Podcasts about co director

Calliope Nicholas is the Co-Director and Manager of Residency Programs at Millay Arts, the artists residency program situated at the former home of Edna St. Vincent Millay, in Austerlitz, New York. The mission of Millay Arts is to support "the work and creative process of multidisciplinary artists through a range of residencies that enrich lives and communities locally and globally.” For those who do not know, a residency is a gift of time and space for creatives. Listen in as Calliope Nicholas and Qwerty Podcast host, Marion Roach Smith, talk about how and when to apply, why to apply and what to expect from an artist's residency. The QWERTY podcast is brought to you by the book The Memoir Project: A Thoroughly Non-Standardized Text for Writing & Life. Read it, and begin your own journey to writing what you know. To learn more, join The Memoir Project free newsletter list and keep up to date on all our free webinars, instructive posts and online classes in how to write memoir, as well as our talented, available memoir editors and memoir coaches, podcast guests and more.

In this first part of a two-part program, we travel back and forth in time to explore the battle between democracy and plutocracy that goes back to the very founding of the United States.  The extreme concentration of corporate power and the prevalence of monopoly are indeed inarguable. If the solution is once again to throw the tea in the harbor, what does that look like in the 21st century? In today's new Gilded Age of rule by the wealthy, rising anti-trust movements are challenging the stranglehold of corporate monopoly. Featuring Thom Hartmann, the top progressive talk show host in America for over a decade, a four-time Project Censored Award-winning journalist, and bestselling author. Learn more at his website. Stacy Mitchell, Co-Director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which produces research and develops policy to counter corporate control and build thriving, equitable communities. Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director of ACRE (Action Center on Race and the Economy) where he works on campaigns to create equitable communities by dismantling systems of wealth extraction in Black and Brown communities. Resources The Hidden History of Monopolies by Thom Hartmann All Life Is Organized Around Democracy | Thom Hartmann's keynote address to the Bioneers 2020 Conference Democracy vs. Plutocracy panel discussion (video) | Bioneers 2020 Conference Our Economic Future | Bioneers Reader eBook This is an episode of the Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature series. Visit the radio and podcast homepage to learn more.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof. Trey Ideker is Professor of Medicine, Bioengineering and Computer Science, and former Chief of Genetics, at the University of California San Diego (UCSD). He is also the Director of the Bridge2AI Functional Genomics Data Generation Program and Co-Director of the Cancer Cell Map Initiative. Please subscribe to this channel:https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1

This week, EconoFact Chats features an abridged version of the EconoFact Ask Me Anything Webinar held on May 27th with Bill Gale, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Co-Director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Gale discusses the 'Big Beautiful Budget Bill,' noting that it will provide high-income households with large tax cuts, while likely lowering after tax resources for low-income households. He also stresses the importance of reining in the deficit, and outlines a few tax policy proposals that have broad consensus among economists -- notably lower tax rates, fewer deductions, a consumption tax, and a carbon tax. EconoFact's monthly Ask Me Anything Webinars are exclusively available to our Premium Subscribers. The modest $50 annual fee for becoming a Premium Subscriber supports EconoFact and its efforts to bring timely, accessible, unbiased, and nonpartisan analyses on important economic and social policy issues to the public. You can sign-up for a Premium Subscription at https://secure.touchnet.net/C21525_ustores/web/store_main.jsp?STOREID=157

The Founders knew what they did not want our new government to be.  Thomas Jefferson so eloquently made the argument to break away from one form while laying the groundwork for our next form of government.  Then James Madison completed that groundwork in the text of Constitution.  What do we mean by this?  The Declaration spoke of unalienable rights, and declared the purpose of government instituted by man is to secure these rights.  The Constitution then completes those thoughts by limiting the power any one person or branch of government can have by instituting checks and balances of each branch of government on the others..  To further expound on this magnificent structure protecting our freedoms, we are thrilled to welcome back our good friend, Adam Carrington, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University.

Linley Dixon discusses some of the challenges facing organic farming, particularly the issues of greenwashing and the need for maintaining organic standards in this week's podcast interview. Linley is the Co-Director of the Real Organic Project (ROP), in addition to running her own Adobe House Farm in Durango, Colorado. She emphasizes the importance of transparency in agricultural practices and the impact of lobbying by agribusiness to weaken organic standards. These issues have an impact even on farmers who are not certified organic, because when standards are not maintained, it causes consumers to doubt standards in general.The conversation also touches on the role of fraud in organic certification, the need for accountability, and the importance of strong regulations to protect organic integrity. This is the second episode on maintaining organic standards; the first one with Dave Chapman focused on the issue of allowing hydroponics in organics, while this episode focuses on maintaining humane standards for organic livestock and combatting organic grain fraud. Linley also delves into her academic background in soil science and plant pathology, emphasizing the significance of soil health in sustainable agriculture. Connect With Guest:Instagram: @realorganicprojectWebsite: realorganicproject.org Podcast Sponsors: Huge thanks to our podcast sponsors as they make this podcast FREE to everyone with their generous support: Nifty Hoops builds complete gothic high tunnels that are easy to install and built to last. Their bolt-together construction makes setup straightforward and efficient, whether it's a small backyard hoophouse, or a dozen large production-scale high tunnels- especially through their community build option, where professional builders work alongside your crew, family, or neighbors to build each structure- usually in a single day. Visit niftyhoops.com to learn more. Tilth Soil makes living soils for organic growers. The base for all our mixes is NOP-compliant compost, made from the 4,000 tons of food scraps we divert from landfills each year. And the results speak for themselves. Get excellent germination, strong transplants, and help us turn these resources back into food. Try a free bag, and check our 2025 farmer pricing at tilthsoil.com/gfm. Farmhand is the all-in-one virtual assistant created for CSA farmers. With five-star member support, custom websites, shop management, and seamless billing, Farmhand makes it effortless to market, manage, and grow a thriving CSA. Learn more and set up a demo with the founder at farmhand.partners/gfm. BCS two-wheel tractors are designed and built in Italy where small-scale farming has been a way of life for generations. Discover the beauty of BCS on your farm with PTO-driven implements for soil-working, shredding cover crops, spreading compost, mowing under fences, clearing snow, and more – all powered by a single, gear-driven machine that's tailored to the size and scale of your operation. To learn more, view sale pricing, or locate your nearest dealer, visit BCS America. Subscribe To Our Magazine -all new subscriptions include a FREE 28-Day Trial

Dr. Steve Demarais is a self-described 'deer nut'. The recently retired Co-Director of Mississippi State's famed Deer Lab made whitetail deer his life's work. On today's show we sit down and discuss some of the more fascinating discoveries his department made concerning whitetail deer behavior and genetics. Some of the highlights include: Can a whitetail [...]

From a recent WEDI virtual spotlight, WEDI's Emerging Technology Workgroup Chair Nick Radov (Stedi) has a great conversation about how providers are leveraging artificial intelligence to improve the industry and the special place guidance plays in ensuring not only innovation, but also responsibility. The panel: Jared Staal, Executive Director, Intelligent Automation & AI, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Newar Shara, PhD, Chief, Research Data Science, MedStar Research Institute. Chief of AI Application in Health Data Science (AI CoLab). Co-Director, Center for Biostatistics, Informatics, and Data Science Frederick Chen, MD, Chief Health and Science Officer, American Medical Association

Max Smeets, Co-Director of Virtual Routes and Senior Researcher at ETH Zurich, joins Lawfare's Jonathan Cedarbaum and Justin Sherman to discuss his recently released book “Ransom War: How Cybercrime Became a Threat to National Security.” They discuss the history of ransomware (including the term itself), how the threats have evolved over the years, and some of the major drivers of innovation and entrepreneurialism within the ransomware ecosystem. They discuss Max's findings on the “trust paradox” facing ransomware groups, the internal business dynamics of ransomware gangs, how governments leverage ransomware operators to their own ends, and how the United States and Europe can respond to future threats.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on The Beat, CTSNet Editor-in-Chief Joel Dunning speaks with Dr. David Kalfa, the incoming Chief of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery and Co-Director of the Heart Institute at Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami, about allogeneic mitral valve transplants. Chapters 00:00 Intro 01:46 Interview Preview 02:54 MV Surgery After Failed Intervention 07:46 Tears Predict Outcomes After Hemi-Arch 10:32 Pain Catastrophizing Scale 14:27 ARR w Stentless Biopros, Sex Difference 16:38 Open Implant TAV via Redo Sternotomy 19:05 Repeat Sternotomy w Completion Unifocaliz 21:07 Direct Aortic Impella 5.5 in PC Shock 25:16 Dr. Kalfa Interview, AMV Transplant 39:58 Upcoming Events 41:26 Closing They discuss methods for obtaining a mitral valve for transplantation, and topics such as immunosuppression, aortic coagulation, and the progress that has been made in this field. They also explore how to perform a living allogeneic heart valve transplant and the future of this technique.   Joel also highlights recent JANS articles on mitral valve surgery after failed transcatheter intervention for mitral regurgitation, whether distal anastomotic new entry tears predict long-term outcomes after hemiarch repair for DeBakey I aortic dissection, using a pain catastrophizing scale as a predictor for acute postoperative pain following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy, and sex difference in aortic root replacement with a stentless bioprosthesis.  In addition, Joel explores an open implantation of a transcatheter aortic valve via redo sternotomy, mitral valve replacement, and tricuspid valve repair in a high-risk patient, repeat sternotomy with completion unifocalization and extensive pulmonary arterial reconstruction in ToF/PA/MAPCAs, and direct aortic Impella 5.5 in post-cardiotomy shock. Before closing, Joel highlights upcoming events in CT surgery.    JANS Items Mentioned  1.) Mitral Valve Surgery After Failed Transcatheter Intervention for Mitral Regurgitation: Techniques, Challenges, and Outcomes  2.) Distal Anastomotic New Entry Tears Predict Long-Term Outcomes After Hemi-Arch Repair for DeBakey I Aortic Dissection  3.) Pain Catastrophizing Scale as a Predictor for Acute Postoperative Pain Following Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Lobectomy  4.) Sex Difference in Aortic Root Replacement With a Stentless Bioprosthesis  CTSNET Content Mentioned  1.) Open Implantation of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve via Redo Sternotomy, Mitral Valve Replacement, and Tricuspid Valve Repair in a High-Risk-Patient  2.) Challenging Pulmonary Arterial Reconstruction: Repeat Sternotomy With Completion Unifocalization and Extensive Pulmonary Arterial Reconstruction in ToF/PA/MAPCAs   3.) Direct Aortic Impella 5.5 in Post-Cardiotomy Shock  Other Items Mentioned  1.) Allogeneic Mitral Valve Transplant: Historical Precedent, Current Considerations, and Future Implementation  2.) Cardiac Surgical Arrest—An International Conversation, Part 1  3.) Winners of the 2025 CTSNet Instructional Video Competition  4.) Career Center   5.) CTSNet Events Calendar  Disclaimer The information and views presented on CTSNet.org represent the views of the authors and contributors of the material and not of CTSNet. Please review our full disclaimer page here.

Interview recorded - 20th of June, 2025On this episode of the WTFinance podcast I had the pleasure of welcoming back Professor Steve Hanke. Steve is the Professor of Applied Economics and Founder and Co-Director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at The Johns Hopkins University. He is also the co-author of the recently released book “Making Money Work: How to Rewrite the Rules of our Financial System”During our conversation we spoke about Steve's outlook for the economy, how uncertainty is created during this system shift, change in banking policy, how the FED are too hawkish, potential for a recession and more. I hope you enjoy!0:00 - Introduction2:48 - Outlook on the economy6:22 - Drivers of money supply7:40 - Higher interest rates11:04 - Changing bank policy?13:15 - Uncertainty in markets?16:49 - Recession?17:50 - Trump economic revolution?21:52 - FED too hawkish?25:12 - One message to takeaway?Steve H. Hanke is a Senior Fellow, Contributing Editor of The Independent Review, and a Member of the Board of Advisors at the Independent Institute. He is a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder and Co-Director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He is also a Senior Adviser at the Renmin University of China's International Monetary Research Institute in Beijing, and a Special Counselor to the Center for Financial Stability in New York. Hanke is also a Contributing Editor at Central Banking in London and a Contributor at National Review. In addition, Hanke is a member of the Charter Council of the Society for Economic Measurement and a Distinguished Associate of the International Atlantic Economic Society. He is ranked as the world's third-most influential economics influencer by FocusEconomics in Barcelona, Spain.Steve Hanke: Book - https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-63398-0X - https://x.com/steve_hankeBio - https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=516WTFinance -Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wtfinancee/Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/67rpmjG92PNBW0doLyPvfniTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wtfinance/id1554934665?uo=4X - https://twitter.com/AnthonyFatseas

Borders contain nations, act as fault lines, but are also meeting points, where different cultures, people, and ideologies come into contact. Nowhere has this been more visible, more painful, and more politically charged than the island of Ireland.   In this episode, Will Hutton is joined by Professor Katy Hayward. She's one of the UK's leading voices on Brexit, the Irish border, and cross border tension and transformation. A political sociologist at Queen's University Belfast and Co-Director of the Centre for International Borders Research, her work bridges politics and the everyday experience of life on the border.  Join acclaimed journalist and Academy president Will Hutton, as he invites guests from the world of social science to explore the stories behind the news and hear their solutions to society's most pressing problems. Don't want to miss an episode? Follow the show on your favourite podcast platform and you can email us on wesociety@acss.org.uk and tell us who we should be speaking to.  The We Society podcast is brought to you by the Academy of Social Sciences in association with the Nuffield Foundation and the Leverhulme Trust. 

In today's episode, we explore the layered and often turbulent history of Kashmir. From the final days of British colonial rule to the first war between India and Pakistan, the roots of the conflict run deep. We'll trace how early decisions and territorial disputes shaped the region's divided identity and laid the groundwork for decades of tension. As we move through the Cold War era and beyond, we'll examine how global politics, rising militancy, and evolving strategies from New Delhi have influenced the trajectory of Kashmir. With recent events like the violence in Pahalgam and the Modi government's response, we ask: how did we get here, and what lies ahead for this deeply contested region? Our guest today is Gopalan Balachandran, Co-Director, Albert Hirschman Centre On Democracy and Honorary Professor of International History and Politics here at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

This week on The Monday Edit: JVN sat down with Chase Strangio from the ACLU to debrief on last week's 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court on U.S. v Skrmetti - ruling in favor of continuing Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care. Chase made history in December 2024 as the first openly Trans lawyer to argue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. All that, plus! JVN and Chris break down the Karen Read verdict.  Chase Strangio is Co-Director of the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project as well as a nationally recognized expert on transgender rights. Chase's work includes impact litigation, as well as legislative and administrative advocacy, on behalf of LGBTQ people and people living with HIV across the United States. Prior to joining the ACLU, Chase was an Equal Justice Works fellow and the Director of Prisoner Justice Initiatives at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, where he represented transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in confinement settings. In 2012, Chase co-founded the Lorena Borjas Community Fund, an organization that provides direct bail/bond assistance to LGBTQ immigrants in criminal and immigration cases. Chase is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law and Grinnell College. Not A Phase.  Trans Lifeline Follow Chase Strangio on Instagram @chasestrangio  Follow us on Instagram @gettingbetterwithjvn Jonathan on Instagram @jvn and senior producer Chris @amomentlikechris  New video episodes Getting Better on YouTube every Wednesday.  Senior Producer, Chris McClure Producer, Editor & Engineer is Nathanael McClure Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall Our theme music is also composed by Nathanael McClure. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jeff Sebo is Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law, Director of the Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, Director of the Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy, and Co-Director of the Wild Animal Welfare Program at New York University. He is also a Faculty Fellow at the Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy & Land Use Law at the NYU School of Law and an Advisor at the Animals in Context series at NYU Press. Jeff's research focuses on moral philosophy, legal philosophy, and philosophy of mind; animal minds, ethics, and policy; AI minds, ethics, and policy; and global health and climate ethics and policy. His books include The Moral Circle and Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves and he is co-author of Chimpanzee Rights and Food, Animals, and the Environment.In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the most important questions: “what's real?”, “who matters?” and "how can we make a better world?"Sentientism answers those questions with "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.00:00 Clips01:20 Welcome- Our first Sentientist Conversation, episode 26 - Jeff's book The Moral Circle - Endorsements from previous Sentientism guests Barbara King and Peter Singer- Welcome Smokey!02:50 Jeff's Intro- Research and teaching and leading programmes at NYU including the Wild Animal Welfare Programme and the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness - Asking "How humans can better interact with the non-human world... who might matter, how much might they matter, what might they need, what might we owe them, what follows for our actions and policies and priorities...?"- Directing the Center for Environmental and Animal Protection "agriculture, farmed animal welfare, #biodiversity, wild animal welfare..."- Directing the NY Center for Mind, Ethics and Policy "Non-human minds... invertebrates and AI systems"04:37 The Moral Circle- JW: "Does it have to be a circle?"- "I was concerned... it implies that humanity is at the centre and that other beings matter or are closer to the centre to the degree that they resemble us"- "We right now at least increasingly agree that all humans and many non-human animals... merit consideration"- "The book asks 'should we go farther?'"08:32 What Makes Us Matter?11:39 Why is Sentience Important?19:16 What About Zero-Valence Consciousness?28:08 Properties vs Relational Approach38:10 So Who Matters?43:28 Do AIs Matter?48:47 Do Photons Matter?56:15 Do Future Beings Matter?01:01:51 How Much Do They Matter?01:14:44 The Role of Epistemology?01:18:26 A Better Future?01:22: 33 Follow Jeff:- Jeff on BlueSky - Jeff on Twitter- "The Moral Circle"- Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves (now open access and free to read!)And more... full show notes at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sentientism.info⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sentientism.info⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Join our⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠"I'm a Sentientist" wall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ via⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ this simple form⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠groups⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The biggest so far is ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here on FaceBook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Come join us there!

Summer is here, temperatures are rising — and so are electric bills. That also means many people are facing a severely overlooked issue: power shutoffs. In 2024, over 600,000 households in the United States had their power shut off due to an inability to pay. When that happens, people cannot turn on their lights, keep food refrigerated, or cool down the home. And regulations preventing shutoffs during extreme heat events are woefully inadequate.  But when utilities help pay the upfront costs of efficiency upgrades, the customers and utilities can both save energy — and money. How do we protect the most vulnerable populations from the dangers of home power shutoffs? Guests: Jean Su, Energy Justice Director, Center for Biological Diversity  Sanya Carley, Co-Director, Energy Justice Lab, Indiana University Tamara Jones, Co-Executive Director, Clean Energy Works Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today. For show notes and related links, visit our website. Ad sales by Multitude. Contact them for ad inquiries at multitude.productions/ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has made herself the official face of the Trump administration's military crackdowns on protesters in Los Angeles, raids in majority-Democratic cities, and the deportations of student activists. How has she been able to consolidate so much power so quickly? Guest: Seth Tupper, Editor-in-Chief of the South Dakota Searchlight Ahilan Arulanantham, Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has made herself the official face of the Trump administration's military crackdowns on protesters in Los Angeles, raids in majority-Democratic cities, and the deportations of student activists. How has she been able to consolidate so much power so quickly? Guest: Seth Tupper, Editor-in-Chief of the South Dakota Searchlight Ahilan Arulanantham, Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has made herself the official face of the Trump administration's military crackdowns on protesters in Los Angeles, raids in majority-Democratic cities, and the deportations of student activists. How has she been able to consolidate so much power so quickly? Guest: Seth Tupper, Editor-in-Chief of the South Dakota Searchlight Ahilan Arulanantham, Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

En este programa ponemos el foco en algunos puntos calientes de la actualidad internacional Y hablamos de Teherán, Tel Aviv, Gaza y Los Ángeles, los cuatro puntos cardinales del mapa político global. Esos cuatro puntos ardientes y calientes que cada vez estresan más a la población mundial. Hablamos de Israel e Irán, de las posturas del G7 y el tablero internacional y el papel de Estados Unidos ; de la marcha mundial por Gaza reprimida en Egipto y el sufrimiento sin fin del pueblo palestino, y las protestas contra la política migratoria de Trump que se han desatado desde Los Ángeles a otros puntos del país. Con Jesús Núñez, Codirector del Instituto de Estudios sobre Conflictos y Acción Humanitaria (IECAH); la diputada de Sumar Tesh Sidi que acaba de regresar de Egipto; Andrés Gil, corresponsal de eldiario.es en Washington; Jasmin Singh, abogada de la American Inmigration Lawyers Association; Ángeles Espinosa, ex corresponsal de El País en Teherán, y Salvador Sanabria, de la organización El Rescate.Y ponemos la mirada en las personas migrantes en "Sopa con Ondas" nuestra sección con Acción contra el Hambre. Más información aquí: https://bit.ly/MundoLlamasCC1532 Haz posible Carne Cruda: http://bit.ly/ProduceCC

This week, we have a special episode. One near and dear to my heart and my own intellectual history. It is a conversation with professor Marc O. De Girolami on his piece published in the Oxford Journal of Law & Religion covering the life and death of law and religion. Read it here. In it, he takes us into the first wave of this movement and its advent forces with those like Harold Berman and John Witte, Jr., who took on the critical mantle of reacting to “the deconstruction of the American Christian legal heritage proceeding apace in the courts and the academy.” De Girolami discusses the priorities that animated the early scholars of this movement and its eventual decline due not only to various forms of categorical capitulations and concept desuetude, but also the ravages of retirements and the changing landscape of legal discourse. We talk about all this and more! Marc is the inaugural St. John Henry Newman Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Law and the Human Person. Full bio. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

全米各地域の日系団体・コミュニティーで活躍する方々へのインタビューを通して、その地域での活動や魅力をお伝えします。 ２０２５年５月１９日放送：今週のゲストは、Camp Kesem タラー・ケデシアンさん、ヘイリー・バンチさん。 出演者のご紹介： Hello! We are Talar Khedesian and Hailey Bunch, Directors of Kesem at Long Beach State. Kesem is a national nonprofit that provides free, year-round services to kids who have a parent affected by cancer. Our largest program is a week-long free, overnight summer camp for children ages 6-18. Our biggest goal is to provide a supportive community for our campers, but to also allow them to have a fun-filled week away from home! こんにちは！私たちはタラー・ケデシアンとヘイリー・バンチです。ロングビーチ州立大学のKesemディレクターを務めています。Kesemは、がんの影響を受けた親をもつ子どもたちに対し、年間を通じて無償の支援を提供する全米規模の非営利団体です。私たちの主なプログラムは、6歳から18歳の子どもたちを対象とした、1週間の宿泊型サマーキャンプです。また私たちの最大の目標は、子どもたちに安心して過ごせるコミュニティを提供すること、そして何よりも思いっきり楽しめる1週間を届けることです！ ２人のプロフィール Hailey: My name is Hailey Bunch and I am a graduating senior at Cal State University Long Beach obtaining my degree in Cellular Molecular Biology and Physiology. I have worked in Kesem for four years now where I have spent time as a camp counselor, Outreach Coordinator, Unit Leader, and now a Co-Director of our chapter! Talar: My name is Talar Khedesian and I am a graduating senior at Cal State University Long Beach obtaining my degree in General Biology. This is my third year working with Kesem, where I have been a camp counselor, camp Operations Coordinator, Unit Leader, and now a Co-Director of our chapter! Hailey： 私の名前はヘイリー・バンチです。現在、カリフォルニア州立大学ロングビーチ校で細胞・分子生物学および生理学を専攻しており、卒業を控えています。 Kesemでの活動は今年で4年目になり、これまでキャンプカウンセラー、アウトリーチ・コーディネーター、ユニットリーダーを務め、現在はこのチャプターの共同ディレクターを務めています！ Talar： 私の名前はタラー・ケデシアンです。カリフォルニア州立大学ロングビーチ校で一般生物学を専攻しており、私も卒業を控えています。 Kesemでは今年で3年目になり、これまでキャンプカウンセラー、キャンプ運営コーディネーター、ユニットリーダーを務め、現在は共同ディレクターとして活動しています！ Below are some links you can choose from: Our Linktree: https://linktr.ee/campkesem_lbstate?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAac1c51OEcbabe32baelyk_WI2SN--ov2qGjZ8pddWna33LNRjflWOJcsXfmZA_aem_i0_UbIsjOgh_obYqhuFheQ Donation: https://donate.kesem.org/team/608078 Register for Camp: https://kesem.campmanagement.com/p/request_for_info_m.php?action=enroll Kesem at Long Beach State Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kesem_lbstate/?utm_medium=copy_link Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kesemlbstate/ National Website: https://www.kesem.org/

Carolin Duttlinger is Professor of German Literature and Culture at the University of Oxford (UK) and Co-Director of the Oxford Kafka Research Centre, where she is currently leading a three-year UKRI-funded research project,Kafka's Transformative Communities. She has published widely on German literature from the eighteenth century to the present; on Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt School; the history of psychology; and on photography and visual culture. Selected publications: Kafka and Photography (Oxford University Press, 2007); ed., with Ben Morgan and Anthony Phelan, Walter Benjamins anthropologisches Denken (Rombach, 2012); The Cambridge Introduction to Franz Kafka (Cambridge University Press, 2013); ed., Franz Kafka in Context (Cambridge University Press, 2017); Attention and Distraction in German Literature, Thought, and Culture (Oxford University Press 2022). She is also the editor of the book series Visual Culture with Legenda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Carolin Duttlinger is Professor of German Literature and Culture at the University of Oxford (UK) and Co-Director of the Oxford Kafka Research Centre, where she is currently leading a three-year UKRI-funded research project,Kafka's Transformative Communities. She has published widely on German literature from the eighteenth century to the present; on Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt School; the history of psychology; and on photography and visual culture. Selected publications: Kafka and Photography (Oxford University Press, 2007); ed., with Ben Morgan and Anthony Phelan, Walter Benjamins anthropologisches Denken (Rombach, 2012); The Cambridge Introduction to Franz Kafka (Cambridge University Press, 2013); ed., Franz Kafka in Context (Cambridge University Press, 2017); Attention and Distraction in German Literature, Thought, and Culture (Oxford University Press 2022). She is also the editor of the book series Visual Culture with Legenda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Carolin Duttlinger is Professor of German Literature and Culture at the University of Oxford (UK) and Co-Director of the Oxford Kafka Research Centre, where she is currently leading a three-year UKRI-funded research project,Kafka's Transformative Communities. She has published widely on German literature from the eighteenth century to the present; on Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt School; the history of psychology; and on photography and visual culture. Selected publications: Kafka and Photography (Oxford University Press, 2007); ed., with Ben Morgan and Anthony Phelan, Walter Benjamins anthropologisches Denken (Rombach, 2012); The Cambridge Introduction to Franz Kafka (Cambridge University Press, 2013); ed., Franz Kafka in Context (Cambridge University Press, 2017); Attention and Distraction in German Literature, Thought, and Culture (Oxford University Press 2022). She is also the editor of the book series Visual Culture with Legenda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

Carolin Duttlinger is Professor of German Literature and Culture at the University of Oxford (UK) and Co-Director of the Oxford Kafka Research Centre, where she is currently leading a three-year UKRI-funded research project,Kafka's Transformative Communities. She has published widely on German literature from the eighteenth century to the present; on Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt School; the history of psychology; and on photography and visual culture. Selected publications: Kafka and Photography (Oxford University Press, 2007); ed., with Ben Morgan and Anthony Phelan, Walter Benjamins anthropologisches Denken (Rombach, 2012); The Cambridge Introduction to Franz Kafka (Cambridge University Press, 2013); ed., Franz Kafka in Context (Cambridge University Press, 2017); Attention and Distraction in German Literature, Thought, and Culture (Oxford University Press 2022). She is also the editor of the book series Visual Culture with Legenda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Academy Award nominee Vincent Paronnaud is the co-director of the charming new animated feature "Into the Wonderwoods", available on VOD and Digital starting Tuesday June 24th. It's about a 10-year-old boy named Angelo who has quite the adventure. Paronnaud shares what's at the heart of this story and reflects on making 2007's "Persepolis".

The Animal Documentary. In this episode of Carnivore Conversations, Dr. Kiltz interviews Vinny (Producer/Co-Director) are the filmmakers behind Animal, a bold new documentary releasing June 20. The film explores how political, economic, and religious powers have reshaped our relationship with meat, health, and truth. Blends bold interviews, historical research, and science to expose the hidden roots of chronic illness and food misinformation. Aims to challenge mainstream dietary narratives and reignite the conversation around ancestral eating. Both are deeply committed to storytelling that restores health through knowledge, nature, and radical honesty.

My guest today is Debra Kiva. Debra is a certified grief educator and coach who works with, and is trained by, renowned grief expert, David Kessler.  Debra facilitates loss groups for Kessler's online grief community, Tender Hearts, and co-facilitates loss groups for grieving complex relationships. And she supports people facing anticipatory grief, the grief of losing a loved one by long term illness/dementia, as she has deep experience in dementia and sibling loss.  As an adult she has experienced the loss of her brother, both parents (who were very difficult/abusive when she was a child), and many friends. Debra also devotes her time as the Director of the Hummingbird Choir, a joyful singing community for those with memory challenges and she is the Co-Director of Yuba Spirit Threshold Singers and a member of Whidbey Island Bedside Singers which brings gentle songs to those on the threshold of life, bringing moments of ease and comfort for clients, family and caregivers.  Debra has begun a new group for working with those who are grieving parents or caregivers were neglectful, narcissistic, emotionally absent, addicted, or mentally ill. She and her co-facilitator Katia Miniovich have created a place where participants can feel understood within the complexities and confusion which may arise from these losses, as these losses are often not recognized by the culture or peers who have had different upbringings. Debra believes that healing happens within connection and she is dedicated to serving others, letting them know they are not alone and are held with compassion. She supports clients on Zoom and in person in her office on Whidbey Island, Washington.I first saw Debra's name through a notice of her grief group and was so intrigued by this offering, recognizing complex grief and loss.  I reached out and I'm so glad she agreed to come on the podcast.  She and I talk about this deep complexity of grieving loss when the relationships were difficult, for many different reasons.  This isn't something that I've seen talked about in this way before and I share various pieces of my own journey of losing my first husband Eric and the complexity of grieving while recognizing the challenges of our marriage and relationship.We recorded this conversation in early April and it is serendipitous that it's being published now, as my father passed away just a few days ago, after a slow decline from Dementia with Lewy Bodys.  I was listening to this conversation to get it ready for publication while with my family during my dad's final few days and wow, I was so grateful!Debra, I'm so incredibly grateful for the connection with you and for this conversation.  Your beautiful and graceful presence is a gift in this world.  Creating spaces for talking about and experiencing grief without judgement is an incredible way to make life less difficult. And one final thing before we jump into our conversation, I just want to share this quote from Debra:  You don't get over grief, you just continue and grow around it….  You have to figure out how to move forward and grow around it and find more love than pain.If you are grieving the loss of a loved one, please know that you are not alone.  Don't hesitate to reach out if you'd like to connect. Debra KivaCertified Grief Educator/Support Provider Certified Grief Coach Certified Grief Movement Guide debkiva@gmail.com530 913-0320Make Life Less Difficult~ Support:buymeacoffee.com/lisatilstra

Welcome to a very special bonus episode of the Taboo Trades podcast! Today I have a record number of guests – five in total—continuing a discussion that we began at Yale's Newman Colloquium earlier this summer. We discuss exploitation and trafficking in international human rights law, especially in the context of reproductive and sexual labor. You'll hear more about that colloquium and that conversation during the podcast. Each guest introduces themselves at the start of the podcast, but you can also read their full bios and a reading list in the show notes. Host: Kim Krawiec, Charles O. Gregory Professor of Law, University of VirginiaGuests: Janie Chuang, Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of LawDina Francesca Haynes, Executive Director, Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights; Lecturer in Law (spring term), and Research Scholar in Law, Yale UniversityJoanne Meyerowitz, Arthur Unobskey Professor of History and Professor of American Studies, Yale UniversityAlice M. Miller, Associate Professor (Adjunct) of Law and Co-Director, Global Health Justice Partnership, Yale UniversityMindy Jane Roseman, Director of International Law Programs and Director of the Gruber Program for Global Justice and Women's Rights, Yale UniversityReading List:Janie A. Chuang"Preventing trafficking through new global governance over labor migration." Ga. St. UL Rev. 36 (2019): 1027.“Exploitation Creep And The Unmaking Of Human Trafficking Law.” The American Journal of International Law, vol. 108, no. 4, 2014, pp. 609–49. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609 . Accessed 13 June 2025.Dina Haynes"Used, abused, arrested and deported: Extending immigration benefits to protect the victims of trafficking and to secure the prosecution of traffickers." Human Rights Quarterly 26.2 (2004): 221-272. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/168121"Client-centered human rights advocacy." Clinical L. Rev. 13 (2006): 379."Sacrificing women and immigrants on the altar of regressive politics." Human Rights Quarterly41.4 (2019): 777-822. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/735796Kimberly D. KrawiecRepugnant Work (April 21, 2025). Forthcoming, Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Work (Julian Jonker and Grant Rozeboom, eds.), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5225038 “Markets, Repugnance, and Externalities.” Journal of Institutional Economics 19, no. 6 (2023): 944–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137422000157 .Joanne Meyerowitz

On Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg, Dani speaks with Daniel Moss, Co-Director of the Agroecology Fund. They discuss what it means to build a model of trust-based philanthropy, the benefits that agroecology offers to women and youth, and the flexibility that allows for the experimentation inherent in agriculture. Plus, here about progress being made to halt deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, Kenya's plan to address the rising rate of diet-related diseases, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to remove all members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee, and the key crops that could lose half their best land for their production by 2100.  While you're listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” wherever you consume your podcasts.

Dr. Mary Andrus, Co-Director of the Art Therapy Program at Lewis & Clark Graduate School of Education and Counseling joins the Exchange.

In the United States, about one sixth of the federal budget goes to defense.  Why are many Americans so passive in the face of the massive expenditures for defense that crowd out spending on human needs like education, healthcare and infrastructure? Why does much of the media accept the status quo? And is all of this spending making Americans and the world any safer?Our guest helping tackle these questions is anthropologist Stephanie Savell. Savell is the Co-Director of Costs of War at Brown University, an interdisciplinary research project focused on the impact of the post 9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond; the U.S. global military footprint; and the domestic effects of US military spending. Savell's own research highlights US military involvement around the world, most notably in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. In many of these places, American assistance has served to fuel existing conflicts, and provided governments with tools and justification to target Muslim populations. But, Savell says, it doesn't have to be this way. This episide was originally published in December 2023.MORE FROM COSTS OF WARStephanie Savell's map of US counterterrorism operations 2021-2023The Costs of United States' Post-9/11 “Security Assistance”: How Counterterrorism Intensified Conflict in Burkina Faso and Around the World by Stephanie Savell Why Media Conflation of Activism with Terrorism Has Dire Consequences: The Case of Cop City by Deepa Kumar ABOUT THE SHOW The Making Peace Visible podcast is hosted by Jamil Simon and produced by Andrea Muraskin. Our associate producer is Faith McClure. Learn more at makingpeacevisible.orgSupport our work Connect on social:Instagram @makingpeacevisibleLinkedIn @makingpeacevisibleBluesky @makingpeacevisible.bsky.social We want to learn more about our listeners. Take this 3-minute survey to help us improve the show!

The Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs plays a key role in shaping how the United States engages with the world financial system. Jay Shambaugh, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the Biden administration joins EconoFact Chats to discuss his time in office, focusing on negotiations with China over industrial subsidies and non-market trade barriers, foreign investments in sensitive US technologies, and the challenges of dealing with sovereign debt defaults given the wide array of lenders today. The discussion also focuses on the International Affairs Department's role in monitoring exchange rate policies, and its interactions with Congress, the White House, and other domestic agencies. Before his term as Undersecretary, Jay served on the Council of Economic Advisors. He is currently a Professor of Economics and International Affairs, and the Co-Director of the Institute for International Economic Policy at George Washington University.

June is a time to honor and celebrate the LGBTQIA+ community. It's also a month when the Supreme Court has historically made pivotal decisions for LGBTQIA+ rights. This week, Co-Director of the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project Chase Strangio joins W. Kamau Bell to reflect on the 10-year anniversary of marriage equality with Obergefell v. Hodges, how that case bears on the pending U.S. v. Skrmetti decision, and what it looks like to show up for trans youth and their families in this critical moment. For more information on Skrmetti and actions you can take, head to action.aclu.org. While you're there, take the pledge to support trans youth and sign the petition to defend trans freedom: action.aclu.org/petition/defend-trans-freedom action.aclu.org/petition/take-pledge-support-trans-youth-now This episode was executive produced by Jessica Herman Weitz for the ACLU, and W. Kamau Bell, Kelly Rafferty, PhD, and Melissa Hudson Bell, PhD for Who Knows Best Productions. It was recorded at Skyline Studios in Oakland, CA. Our senior executive producer is Sam Riddell. At Liberty is edited and produced by Erica Getto and Myrriah Gossett for Good Get.

For the first time in years, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing questions of religious liberty and is doing so with three significant cases: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which have the potential to shape religious liberty in the United States for years to come.Join Mark Rienzi and Bill Saunders as they discuss these cases, their potential outcomes, and their future impact on religious liberty.Featuring:Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School(Moderator) Prof. William L. Saunders, Director of the Program in Human Rights, Catholic University of America

What part should politics play in our everyday lives? In How to Think About Politics: A Guide in Five Parts (Oxford University Press, 2025) Peter Allen, a professor of Politics and Co-Director of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, explores this question across a range of practical and philosophical examples. The book directly challenges the conventional academic understanding of politics, showing how politics is much more than election polls or parliamentary behaviours. This broader view of the politic allows the book to offer insights as to what needs to change in political systems, as well as more generally in societies. A much needed and urgent intervention on the current state of our world, the book should be widely read by any readers interested in politics today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In this episode, Amy Cantrell returns to speak of her life's work and calling. Amy Cantrell lives in Asheville, North Carolina and is founder and Co-Director of BeLoved Asheville dedicated to creating home, health, equity, and opportunity for all.  BeLoved is a community of people putting love into action every day.  We bring people from all walks of life together to create innovative solutions to some of the most challenging problems of our time:  housing and food insecurity, poverty, lack of healthcare, systemic racism, and climate change. BeLoved's projects includes:  BeLoved Villages of deeply affordable homes; rapid relief, community health, and vaccination equity efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic; the first homeless/formerly homeless Street Medic Team in the nation; Racial Healing & Cultural Organizing; creating healthy food access through Free Farmers markets, Plants for the People  and community gardens; as well as advocacy campaigns around affordable housing, homelessness, food equity,  gentrification, and systemic racism. Our projects work at the intersections of community, creativity, and equity. Amy was school educated at Converse College (BA) and Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta, GA (MDiv.) and was "street educated" at the Open Door Community in Atlanta and at BeLoved Asheville. In 2020, she passed the NASCLA national licensing exam and became a general contractor to help support BeLoved's project to build deeply affordable homes. She received the Western North Carolina Peacemaker of the Year in 2017 and was recently named one of the USA Today Network's Women of the Year, 2024.   Recently, she co-led BeLoved's response to Hurricane Helene serving 15,000 people daily across Western North Carolina's impacted zones in the aftermath of the storm. BeLoved became the largest local rapid response group in the wake of Helene supporting equitable responses including Well Check teams and Flush Brigades to support elders and people with disabilities. Hike teams hiking miles to remote areas. Creating temporary water infrastructure for communities, schools, and childcare centers. Sharing 67 tiny homes on wheels as immediate temporary shelter. Currently, BeLoved is doing 30 home repairs and has started their first whole home replacements as well as building a new BeLoved Village in Swannanoa. BeLoved has been featured in stories by ABC News/Good Morning America, PBS News Hour, CBS, NBC,MSN, Accuweather, the Washington Post, and People Magazine. She is married to Adrienne Sigmon and loves being mom to twin 11 year olds, Myla and Eleecia.  She loves the color purple, playing guitar, making art, and studying movement history.  Find her on Facebook and Instagram @Amy Cantrell and @BeLovedAsheville  For more information about BeLoved Asheville, visit www.belovedasheville.com.

In honor of Everything You Didn't Know About Herbalism officially turning one year old, we are resharing the first-ever episode we released on the series! Featuring Leah Penniman and Lulu Moyo, tune in as we revisit this crucial conversation surrounding the injustices within our food systems and Leah and Lulu's collective goal towards growing lasting change. The Herbal Radio team extends our heartfelt gratitude to each and every one of you for listening and learning with us each week from such an esteemed group of experts within their fields. Now, on with the show!  This week on Everything You Didn't Know About Herbalism, we proudly bring you an impactful and galvanizing conversation with two individuals leading the way toward a future of harmony and equity within our food systems. Leah Penniman, the Co-Founder of Soul Fire Farm, and Lulu Moyo, the Co-Director of the Braiding Seeds Fellowship, join us for a thought-provoking conversation surrounding the injustices and deep-rooted racism we continue to face within our food systems today, and their combined missions to facilitate powerful food sovereignty programs and hands-on farming opportunities to train the next generation of activist-farmers and strengthen the movement for food sovereignty and community self-determination. As always, we thank you for joining us on another botanical adventure. We are honored to have you tag along with us on this botanical ride. Remember, we want to hear from you! Your questions, ideas, and who you want to hear from will be invaluable to this new series. So please, email us at podcast@mountainroseherbs.com to let us know what solutions you'd like us to uncover within the vast world of herbalism next. About Leah & Lulu:

What part should politics play in our everyday lives? In How to Think About Politics: A Guide in Five Parts (Oxford University Press, 2025) Peter Allen, a professor of Politics and Co-Director of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, explores this question across a range of practical and philosophical examples. The book directly challenges the conventional academic understanding of politics, showing how politics is much more than election polls or parliamentary behaviours. This broader view of the politic allows the book to offer insights as to what needs to change in political systems, as well as more generally in societies. A much needed and urgent intervention on the current state of our world, the book should be widely read by any readers interested in politics today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What part should politics play in our everyday lives? In How to Think About Politics: A Guide in Five Parts (Oxford University Press, 2025) Peter Allen, a professor of Politics and Co-Director of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, explores this question across a range of practical and philosophical examples. The book directly challenges the conventional academic understanding of politics, showing how politics is much more than election polls or parliamentary behaviours. This broader view of the politic allows the book to offer insights as to what needs to change in political systems, as well as more generally in societies. A much needed and urgent intervention on the current state of our world, the book should be widely read by any readers interested in politics today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

In this episode of SHE MD, Dr. Thaïs Aliabadi and Mary Alice Haney welcome melanoma specialist Dr. Omid Hamid. They explore the rising incidence of melanoma in young people, debunk common misconceptions, and discuss groundbreaking treatments. Dr. Hamid explains the different stages of melanoma and the revolutionary immunotherapy treatments that are changing patient outcomes. The hosts and guest discuss real-life cases, including those of celebrities Khloe Kardashian and Teddy Mellencamp, to illustrate the importance of awareness and regular skin checks. The conversation also touches on melanoma during pregnancy and genetic predisposition to the disease - learn why genetic testing is crucial, even without family history.Access more information about the podcast and additional expert health tips by visiting SHE MD Podcast and Ovii. Sponsors: Myriad: Knowing your family's history of cancer is the first step to understanding your own cancer risk and may qualify you for the MyRisk Hereditary Cancer Test with RiskScore hereditary cancer test. It's easy, accurate and covered by most insurers. Learn more at GetMyRisk.comCymbiotika: Go to Cymbiotikia.com/SHEMD for 20% off your order + free shipping today.Purely Elizabeth: Visit purelyelizabeth.com and use code SHEMD at checkout for 20% off. Purely Elizabeth. Taste the ObsessionEquip: To learn more about Equip treatment, visit equip.health/sobermomlife.Strivektin: Discover the Science Behind Great SkinDavid's Protein: David is giving my listeners an exclusive offer – buy four cartons and get the fifth free at davidprotein.com/shemdCure Hydration: Cure is offering 20% off your first order! Stay hydrated and feel your best by visiting curehydration.com/SHEMD and using promo code SHEMD at checkout. Dr. Omid Hamid's Key Takeaways:1. Reduce Sun Exposure: Limit time spent in direct sunlight, especially during peak hours. Use protective clothing, hats, and sunglasses to shield your skin from harmful UV rays.2. Schedule Regular Skin Checks: Schedule routine visits with a dermatologist for comprehensive skin examinations. Self-examine your skin monthly for any new or changing moles or lesions.3. Use Effective Sunscreen: Apply broad-spectrum sunscreen with at least SPF 30 daily, even on cloudy days. Reapply every two hours when outdoors, and after swimming or sweating.4. Get Genetic Testing Done: If you have a family history of melanoma or other cancers, consider genetic testing to assess your risk. Tests like the MYRIS can identify melanoma-related gene mutations.5. Avoid Tanning Beds: Steer clear of tanning beds, as they significantly increase the risk of developing melanoma and other skin cancers.6. Be Your Own Health Advocate: Stay informed about your health, ask questions, and seek second opinions if necessary. Advocate for yourself and your loved ones by being proactive about potential health concerns.In This Episode: (00:00) Intro: Melanoma Awareness Month(02:40) Dr. Omid Hamid: Melanoma specialist introduction(6:58) Surgery for melanoma explained(10:49) Immunotherapy revolutionizes melanoma treatment(14:57) Genetic testing for melanoma risk(23:25) Importance of advocating for yourself(32:22) Teddy Mellencamp's stage 4 melanoma journey(50:51) Hormonal changes and melanoma risk(57:00) Two key melanoma prevention tipsRESOURCES:Melanoma Research Alliance: https://www.curemelanoma.org/blog/omid-hamid-mdMelanoma Research Foundation https://melanoma.org/Myriad Genetics: https://myriad.com/ GUEST BIOGRAPHY:Omid Hamid, MD, is the Chief of the Translational Research and Immuno-Oncology Department at The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute and serves as the Co-Director of the Melanoma and Phase I Programs. Academic Title as Professor, Department of Medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. His areas of expertise include immunotherapy and Phase I drug development.Dr. Hamid has published extensively and has been at the forefront of the development of paradigm-shifting breakthroughs including BRAF/MEK targeted agents, AntiCTL4A, antiPD1, and PDL1 therapies. His current interests include new immunotherapeutic options for patients including bi-specific antibodies, Adoptive T-cell Therapy, and oncolytic therapies with a focus on combinatorial approaches resulting in potentially great patient benefit.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Hands in the Soil, we're joined by Dr. Kaitlin Reed (Yurok/Hupa/Oneida), an enrolled member of the Yurok Tribe and associate professor of Native American Studies at Cal Poly Humboldt. Dr. Reed also serves as the Co-Director of the Rou Dalagurr Food Sovereignty Lab and Traditional Ecological Knowledges Institute - the first lab of its kind in the California State University system.Dr. Reed shares the story behind this student-led initiative, which provides a groundbreaking space to engage with Indigenous sciences, collaborate with tribal nations, and amplify Indigenous bio-cultural sovereignty. We explore the meaning and depth of food sovereignty, why it matters beyond access and insecurity, and how the Lab is creating pathways for environmental justice, cultural revitalization, and community healing.We also celebrate the Lab's recent recognition as a 2025 James Irvine Foundation Leadership Award recipient - a $350,000 grant supporting the Lab's continued work advancing Indigenous knowledge and food systems.Tune in to learn more about:The Rou Dalagurr Food Sovereignty Lab and its student-led foundingWhat sets this Lab apart in the CSU system and Western academiaHow Indigenous food sovereignty differs from mainstream food access modelsCultural, ecological, and spiritual dimensions of traditional food systemsHow the Lab operates with grassroots support and community programmingThe significance of receiving the James Irvine Foundation AwardFuture visions for the Lab, including an Indigenous Food NetworkHow students, communities, and allies can get involved… And so much more!Resources & Links: Learn more about the Food Sovereignty Lab: nasp.humboldt.edu/fslConnect with Hannah: Instagram: @hannahkeitel

Alberto Toscano is Professor of Critical Theory in the Department of Sociology and Co-Director of the Centre for Philosophy and Critical Theory at Goldsmiths, University of London, and Term Research Associate Professor at the School of Communications at Simon Fraser University. He is the author of Fanaticism: On the Uses of an Idea (Verso, 2010; 2017, 2nd ed.), Cartographies of the Absolute (with Jeff Kinkle, Zero Books, 2015), Una visión compleja. Hacía una estética de la economía (Meier Ramirez, 2021), La abstracción real. Filosofia, estética y capital (Palinodia, 2021), and the co-editor of the 3-volume The SAGE Handbook of Marxism (with Sara Farris, Bev Skeggs and Svenja Bromberg, SAGE, 2022), and Ruth Wilson Gilmore's Abolition Geography: Essays in Liberation (with Brenna Bhandar, Verso, 2022). He is a member of the editorial board of the journal Historical Materialism: Research in Critical Marxist Theory and is series editor of The Italian List for Seagull Books. He is also the translator of numerous books and essays by Antonio Negri, Alain Badiou, Franco Fortini, Furio Jesi and others. Subscribe to our newsletter

In this episode of Talking History, we're debating one of the most dramatic episodes of the Second World War: Operation Dynamo, the incredible evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk in May 1940.Featuring: Prof Eunan O'Halpin, Emeritus Professor of Contemporary Irish History, Trinity College Dublin; Dr David Jordan, Co-Director of the Freeman Air and Space Institute and Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies at King's College London; and Prof Jonathan Fennell, Professor of the History of War and Society at KCL, and president of the Second World War Research Group.

As part of the non-sponsored sporadic "B-sides" series*, Ben and Ben sit down and talk with Dr. Anna Barker, Chief Strategy Officer at the Ellison Medical Institute and Co-Director of CAS-Biomedicine at Arizona State University.(* this series is where we put guests we want to talk to but who do not fit within any sponsored series, but is still proteomics.... mostly)

As the dust settles on the 2024 presidential election, now is an excellent time to take a fresh, clear-eyed look at what really happened. Join us as Larry Bartels, political scientist extraordinaire and Co-Director of Vanderbilt University's Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, explains why Trump's win was not unusual and the roles played by the economy, loyalty to the political parties, and Trump's unique personality.

Morgan Stanley Research analyst Mark Schmidt and Investment Management's Craig Brandon discuss the heightened uncertainty in the U.S. municipal bonds market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.For a full list of episode disclosures click here.----- Transcript -----Mark Schmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Schmidt, Morgan Stanley's Head of Municipal Strategy.Craig Brandon: I'm Craig Brandon, Co-Director of Municipal Investments at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Mark Schmidt: Today, let's talk about the biggest market you hardly ever hear about – municipal bonds, a $4 trillion asset class.It's Monday, May 5th at 10am in Boston.Mark Schmidt: If you've driven, flown, gone to school or turned on a tap, chances are munis made it happen. Although munis are late cycle haven, they were not immune to the latest bout of market volatility. Craig, why was April so tough?Craig Brandon: So, what we say in April, it was sort of the trifecta of things that happened that were a little different than other asset classes. The first thing that happened is we saw a significant increase in treasury rates – and munis are generally correlated to treasuries. We're a very high-quality asset class, that's viewed as a duration asset class. So, one thing we saw were rates going up. When we see rates going up, you generally see money coming out of the market, right? So, I think investors were a little bit impacted by the higher rates, the correlation to treasuries, the duration, and saw some flows out of the market.Secondly, what we saw is conversation about the tax exemption in Washington D.C. What that did is it caused muni issuers to pull their issuance forward. So, if you're an infrastructure issuer, you are issuing bonds in the next year to year and a half; you're going to pull that forward because if there's any risk of loss of the tax exemption, you want to get these bonds issued today. So that's basically what drives technicals. It's supply and demand. So, what we saw was a decrease in demand because of higher rates; an increase in supply because of issuance being pulled forward.And the third part of the trifecta we refer to is the conversations about the economy. So, I would put that, it's sort of a distant third, but there's still conversations about maybe credit weakness driven by a slowing economy.Mark Schmidt: Craig, your team has been through a lot of tough market cycles. Given your experience, how did the most recent selloff compare? And why was it not like 2008?Craig Brandon: I started my career back in 1998 during the long-term capital management crisis. I lived through 2008. I lived through the COVID crisis, and you know, really when I look at the crisis in 2008 – no banks went out of business three weeks ago, right? In 2008 we were really sitting on a trading desk wondering where this was going to end.You know, we had a number of meetings with our staff, over the last couple weeks explaining to them why it was different and how. Yes, there was some volatility here, but you could see that there was going to be an end to this, and this was not going to be a permanent restructuring of the market. So, I think we felt comfortable. It was very different than 2008 and it really felt different than COVID.Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring. But with economic growth set to slow sharply, how does your credit team think the fiscal health of America's state and local governments will hold up?Craig Brandon: Well, remember state and local governments, and when we're talking about munis, we're also talking about other infrastructure asset classes like water and sewer bonds. Like, you know, transportation, bonds, airports. We're talking about toll roads.They went into this with a very strong balance sheet, right? Remember, there was a lot of infrastructure money spent by the federal government during COVID to give issuers money to make it through COVID. There's still a lot of money on balance sheets. So, what we do is we're going into this crisis with a lot of cash on balance sheets, allowing issuers to be able to withstand some weakness in the economy and get through to the other side of this.Mark Schmidt: Not only do state and local governments have a lot of cash, but they're just not that impacted by tariffs, right? So why did muni yields perform worse than U.S. treasuries over the past couple of weeks?Craig Brandon: Right. It really… We're technically driven, right? The U.S. muni market is more retail driven than some other asset classes. Remember – investment grade corporates, treasury bonds, there's a lot of institutional buyers in those markets. In the municipal market, it's primarily retail driven.So, when you know, individual retail investors get nervous, they tend to pull money out of the market. So, what we saw was money coming out of the market. At the same time, we saw an individual increase in more bonds, which just led to very weak technicals, which when we see that it eventually reverses itself.Mark Schmidt: Now I almost buried the lede, right? Why invest in munis? Well, they're great credit quality, but they're also tax free. In fact, muni bonds have been exempt from federal taxes for over a century. You have a lot of experience putting together tax bills, and right now people are worried about tax reform. Do you think investors should be concerned?Craig Brandon: Listen. I'm not really losing a lot of sleep at night over the tax exemption. And I think there's other, you know, issues to worry about. Why do I say that?As you mentioned Mark, I spent the early years of my career working for the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee. I spent seven years negotiating budgets and what that did is it gave me a window – into how, you know, not only state budgets, but the federal budget gets put together.So, what it also showed me was the relationship between state and local elected officials and your representatives in Congress and your representatives in the Senate. So, I know firsthand that members of Congress and members of the Senate in Washington have very close relationships with members of the state legislatures, with governors, with mayors, with city council members, with school board members – who are all delivering the message that significantly higher financing costs that could potentially happen from the loss of the exemption, could be meaningful to them.And I think members of Congress and members of the Senate and Washington get it. They understand it because they were all there when it happened. The last time the muni exemption came under fire was back in 2012; and in 2012, a lot of members of Congress were in the state legislature back then, so they understand it.Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring because right now, tax equivalent yields in the muni market are 7 to 8 per cent. That's equal to or greater than the long run rate of return on the stock market. So, whether to invest in the muni market seems pretty straightforward. How to invest in the muni market? Well, with 50,000 issuers, that's a little complicated. How do you recommend investors get exposure to tax-free munis right now?Craig Brandon: Well, and that is a very common question. The muni market can be very confusing because there are just so many bonds out there. You know, over 50,000 issuers, there's over a million individual CUSIPs in the muni market.So as an individual investor, where do you start? There's different coupon structures, different call structures, different maturity structures, ratings. There's so many different variables that go into a decision in investing in muni bonds.I can make an argument that you could probably mimic the S&P 500 with 500 different stocks. But most muni indices are over 50,000 constituents. It's very difficult to replicate the muni market by yourself, which is why a lot of people, you know, they let professional money managers, do the investing for them. Whether you're looking at mutual funds, whether you're looking at separately managed accounts, whether you're looking at exchange traded fund ETFs, there's a lot of different ways to get exposure to the muni market. But with the huge amount of choices you have to make, I think a lot of individual investors would just let a professional with the experience do it.Mark Schmidt: And active managers let you customize portfolios to your unique tax situation and risk tolerance. So, Craig, a final question for you. How do munis fit into a diversified portfolio?Craig Brandon: Munis are generally the stable part of most people's portfolios. Remember, you don't have a choice of whether you're going to pay your taxes or not. You have to pay your taxes, you have to pay your water bill, you have to pay your power bill. You have to pay tolls on highways. You have to pay airport fees when you buy an airline ticket, right?It's not an option. So, because the revenue streams are so stable, you see most muni bonds rated AA or AAA. The default rate for rated munis is significantly below 1 per cent. It's something in the ballpark of about 0.2 per cent*. So, with such a low default rate – listen, we're technically driven, as I said. You see ups and downs in the market. But over a longer period of time, munis can give you generally stable returns, tax exempt income over the long term, and they're one of the more stable asset classes that you see in your overall portfolio.Mark Schmidt: That sounds boring, and I mean that in the best possible way. Craig, thanks so much for your time today.Craig Brandon: Thanks, Mark, happy to be hereMark Schmidt: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.*“US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries, 1970-2021” – Moody's Investor ServicesDisclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The returns referred to in the commentary are those of representative indices and are not meant to depict the performance of a specific investment.Risk ConsiderationsDiversification does not eliminate the risk of loss.There is no assurance that a portfolio will achieve its investment objective. Portfolios are subject to market risk, which is the possibility that the market values of securities owned by the portfolio will decline and that the value of portfolio shares may therefore be less than what you paid for them. Market values can change daily due to economic and other events (e.g., natural disasters, health crises, terrorism, conflicts, and social unrest) that affect markets, countries, companies or governments. It is difficult to predict the timing, duration, and potential adverse effects (e.g., portfolio liquidity) of events. Accordingly, you can lose money investing in a portfolio. Fixed-income securities are subject to the ability of an issuer to make timely principal and interest payments (credit risk), changes in interest rates (interest rate risk), the creditworthiness of the issuer and general market liquidity (market risk). In a rising interest-rate environment, bond prices may fall and may result in periods of volatility and increased portfolio redemptions. In a declining interest-rate environment, the portfolio may generate less income. Longer-term securities may be more sensitive to interest rate changes. An imbalance in supply and demand in the municipal market may result in valuation uncertainties and greater volatility, less liquidity, widening credit spreads and a lack of price transparency in the market. There generally is limited public information about municipal issuers. Income from tax-exempt municipal obligations could be declared taxable because of changes in tax laws, adverse interpretations by the relevant taxing authority or the non-compliant conduct of the issuer of an obligation and may subject to the federal alternative minimum tax.There is no guarantee that any investment strategy will work under all market conditions, and each investor should evaluate their ability to invest for the long-term, especially during periods of downturn in the market.A separately managed account may not be appropriate for all investors. Separate accounts managed according to the particular strategy may include securities that may not necessarily track the performance of a particular index. Please consider the investment objectives, risks and fees of the Strategy carefully before investing. A minimum asset level is required. For important information about the investment managers, please refer to Form ADV Part 2.The views and opinions and/or analysis expressed are those of the author or the investment team as of the date of preparation of this material and are subject to change at any time without notice due to market or economic conditions and may not necessarily come to pass.This material has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information, internally developed data and other third-party sources believed to be reliable. However, no assurances are provided regarding the reliability of such information and the Firm has not sought to independently verify information taken from public and third-party sources.This material is a general communication, which is not impartial and all information provided has been prepared solely for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or a recommendation to buy or sell any particular security or to adopt any specific investment strategy. The information herein has not been based on a consideration of any individual investor circumstances and is not investment advice, nor should it be construed in any way as tax, accounting, legal or regulatory advice. To that end, investors should seek independent legal and financial advice, including advice as to tax consequences, before making any investment decision.The Firm has not authorised financial intermediaries to use and to distribute this material, unless such use and distribution is made in accordance with applicable law and regulation. Additionally, financial intermediaries are required to satisfy themselves that the information in this material is appropriate for any person to whom they provide this material in view of that person's circumstances and purpose. The Firm shall not be liable for, and accepts no liability for, the use or misuse of this material by any such financial intermediary.This material may be translated into other languages. Where such a translation is made this English version remains definitive. If there are any discrepancies between the English version and any version of this material in another language, the English version shall prevail.The whole or any part of this material may not be directly or indirectly reproduced, copied, modified, used to create a derivative work, performed, displayed, published, posted, licensed, framed, distributed or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without the Firm's express written consent. This material may not be linked to unless such hyperlink is for personal and non-commercial use. All information contained herein is proprietary and is protected under copyright and other applicable law.Eaton Vance is part of Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Morgan Stanley Investment Management is the asset management division of Morgan Stanley.DISTRIBUTIONThis material is only intended for and will only be distributed to persons resident in jurisdictions where such distribution or availability would not be contrary to local laws or regulations.MSIM, the asset management division of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), and its affiliates have arrangements in place to market each other's products and services. Each MSIM affiliate is regulated as appropriate in the jurisdiction it operates. MSIM's affiliates are: Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited, Eaton Vance Advisers International Ltd, Calvert Research and Management, Eaton Vance Management, Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC and Atlanta Capital Management LLC.This material has been issued by any one or more of the following entities:EMEA:This material is for Professional Clients/Accredited Investors only.In the EU, MSIM and Eaton Vance materials are issued by MSIM Fund Management (Ireland) Limited (“FMIL”). FMIL is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland and is incorporated in Ireland as a private company limited by shares with company registration number 616661 and has its registered address at 24-26 City Quay, Dublin 2, D02 NY 19, Ireland. Outside the EU, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (MSIM Ltd) is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England. Registered No. 1981121. Registered Office: 25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 4QA.In Switzerland, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, London (Zurich Branch) Authorised and regulated by the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht ("FINMA"). Registered Office: Beethovenstrasse 33, 8002 Zurich, Switzerland.Outside the US and EU, Eaton Vance materials are issued by Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited (“EVMI”) 125 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AR, UK, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority.Italy: MSIM FMIL (Milan Branch), (Sede Secondaria di Milano) Palazzo Serbelloni Corso Venezia, 16 20121 Milano, Italy. The Netherlands: MSIM FMIL (Amsterdam Branch), Rembrandt Tower, 11th Floor Amstelplein 1 1096HA, Netherlands. France: MSIM FMIL (Paris Branch), 61 rue de Monceau 75008 Paris, France. Spain: MSIM FMIL (Madrid Branch), Calle Serrano 55, 28006, Madrid, Spain. Germany: Germany: MSIM FMIL (Frankfurt Branch), Grosse Gallusstrasse 18, 60312 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Gattung: Zweigniederlassung (FDI) gem. § 53b KWG). Denmark: MSIM FMIL (Copenhagen Branch), Gorrissen Federspiel, Axel Towers, Axeltorv2, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark.MIDDLE EASTDubai: MSIM Ltd (Representative Office, Unit Precinct 3-7th Floor-Unit 701 and 702, Level 7, Gate Precinct Building 3, Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, 506501, United Arab Emirates. Telephone: +97 (0)14 709 7158). This document is distributed in the Dubai International Financial Centre by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (Representative Office), an entity regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (“DFSA”). It is intended for use by professional clients and market counterparties only. This document is not intended for distribution to retail clients, and retail clients should not act upon the information contained in this document.This document relates to a financial product which is not subject to any form of regulation or approval by the DFSA. The DFSA has no responsibility for reviewing or verifying any documents in connection with this financial product. Accordingly, the DFSA has not approved this document or any other associated documents nor taken any steps to verify the information set out in this document, and has no responsibility for it. The financial product to which this document relates may be illiquid and/or subject to restrictions on its resale or transfer. Prospective purchasers should conduct their own due diligence on the financial product. If you do not understand the contents of this document, you should consult an authorised financial adviser.USNOT FDIC INSURED | OFFER NO BANK GUARANTEE | MAY LOSE VALUE | NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY | NOT A DEPOSITLatin America (Brazil, Chile Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay)This material is for use with an institutional investor or a qualified investor only. All information contained herein is confidential and is for the exclusive use and review of the intended addressee, and may not be passed on to any third party. This material is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute a public offering, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell for any product, service, security and/or strategy. A decision to invest should only be made after reading the strategy documentation and conducting in-depth and independent due diligence.ASIA PACIFICHong Kong: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Asia Limited for use in Hong Kong and shall only be made available to “professional investors” as defined under the Securities and Futures Ordinance of Hong Kong (Cap 571). The contents of this material have not been reviewed nor approved by any regulatory authority including the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong. Accordingly, save where an exemption is available under the relevant law, this material shall not be issued, circulated, distributed, directed at, or made available to, the public in Hong Kong. Singapore: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company and may not be circulated or distributed, whether directly or indirectly, to persons in Singapore other than to (i) an accredited investor (ii) an expert investor or (iii) an institutional investor as defined in Section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act, Chapter 289 of Singapore (“SFA”); or (iv) otherwise pursuant to, and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable provision of the SFA. This publication has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Australia: This material is provided by Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Australia) Pty Ltd ABN 22122040037, AFSL No. 314182 and its affiliates and does not constitute an offer of interests. Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Australia) Pty Limited arranges for MSIM affiliates to provide financial services to Australian wholesale clients. Interests will only be offered in circumstances under which no disclosure is required under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”). Any offer of interests will not purport to be an offer of interests in circumstances under which disclosure is required under the Corporations Act and will only be made to persons who qualify as a “wholesale client” (as defined in the Corporations Act). This material will not be lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.Japan:For professional investors, this document is circulated or distributed for informational purposes only. For those who are not professional investors, this document is provided in relation to Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Japan) Co., Ltd. (“MSIMJ”)'s business with respect to discretionary investment management agreements (“IMA”) and investment advisory agreements (“IAA”). This is not for the purpose of a recommendation or solicitation of transactions or offers any particular financial instruments. Under an IMA, with respect to management of assets of a client, the client prescribes basic management policies in advance and commissions MSIMJ to make all investment decisions based on an analysis of the value, etc. of the securities, and MSIMJ accepts such commission. The client shall delegate to MSIMJ the authorities necessary for making investment. MSIMJ exercises the delegated authorities based on investment decisions of MSIMJ, and the client shall not make individual instructions. All investment profits and losses belong to the clients; principal is not guaranteed. Please consider the investment objectives and nature of risks before investing. As an investment advisory fee for an IAA or an IMA, the amount of assets subject to the contract multiplied by a certain rate (the upper limit is 2.20% per annum (including tax)) shall be incurred in proportion to the contract period. For some strategies, a contingency fee may be incurred in addition to the fee mentioned above. Indirect charges also may be incurred, such as brokerage commissions for incorporated securities. Since these charges and expenses are different depending on a contract and other factors, MSIMJ cannot present the rates, upper limits, etc. in advance. All clients should read the Documents Provided Prior to the Conclusion of a Contract carefully before executing an agreement. This document is disseminated in Japan by MSIMJ, Registered No. 410 (Director of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Financial Instruments Firms)), Membership: The Japan Securities Dealers Association, the Investment Trusts Association, Japan, the Japan Investment Advisers Association and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association.© 2025 Morgan Stanley. All rights reserved. 4459984 Exp. 19/02/2026

Russillo starts the show by sharing his thoughts on Jimmy Butler's Game 4 performance (1:21). Then, he's joined by Booger McFarland to break down last week's NFL draft. They discuss their favorite picks, what they expect from Travis Hunter, why Shedeur fell so far, and whether 100 men could defeat a gorilla (22:22). Then, ‘Warfare' codirector Ray Mendoza comes on to explain the real-life events that inspired the film, what it was like being in war, and how people reacted to seeing the movie (1:07:31). Plus, Life Advice with Kyle (1:38:45)! Did I pick the correct choice in a couples massage? Check us out on YouTube for exclusive clips, livestreams, and more at https://www.youtube.com/@RyenRussilloPodcast. The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit www.rg-help.com to learn more about the resources and helplines available. Host: Ryen Russillo Guests: Booger McFarland and Ray Mendoza Producers: Steve Ceruti, Kyle Crichton, Mike Wargon, and Jonathan Frias Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices