies Act Against Venezuela and Tren De AraguaTren de Aragua, the Alien Enemies Act, and the ‘State Secrets Privilege'Alien Enemy Validation GuideThe 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Town and HomelandIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Critics on the left and the right called out Cory Booker's record-breaking speech this week for being “performative.” But what's that all about?Performance matters. Nobody wants to listen to a politician rattle off a list of statistical explanations. When you speak to people about something important, you need to make them feel a certain way, not just think a certain way. Otherwise, they are not going to act.That goes for Booker holding the Senate floor for 25 hours (and making C-SPAN must-see TV), and that also goes for you, trying to convince your friends and neighbors to get together to go out to a protest if they've never been before. And that's what we talked to political sage Anat Shenker-Osorio about this afternoon, along with what to make of the victory in the Wisconsin supreme court election, how to talk about the tariffs (and how to avoid the trap of explaining too much), why the Democrats missed the mark on the budget, and how to plan for the Hands Off! protests this coming weekend. As with anything Shenker-Osorio has to say, you won't want to miss it.We're leaving this open to all. But please support this work and subscribe if you can. When you do, it allows us to keep at it and keep reaching a wider audience. We really appreciate it!Take a moment to support fearless, independent reporting, and to help us keep bringing you conversations like this one. Or give a gift or group subscription.Stand up for media that bows to no tyrant or billionaire. Join us today. Or give a gift or group subscription.A programming note: More Live conversations!Join us again next week for two great live discussions. On Tuesday, April 8, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern, we'll be speaking with the author, documentarian, and political commentator Joy-Ann Reid, and on Thursday, April 10, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, the philosopher and author Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò will join us. We hope to see you for both!To join and watch, download the Substack app (click on the button below) and turn on notifications — you'll get an alert that we're live and you can watch from your iOS or Android mobile device. And if you haven't already, subscribe to The Ink to access full videos of past conversations and to join the chat during our live events.Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. If you haven't already joined us, sign up today for our mailing list, support our work, and help build a free and fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber. And if you're already a part of our community, thank you! And we'd appreciate it if you'd consider giving a subscription to The Ink as a gift or for a group you belong to. Or pick up a mug, tote bag, or T-shirt! We appreciate it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit the.ink/subscribe

Donald Trump will reveal his much-awaited tariffs today on a day he's called ‘Liberation Day', as world leaders and the global markets brace for impact. Speculation has been rife over how large they will be and who they will affect, as Britain's foreign secretary says we must ‘prepare for the worst.' But what are Trump's motives? And will they shatter the current economic world order? This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuest: Dominic O'Connell, Business Correspondent, Times Radio and Columnist, The Times. Host: Luke Jones.Producer: Sam Chantarasak.Clips: AP, NBC, Bloomberg, C-SPAN, Channel 4, Times Radio, Fox News. Photo: Times design.Get in touch: thestory@thetimes.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Los Angeles, California, four nations collided in a football tournament with an inescapable geopolitical backdrop.Canada, Mexico and Panama have all found themselves in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump within his first 100 days in office, and they all met, with the US, in the Nations League finals.Adam Leventhal has been looking into what happens when the sport and politics are thrust together like this speaking with the players, stakeholders and fans to find out how they feel about the various subplots surrounding this tournament and the 2026 World Cup.How do the co-hosts put on a united front when so much of the talk is of division?Host: Adam LeventhalExec Prod: Abi PatersonFeaturing audio from: The Daily, The Headlines, CBS, NBC, CSPAN, ESPN Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Los Angeles, California, four nations collided in a football tournament with an inescapable geopolitical backdrop. Canada, Mexico and Panama have all found themselves in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump within his first 100 days in office, and they all met, with the US, in the Nations League finals. Adam Leventhal has been looking into what happens when the sport and politics are thrust together like this speaking with the players, stakeholders and fans to find out how they feel about the various subplots surrounding this tournament and the 2026 World Cup. How do the co-hosts put on a united front when so much of the talk is of division? Host: Adam Leventhal Exec Prod: Abi Paterson Featuring audio from: The Daily, The Headlines, CBS, NBC, CSPAN, ESPN Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Los Angeles, California, four nations collided in a football tournament with an inescapable geopolitical backdrop. Canada, Mexico and Panama have all found themselves in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump within his first 100 days in office, and they all met, with the US, in the Nations League finals. Adam Leventhal has been looking into what happens when the sport and politics are thrust together like this speaking with the players, stakeholders and fans to find out how they feel about the various subplots surrounding this tournament and the 2026 World Cup. How do the co-hosts put on a united front when so much of the talk is of division? Host: Adam Leventhal Exec Prod: Abi Paterson Featuring audio from: The Daily, The Headlines, CBS, NBC, CSPAN, ESPN Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on the Mark Levin Show, the Houthis “have attacked U.S. warships 174 times and commercial vessels 145 times since 2023.” That's 319 acts of war. That's why President Trump ordered military operations against the Houthis. They attacked us over and over and over again. Unprovoked. For the hate America First appeasers, why are you on the side of the enemy?  Mike Huckabee's confirmation hearing for U.S. ambassador to Israel was minimally covered, with only C-SPAN reporting while network and cable TV ignored it, amid vicious protests from Code Pink and bias from Democrats favoring Hamas.  He delivered a masterful lesson on our nation's founding, its connection to God, Judaism, and Christianity, and our ties to Israel. The Democrat media and Democrats are desperately trying to create a scandal with the Atlantic, Signal story. There is no scandal.  Senator Roger Marshall is defending Qatar despite its role in funding terrorism globally, including support for Hamas, which has taken American hostages. While Qatar collaborates with Iran and shelters Hamas leaders, Marshall tries to highlight positive aspects of the country, seemingly excusing its actions. Why did Marshall choose not to bring up examples of Qatar funding terrorism? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

“I didn't really set out to make Cordelia (Uzo Aduba) quirky. I just wanted to make her distinctive. I just really thought about who I wanted her to be and how I thought [birdwatching] would be an interesting way for her to approach her job. And the very first thing that came to me was just her use of silence and her ability to just be comfortable in situations that might make other people uncomfortable. And it's a quality that I've seen in certain people that I've always admired and been fascinated with because there's nobody quite like Cordelia, but I've seen glimmers of it,” says The Residence creator and showrunner Paul William Davies about creating his lead character Cordelia, a detective who uses her birdwatching skills as framework for solving cases.  On today's episode, we talk with Paul William Davies about The Residence, the new Shondaland show streaming on Netflix. Set behind closed doors at the White House, The Residence follows an offbeat detective, Cordelia Cupp (Aduba), as she investigates the murder of a lead member of the White House staff. Davies says the idea came to him watching a hearing on C-SPAN that went into details of the White House's layout. But the show is more than just a game of Clue set in the upstairs-downstairs world of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The show goes deep into character and offers plenty of laughs along the way.  Davies talks about what he's learned working with television revolutionary Shonda Rhimes, the intense work that goes into structuring a murder mystery, and shares his advice for anyone who may be working on their own TV mystery.   “I think it's really important that you think about what the environment is that you're having this murder mystery in, and making the motive something that feels like it's related to the world that you're working in. In most murder mysteries, the murderer is doing it for money or for love or lust. And that's probably in 98% of the ones that you read. And that's fine… But I think really giving a lot of thought to, what is the motive here? How do I keep it organic to this world and these people, as opposed to it just being grafted onto it, which I think sometimes does happen. Make sure that the killer is doing something that feels like it's part of that world for a reason that is related to that world,” he says.    To hear more, listen to the podcast.   

October 31st, 2019. The U.S. House debates and passes a resolution laying out the rules in the first impeachment inquiry of President Trump. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer addresses the House that day — but there's something else on his mind as well: Today is a serious day. Last night was an extraordinary night. I rise for the millions of people who live in the Washington metropolitan area to congratulate and to exalt with all of our region on the extraordinary achievement of the Washington Nationals. What was the Washington Nationals' extraordinary achievement that Congressman Hoyer was talking about? Find out in the next episode of C-SPAN's "The Weekly"... Because ... it's our annual baseball episode! And it's timed for two major events: The podcast drops on opening day of the 2025 baseball season ... and 2025 marks 20 years of baseball back in DC. So, celebrate both milestones with something special — an oral history! — the biggest moments in Washington Nationals baseball history — as told by Congress. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Center for Immigration Studies analysts discuss the legal and policy implications of the Mahmoud Khalil case.Khalil, a Palestinian/Syrian/Algerian green card holder, was involved in pro-Hamas protests when a graduate student on a nonimmigrant visa at Columbia University. DHS charged Khalil under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which renders deportable any noncitizen “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”CIS's Andrew Arthur and George Fishman review the facts of the case, analyze the constitutional and legal questions of what they predict will be a potential test for future efforts to remove noncitizens who support terrorism, and offer predictions. Four main questions are highlighted:Is this a free speech case? Can a noncitizen be removed for speech or action supporting a terrorist organization?Is this a foreign policy case? How does the government define “serious adverse foreign policy consequences”?What are the judicial precedents? How will courts balance foreign policy concerns against constitutional rights?Will this case set clearer lines on what a non-citizen can and cannot do? There is a need for the law to settle the spectrum of rights that apply to a spectrum of status. Will this be the case that will provide legal clarity?As the case moves through immigration court and on to federal district court and beyond, the Center for Immigration Studies will continue providing expert analysis on its broader implications for immigration enforcement and national security.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsAndrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.George Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedFor more analysis, see our topic page: The Case of Mahmoud KhalilIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, Mike Huckabee's confirmation hearing for U.S. ambassador to Israel was minimally covered, with only C-SPAN reporting while network and cable TV ignored it, amid vicious protests from Code Pink and bias from Democrats favoring Hamas. He delivered a masterful lesson on our nation's founding, its connection to God, Judaism, and Christianity, and our ties to Israel. There's growing concern over unprecedented cooperation among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea against the U.S., alongside rising antisemitism, which President Trump is trying to address despite resistance from Democrat-appointed judges. Islamists and Marxists have the same goal: the destruction of Western civilization. The U.S. isn't engaging the Houthis over Israel; rather, the Houthis have struck our ships 319 times, constituting clear acts of war. Also, Jim Jordan calls in to address methods for curbing federal judges who act as if they hold presidential authority. He also recounts his memorable experience attending a wrestling match with Trump and highlights Wyatt Hendrickson's incredible victory. Later, the signal leak wasn't good but it's not the crisis of the century. It was a discussion, and no classified information was revealed. Finally, Steve Hilton calls in to discuss his new book, Califailure: Reversing the Ruin of America's Worst-Run State. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

C-SPAN Founder Brian Lamb is in conversation with Sam Feist, the network's CEO, and Susan Swain, C-SPAN's former co-CEO, about his quest to bring live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of Congress into every American home. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

-- On the Show: -- MAGA and Donald Trump are terrified as consumer panic is rising as consumer spending declines precipitously -- CSPAN caller is in tears over what is happening to the economy -- Republican Senator Mitch McConnell turns on Donald Trump's tariffs, much too late to make any difference -- Donald Trump is creating a recession out of thin air, a rarity in the history of recessions -- Europe is specifically targeting red states with its retaliatory tariffs -- Right wingers melt down because a contestant on the reality show Love is Blind rejected her fiancé over his political views -- The real reasons that Trump an MAGA cannot accept basic facts -- This week's Friday Feedback -- On the Bonus Show: Right-wing media reacts to Trump destroying the economy, and much more...

Are we mistaking media consumption for political engagement? In this episode, Kaitlyn Schiess joins The Biblical Mind Podcast to challenge the way Christians think about politics, faith, and media. She explains why binge-watching C-SPAN or endlessly scrolling Twitter doesn't make us politically engaged—but actually forms us into people less capable of real advocacy. Dru and Kaitlyn discuss the modern obsession with national politics, why Christians ignore their local communities, and how the church provides a model of meaningful engagement. Instead of trying to "change the world" through social media outrage, Kaitlyn argues that real political involvement means knowing your neighbors, understanding local government, and prioritizing embodied relationships. They also explore the role of Christian media consumption, asking whether 24-hour news, partisan social feeds, and political influencers have become a form of secular discipleship. How can Christians discern which voices are trustworthy? And how can the church offer a healthier alternative? We are listener supported. Give to the cause here: https://hebraicthought.org/give For more articles: https://thebiblicalmind.org/ Kaitlyn Schiess' Content https://www.holypost.com/ https://www.facebook.com/kaitlyn.schiess https://www.instagram.com/kaitlynschiess https://twitter.com/KaitlynSchiess Social Links: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HebraicThought/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hebraicthought/ X: https://www.twitter.com/HebraicThought/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hebraicthought.org Chapters 00:00 Misunderstandings in Political Engagement 03:45 The Impact of 24-Hour News Cycle 07:13 Agency and Exhaustion in Political Involvement 09:46 Local vs. National Political Engagement 13:52 The Role of Community and Church 16:17 Listening to Trustworthy Voices 25:02 Understanding Local Politics Through Community Engagement 26:14 The Importance of Recognizing Underlying Narratives 28:18 The Challenge of Political Discourse in Faith Communities 31:09 The Role of Stories in Shaping Political Beliefs 34:44 Navigating Conspiracy Theories in Faith Contexts 37:12 The Need for Meaningful Conversations in Churches 40:00 The Impact of Media Consumption on Relationships 41:51 Reality TV and Its Moral Implications

-- On the Show: -- Economists are increasingly panicking about a possible "Trump recession" -- MAGA voters are turning on Donald Trump after realizing what his policies mean for them, and many are calling right wing radio to tell them about it -- David tells the story of being threated into removing a video with a $150,000 demand letter -- Donald Trump explodes after a series of devastating polls -- A CSPAN caller explains that the price of his insulin has gone up 1200% since Donald Trump became president -- DOGE has found zero actual fraud so far -- Joe Rogan goes full conspiracy, dropping all pretense of objectivity -- Larry Kudlow, current Fox host and former Trump adviser, admits that prices will go up and growth will be limited under Trump's policies -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: The Friday Bonus Show hosted by Producer Pat

In this edition of Red White And Trend Land, Miles and special guest co-host Andrew Ti discuss Trump bringing back plastic straws, inefficient lightbulbs and more, a Trump fealty update (feat. Paramount, ABC, and Google), John Larson experiences a BSOD during a speech on CSPAN, the tragic passing of Duolingo's mascot, Luigi Mangione's GiveSendGo legal fund and much more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.