Podcasts about constitution center

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

Welcome to the second episode of Storybounders! Join hosts Jayme and Steve as they delve into the remarkable friendship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two founding fathers whose differing temperaments and philosophies shaped America. Despite their differences and a heated political rivalry, their bond exemplified the power of understanding and reconciliation. In this episode, Jayme and Steve explore the intricate dynamics of Adams and Jefferson's relationship, from their collaboration on the Declaration of Independence to their tumultuous political battles and eventual reconciliation through heartfelt letters. Their story offers timeless lessons on the importance of dialogue, empathy, and finding common ground. Tune in to discover how these two iconic figures navigated their friendship amid the birth of a nation and how their journey can inspire us to bridge divides in our own lives. Highlights: Insights into the personalities and backgrounds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The evolution of their friendship from allies to rivals and back to friends. The role of Dr. Benjamin Rush in mending their relationship. Reflections on the relevance of their story to today's political and social climate. Encouragement to seek understanding and unity in our interactions. Join us as we uncover the stories that inspire and move us, light up our imaginations, and fill us with hope. Find your story and change the world with Storybounders! Sources and Further Reading: Adams, John, and Thomas Jefferson. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams. Edited by Lester J. Cappon, University of North Carolina Press, 1959. Colonial Williamsburg. "Colonial Williamsburg." www.colonialwilliamsburg.org. Lincoln, Abraham. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutgers University Press, 1953. Monticello. "Thomas Jefferson's Monticello." www.monticello.org. National Constitution Center. "Constitution Center." www.constitutioncenter.org. Wood, Gordon S. Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Penguin Press, 2017.

Angry protestors gathered outside The White House on 16th August, 1841, burning an effigy of President John Tyler, the first Vice-President to assume the Presidency (following the death of William Henry Harrison, just 31 days into his term). The mob, largely consisting of Tyler's fellow Whigs, opposed his veto of a national banking bill.  Although no serious scuffles or bloodshed occurred, the incident highlighted the vulnerability of the White House and the lack of a proper security detail during that era. Tyler and his family were at home during the protest, underscoring the absence of a secret service or presidential bodyguard.  In this episode, Arion, Rebecca, and Oly explain why Tyler became so unpopular within his own party, and was eventually expelled from it; consider why Tyler hadn't been the main name on the election ticket in the first place; and reveal an astonishing fact about the President's family in the 21st century…  Further Reading: • ‘Looking back: One of the ugliest protests in White House history' (Constitution Center, 2019): https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/looking-back-the-ugliest-protest-in-white-house-history • ‘The Tyler Precedent: How John Tyler became president after William Henry Harrison in 1841' (The Washington Post, 2019): https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/03/23/his-accidency-first-president-die-office-constitutional-crisis-that-followed/ John Tyler - Top 10 Forgettable Presidents - TIME: https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1879648_1879646_1879658,00.html Love the show? Join 

We're back with the second installment of our Courts & Constitution episodes! In Part II we continue the discussion about SCOTUS' role in interpreting the Constitution, and the potential of the highly important Moore vs. Harper case to set more uncharted precedent. We also examine the movement by well-funded groups to rewrite the Constitution, which could concentrate power even more in the hands of the few.   Moore v. Harper - SCOTUSBlog.com Elections Clause, US Constitution SCOTUS' biggest case this term threatens American Democracy - Washington Post ​​Republicans' next big play - re-writing the Constitution (Business Insider) 13th - ALEC & Stand your Ground laws (YouTube) The right is seeking to re-write the Constitution - Center for Media & Democracy Who is Barre Seid? (The Hill) Patagonia founder donates company to fight climate change - CNBC.com State of money in politics - opensecrets.org Rebecca Solnit: Hope is an embrace of the unknown - The Guardian

De ‘Fourth of July' is in de Verenigde Staten een echte nationale feestdag. En terecht, want op die dag in in 1776 werd op de trappen van het toenmalige hoofdkantoor van de Britse kroonkolonie Pennsylvania de Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring voorgelezen.Met Betrouwbare Bronnens vaste Amerikakenner Pirmin Olde Weghuis duiken Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger in die heel eigen wijze waarop de Amerikanen hun verleden vieren en koesteren, levend houden en bewust benutten om hun gezamenlijke identiteit als natie van immigranten te verstevigen en verrijken. En je krijgt er als reiziger en toerist een heleboel tips en verrassende suggesties bij!Als eerste gaan we op bezoek bij enkele van de iconische plekken die de historie van deze wereldmacht hebben bepaald. Natuurlijk uit de 18e eeuw Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Maar ook juist naar het daar tegenover gelegen, veel jongere Constitution Center. Want daar diepen historici de betekenis van de Grondwet van 1787 uit die in diezelfde Hall is opgesteld onder leiding van George Washington.Zeker zo iconisch zijn het advocatenkantoor en woonhuis van Abraham Lincoln in het stadje Springfield (Illinois), waar je heel dichtbij het kleinsteedse maar zeer politieke leven komt van het Amerika van 'het wilde westen' van rond 1850. In Atlanta (Georgia) kun je op bezoek in het geboortehuis van domineeszoon Martin Luther King en de kerk daarnaast waar hij en zijn vader beide preekten als voorgangers. Het indrukwekkende graf van de vermoorde burgerrechtenleider vind je er direct naast.Even gruwelijk was het lot van de jonge president Kennedy. In Dallas is een museum ingericht op de zesde verdieping van de gemeentelijke schoolboekenopslag van waaruit Lee Harvey Oswald de president doodschoot. PG vertelt over de huiveringwekkende objecten daar en complotgelovigen die buiten bezoekers lastigvallen. In diezelfde stad is de meest recente van die instituten die wij hier niet kennen: de presidentiële bibliotheek. Jaap en PG nemen je mee naar een hele serie die zij hebben bezocht, van Bill Clinton tot LBJ en van Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford en Ronald Reagan naar Bush senior en junior.Wat zijn dat voor instellingen? Wat doen ze daar? Is het historische profiel van de te eren president daar wel objectief te noemen? Wat kun je er eigenlijk zien en wat doet die honkbalhandschoen in dat laatje van het bureau van Bush? En waarom is Joop den Uyl een soort eregast in de Ford Library in Michigan? En wat gebeurde toen Helmut Kohl de jonge minister Angela Merkel meenam naar die in California?Eigenlijk overal in Amerika zie je op deze manier de rijke en complexe geschiedenis van dit jonge land. Pirmin Olde Weghuis wandelt met ons door een Frans fort aan de Ohiorivier en even verderop neemt PG je mee naar het museum van een Oekraïens-Slowaakse kunstenaar die een begrip wereldwijd werd. In Gallup, een klein plaatsje in New Mexico, gaan we op bezoek bij lang geheimgehouden oorlogshelden uit de Navajo-stam. Hun voorvaderen bouwden tussen 800 en 1100 in de onherbergzame Chaco Canyon in die staat een reusachtig complex van steden en cultische plekken van waar zij met de Maya in Yucatan contact hielden en naar de hemel keken om de toekomst te ontcijferen in de sterrenhemel.In Texas is alles groter, ook de president die er zijn roots had. Van LBJ komen we in zijn Boyhood Home, zijn Ranch en Space Center en Library. De oprichter van zijn partij, de Democrats, bouwde op een heuvel even buiten Charlottesville (Virginia) zijn eigen paleisje. Die vriend van het Duitse genie Alexander von Humboldt was Thomas Jefferson, de derde president. Zijn uitvindingen, wetenschappelijk vernuft, artistiek talent als architect en zijn liefde voor de natuur kun je daar ontdekken. En hij ontwierp en componeerde begin juli 1776 de Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Elke politieke discussie in elke democratie gaat sinds die zomer uiteindelijk en ten diepste over de betekenis van die zin.***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt door donaties van luisteraars via Vriend van de Show. Sponsoring of adverteren is ook mogelijk. Stuur een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl voor informatie.***Hieronder nog meer informatie. Op Apple kun je soms niet alles lezen. De complete tekst vind je altijd hier***Verder luisterenEerdere BB-afleveringen met Pirmin Olde Weghuis:185 - De Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog (1): Black Lives Matter en George Floyd, hoe de burgeroorlog op de VS nog altijd zijn stempel drukt228 - De Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog (2): hoe Abraham Lincoln onvoorbereid de strijd in ging263 - De Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog (3): de overwinning van Abraham Lincoln en Ulysses Grant159 - Washington DC: na de afgang van Trump optimisme over Biden en Harris146 - Amerikaanse presidentsverkiezingen: de machtsoverdracht115 - Thomas Paine en De Rechten van de mens90 - Opmerkelijke voorverkiezingen in de Amerikaanse historieOok interessant:206 - 'Aardverschuiving': Michael Wolff over Donald Trumps laatste dagen als president. En: zijn bezoek aan Mar-a-Lago202 - 4th of July: Joe Biden in het spoor van LBJ (met als gast: Jan Paternotte)150 - De memoires van Barack Obama138 - In het voetspoor van Amerikaanse Presidenten in Nederland (met Jan Paternotte)133 - Amerikaanse presidenten: boeken die je volgens PG móet lezen!121 - 4th of July special: Zakenlui als president van Amerika***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 100:36:10 – Deel 201:25:21 – Einde Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

27 de junio | Nueva YorkLeer esta newsletter te llevará 12 minutos y 54 segundos.📬 Mantente informado con nuestras columnas de actualidad diarias. Tienes un ejemplo en este boletín que enviamos el pasado miércoles sobre la victoria de Gustavo Petro en Colombia. Puedes suscribirte a través de este enlace:No todas nadan bien. Bienvenido a La Wikly.⚖️ Una amenaza realLo importante: el Tribunal Supremo estadounidense puso fin este pasado viernes al derecho constitucional al aborto al anular un par de sentencias previas de la Corte, sacudiendo a millones de estadounidenses que creen que este es solo el primero de más retrocesos.La decisión Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health amenaza con poner peligro otros derechos reconocidos por el tribunal, incluidos aquellos que protegen las libertades que la comunidad LGBTQ ha conquistado en las últimas décadas.Contexto: el Tribunal Supremo está ahora mismo formado por seis jueces conservadores y tres progresistas, lo que desequilibra la balanza de forma trascendental y abre la veda a que la mayoría conservadora atente contra derechos que se creían asegurados.La composición actual de la Corte es algo en lo que el movimiento judicial conservador de Estados Unidos lleva luchando desde hace décadas. Emilio repasó la historia de ese proceso en un artículo para Newtral.Explícamelo: la base argumentativa de la sentencia que el Supremo publicó este viernes se puede leer en decisiones judiciales del Supremo que se remontan a mediados del siglo XX. Si ha caído el aborto, otros derechos fijados por la Corte hace años podrían estar ahora en peligro.En esta newsletter, explicamos cuál es la base argumentativa que reconoció el derecho al aborto, por qué es controvertida y qué implica que la mayoría conservadora actual del tribunal haya arremetido contra ella de forma tan contundente.📜 El quid constitucionalLa sentencia Roe v. Wade de 1973 es parte de una serie de decisiones del Supremo que interpretaban la Constitución de una forma desconocida en los primeros 100 años de historia de Estados Unidos. Y todo tiene que ver con un extracto de la Sección Primera de la Decimocuarta Enmienda de su Constitución:“Ningún estado podrá […] privar a una persona de su vida, libertad o propiedad, sin un debido proceso legal”.La Decimocuarta Enmienda es una de llamadas Enmiendas de la Reconstrucción aprobadas tras el final de la Guerra Civil que enfrentó a los Estados Confederados que defendían la Esclavitud contra la Unión que encabezaba el gobierno federal.El objetivo de la Enmienda era proteger los derechos de los antiguos esclavos. Tanto su ratificación como la interpretación que los tribunales han hecho de sus cláusulas ha sido motivo de debates constitucionales profundamente controvertidos.En particular, la llamada Cláusula del Debido Proceso que hemos detallado arriba se ha litigado de forma constante en el último siglo de historia. Y todo tiene que ver con los derechos que la cláusula garantiza en todos los estados del país, según un análisis del Constitution Center:Protecciones procesales. Por ejemplo, requieren que el estado notifique acordemente a un ciudadano si va a dejar de percibir un seguro médico público y que facilite una audiencia en la que ese ciudadano pueda argumentar por qué debe seguir recibiendo ese seguro.Derechos individuales listados en la Carta de Derechos como la libertad de expresión, la libertad de religión o la libertad de prensa.Derechos fundamentales que no están específicamente enumerados en otras partes de la Constitución, incluidos el derecho al matrimonio, el derecho al uso de anticonceptivos o, hasta este pasado viernes, el derecho al aborto.La Quinta Enmienda ya protegía esos derechos, pero solo aplicaba contra el gobierno federal, con lo que los estados podían seguir vulnerándolos tal y como ocurría con la Esclavitud. La Decimocuarta incorporaba esos derechos contra los estados.Eso incluía los derechos protegidos bajo el debido proceso sustantivo, la categoría en la que se enmarcan los derechos no enumerados en la Constitución.Y cabe señalar que la Novena Enmienda sugiere que los derechos enumerados en la Constitución no niegan “otros retenidos por el pueblo”.La base de la controversia de ese debido proceso sustantivo es que los jueces de la Corte pueden concluir que un derecho emana de la Constitución pese a que no esté específicamente mencionado en el texto. Es de ahí que algunas de las decisiones más polémica del Supremo basen parte de su argumentación en ello:En Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), la Corte anuló las prohibiciones al uso de anticonceptivos en los estados porque entendía que estaban vulnerando el derecho a la privacidad de las parejas.El Supremo determinó que ese derecho no estaba explícitamente mencionado en la Constitución, pero que podía inferirse de otros derechos como el de reunión, protegido en la Primera Enmienda; el de acuartelar soldados en tiempos de paz, protegido por la Tercera; y el de ser libre de registros irrazonables del hogar, protegido por la Cuarta.En las décadas posteriores, el Supremo también usó en parte el debido proceso sustantivo para proteger el derecho al matrimonio entre parejas interraciales (1967), el derecho a que personas no casadas usaran métodos anticonceptivos (1972), el derecho al aborto (1973), el derecho a mantener conductas sexuales íntimas (2003) y el derecho al matrimonio para parejas del mismo sexo (2015).🏛 Una corte conservadoraEl reciente fallo de Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health no solo deja de reconocer el aborto como un derecho constitucional, sino que también abre la puerta a cambios en la forma en que la Corte Suprema venía interpretando la Cláusula del Debido Proceso de la Decimocuarta Enmienda.Hasta ahora, el debido proceso sustantivo era interpretado como la garantía de protección constitucional a derechos que no necesariamente están explícitos en la Constitución o que son estrictamente procesales.En la opinión mayoritaria de la Corte, el juez Samuel Alito escribe que “nada en esta opinión debe entenderse como que pone en duda los precedentes que no tienen que ver con el aborto”. Sin embargo, el razonamiento legal que esgrime la mayoría para revocar Roe v. Wade y Planned Parenthood v. Casey podría aplicarse a otros fallos.El principal argumento de Alito es que no existe una protección constitucional explícita para el derecho al aborto, y que cualquier derecho no enumerado explícitamente en la Constitución debe estar “profundamente arraigado en la historia y tradición de esta nación” y estar “implícito en el concepto de libertad ordenada” para poder acogerse al amparo constitucional.Los requisitos de este método, que a menudo se conoce como la prueba Glucksberg por el fallo Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), impiden inferir la constitucionalidad del derecho al aborto.Ante este razonamiento, el juez Clarence Thomas advirtió en una opinión concurrente del fallo que, bajo ese razonamiento, el derecho al aborto no es el único que ha sido mal protegido. Fallos como Lawrence v. Texas (2003), que ampara constitucionalmente la libertad de personas del mismo sexo a mantener relaciones sexuales consentidas, serían susceptibles de revocación.“En casos futuros, debemos reconsiderar todos los precedentes sustantivos del debido proceso de este Tribunal, incluidos Griswold, Lawrence y Obergefell. Debido a que cualquier decisión enmarcada en el debido proceso sustantivo es “evidentemente errónea”, tenemos el deber de “corregir el error” establecido en esos precedentes”, dice un pasaje de la concurrencia de Thomas.Aunque el razonamiento del juez Thomas es mucho más extremo que el de la mayoría de los jueces, su lógica muestra que es difícil marcar el límite en los derechos que revierte este fallo cuando estos se encuentran conectados por la misma lógica de interpretación. Este es, a la vez, uno de los argumentos que esgrime la minoría liberal de la Corte, disidente del fallo.“No fue hasta Roe, argumenta la mayoría, que la gente pensó que el aborto estaba dentro de la garantía de libertad de la Constitución. Sin embargo, lo mismo podría decirse de la mayoría de los derechos que la mayoría afirma que no está manipulando. La mayoría podría escribir una opinión igual de larga mostrando, por ejemplo, que hasta mediados del siglo XX, “no había apoyo en la ley estadounidense para un derecho constitucional a obtener [anticonceptivos]”. Así que una de las dos cosas debe ser cierta. O bien la mayoría no cree realmente en su propio razonamiento. O si lo hace, todos los derechos que no tienen una historia que se remonta a mediados del siglo XIX son inseguros. O la mayor parte de la opinión de la mayoría es hipocresía, o los derechos constitucionales adicionales están bajo amenaza”, declaran en conjunto los jueces progresistas Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer y Sonia Sotomayor.🧑‍⚖️ Base de arenaDurante muchos años, el juez Anthony Kennedy fue la figura fundamental en la lucha legal por la igualdad de los homosexuales. En Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) y United States v. Windsor (2013), la Corte sostuvo que el gobierno federal debe reconocer los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo.Ambas fueron decisiones 5-4 escritas por Kennedy, como resultado de su incómoda alianza con los cuatro jueces liberales.En ese tipo de casos, cuando las opiniones están muy divididas, a menudo se asigna la redacción de la sentencia mayoritaria al juez más indeciso. Sigue la teoría de que es poco probable que dicho juez cambie su voto si puede adaptar la opinión de la mayoría a sus propios puntos de vista.El resultado es que las argumentaciones que esgrimió Kennedy para la defensa de estos derechos no son muy sólidas. Ignoran doctrinas que podrían haber fundamentado una prohibición de discriminación por motivos de orientación sexual y se centran en defender que son derechos constitucionales no enumerados amparados por la doctrina del debido proceso sustantivo.Algo que, como vimos con Roe v. Wade, deja al fallo más vulnerable a ser anulado por una mayoría conservadora dedicada.El fallo Dobbs de Alito y su confianza exclusiva en el marco de Glucksberg para determinar qué derechos no enumerados están protegidos por la Constitución puede interpretarse como una estrategia del juez a largo plazo. Es decir, podría estar usando una terminología jurídica que pueda usarse para justificar otra victoria conservadora en el futuro.A esto se suma que Alito protagonizó una de las opiniones contrarias al fallo de Obergefell que reconocía el derecho al matrimonio homosexual.Con aquella argumentación, demostró su nivel de desdén por los derechos LGBTIQ+ con una elección retórica que lo apartó incluso de varios de sus compañeros jueces conservadores.La decisión de Obergefell “se utilizará para vilipendiar a los estadounidenses” que creen que las parejas del mismo sexo no merecen los mismos derechos y las personas que expresan puntos de vista anti-LGBTQ “correrán el riesgo de ser etiquetadas como intolerantes”, sostuvo Alito.¿Entiendes ahora el miedo de la comunidad LGBTQ+ a perder derechos?¿Desea saber más? Los artículos del Constitution Center sobre la Decimocuarta Enmienda son muy esclarecedores. Y los análisis judiciales de SCOTUSblog sobre las sentencias del Supremo son al mismo tiempo profundas pero fáciles de leer para no-expertos.🎬 Una recomendaciónCon la colaboración de FilminBy Emilio Doménech120 pulsaciones por minuto es una película francesa de 2017 dirigida por Robin Campillo. Cuenta la historia de un grupo de activistas galos a primeros de los 90 en su lucha por reivindicar los derechos LGBTQ en el contexto de la epidemia del SIDA.La película ganó el Gran Premio del Jurado y el premios FIPRESCI de la crítica en el Festival de Cannes de su año. Acabaría arrasando en los Premios César franceses con seis galardones entre los que se incluyeron Mejor Película, Mejor Actor de Reparto y Mejor Guion Original.Campillo logra una pieza que se siente a la vez informativa, pedagógica y profundamente emocional. Porque pese a retratar el día a día del activismo, con reuniones y debates ideológicos que a priori pueden resultar poco atractivos para el espectador, en realidad el filme hace un trabajo fantástico equilibrando dosis de intensidad dramática con episodios de exploración temática que inspiran por su lucidez.Cero sorpresas con que Campillo se llevara el premio al Mejor Montaje en los César, pues la labor de edición es el logro más incontestable del filme.Campillo era editor antes de ser director. Y también fue el guionista de una película con la que 120 pulsaciones por minuto comparte esa facilidad para convertir conversaciones con sustancia informativa, histórica y discursiva en diálogos que también tienen peso dramático: la extraordinaria La clase, de Laurent Cantet, ganadora de la Palma de Oro en Cannes en 2008.En una era en la que la comunidad LGBTQ+ en países como Estados Unidos teme por sufrir un retroceso en materia de derechos, largometrajes como el de Campillo ilustran lo difícil que fue luchar por conseguirlos.Y en la historia de los personajes de 120 pulsaciones por minuto están también la de otras tantas miles de personas que reivindicaron su igualdad en tiempos bastante más oscuros, pues la película muestra los coletazos más duros del SIDA.120 pulsaciones por minuto está disponible en Filmin.🥊 Otro récord de IbaiBy Marina EnrichLo importante: Ibai organizó este pasado sábado La velada del año 2, una noche dedicada al boxeo y a la música en el Palau Olímpic de Badalona (Barcelona) en la que varios streamers combatieron entre sí. Ah, y David Bustamante, también.La clave. Ibai logró el récord histórico de 3,3 millones de espectadores simultáneos en el stream (2,4 millones de media). El récord anterior lo tenía TheGrefg, otro streamer español, con un pico de 2,5 millones de espectadores cuando presentó su skin de Fortnite (un ‘look’ que había diseñado para el juego online).Ten en mente que el minuto de oro en la televisión española el pasado viernes se lo llevó Pasapalabra con 2,7 millones de espectadores, mientra que la Voz Kids congregó una media de 1,3 millones de espectadores durante la noche.Los highlights.Ibai anunciando dos días antes la escaleta del evento vía Twitch usando Paint. Ni comunicados de prensa, ni publicaciones estándares para sus seguidores. Lo que nos gusta.Las actuaciones de Bizarrap, Nicki Nicole, Duki o Rels B. Puedes verlas aquí.La asistencia de AuronPlay o ElRubius, sobre todo porque nunca suelen ir a este tipo de eventos.

Episode 105 Maggots! Bloodletting! Graverobbers! Decapitated ducks! Cornflakes! This episode has it all! Join us on this wild ride through the history of Western Medicine as we look at the breakthroughs, setbacks, prejudices, and methodology behind it.    Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast   More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/   produced by Zack Jackson music by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis    Transcript  This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.   Zack Jackson 00:04 You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion. This week our hosts are   Kendra Holt-Moore 00:14 Kendra Holt-Moore, assistant professor of religion at Bethany College, and my most recent ailment was a concussion from a snowboarding fall,   Zack Jackson 00:28 Zack Jackson, UCC pasture and Reading, Pennsylvania, and my most recent ailment was COVID.   Rachael Jackson 00:36 Rachel Jackson, Rabbi Agoudas, Israel congregation Hendersonville, North Carolina, my most recent ailment is real, pretty bland, but irritating nonetheless. It's just a headache. But it was one of those headaches that I couldn't get rid of a headache for no reason. And I felt like oh my god, I'm just old, I now just get headaches.   Ian Binns 01:01 And Ben's Associate Professor of elementary science education at UNC Charlotte. And my most recent ailment is arthritis in my right hand, where this part is where the thumb comes down and connects to the wrist. It is definitely confirmed no longer early onset arthritis. So yeah, that was fun.   01:26 Why did you why did you ask her this question?   Ian Binns 01:29 For two reasons. One, because we just passed your birthday, Rachel. So celebration.   Rachael Jackson 01:38 Your old everything hurts. Just adding the parenthetical aside, Everybody Hurts from REM is an amazing song from 1992. And it's younger than   Ian Binns 01:50 I am interested. No, yeah, no, that was out before? No. When were you born again, Kendra. 1991. See, so   01:58 nothing hurt, then. I was fresh.   Ian Binns 02:05 The second reason that we're asking this question is because we're starting our new mini series, our next mini series on healing. So for today, I'm gonna give a just a very quick crash course, in kind of the history of healing from a science perspective. And I will let our listeners know that my background and understanding this is definitely more than the western science. So please, if anyone hears this and says, hey, you've left out some cultures, historical cultures that I do apologize for that. But as I said, this is gonna be very brief. So we could do several episodes just on the history of medicine. But so anyway, so I kind of wanted to just give some general, interesting things that have occurred over time. And then we wanted us to be able to get into a conversation about, like medical treatments, for different ailments, as well. But some of our understanding of the history of medicine goes all the way back to prehistoric times. And this is where I think it will come into play throughout our series as well, of how different cultures used to attribute different types of magic or religion to ailments, you know, maybe it was something to do with evil spirits or something like that. But you know, supernatural origin versus more of a natural origin of reason for different ailments. But one of the things that we know from the discovery of different prehistoric skulls is that they would actually drill a hole into the skull of the victim, because they believe that that the speculation is and then we actually see this occurred in more recent human history that it would release the disease. And so that was one thanks, you mean patient? Did I sit victim, you get saved. Because you know, if   Zack Jackson 03:54 you're going to your show, and your hands   Ian Binns 03:56 are gonna drill during prehistoric times, and you're gonna knock a hole into the person's skull, they may end up being the victim. Right? So, so yeah, there you go. And then now we were going to jump ahead to ancient Egypt, when we start actually seeing some evidence of written evidence of different types of treatments and medicine. One examples from the what was called the Smith Papyrus, written in 1600 BCE, right around there. But it was actually we believe it was a copy of a text from much earlier, so roughly 3000 BCE, but in that particular Papyrus, that's now I think, in New York. It contained 48 case studies. There was no theory for anything, but it was an observation and kind of a recording of what it is that they knew. So the case studies were all written, same way, the title, the examination, so what they're observing, and then the diagnosis, and then the treatment, and then they will have a glossary for terms. But again, they were still be speculation about what role Old Evil forces or spirits play in the cause of diseases. And then we're gonna jump ahead more to ancient Greece. And this is where many people may have heard of Hippocrates, of Coase Brahm, circa BCE, or for 20 BC, he was one of the first people who kind of focused on natural explanations trying to move away from supernatural explanations. And he was one of the people who came up with the idea of the four humors, which those are blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. And if you are healthy, that means the four humors are in balance, if you were not healthy, that means something was off, one of the humors was off. And so this is where we start getting the idea of bloodletting. So for example, if someone had a fever, it was due to an abundance of blood. And so they would do bloodletting as a way to cure the fever. But still, at this time, and again, I'm skipping over a lot of people. They learned different things with anatomy, but they were only allowed to dissect animals, because at the time, it was illegal to dissect humans. At which time, still 420 BCE. So this is still the BCE era, ancient,   Zack Jackson 06:13 ancient really, that sounds more like a Christian hang up than agree. Yeah. Well, and actually to   Ian Binns 06:17 this, and trying to prepare for today's episode, I did see in some of the more ancient eastern cultures of like Hinduism, and from the early early stages of that, that they were also not allowed to cut into the human body and dissect human bodies either. So this is not just in that area. But yeah, you're right, because, Zack, as you just said, that we see that all the way up into the 1500s that they weren't supposed to be dissecting humans in in Europe, for example, but they did not necessarily figure out the reason or the causes of the different parts of the body that they were removing from the body. So when it came to anatomy, who the Egyptians from my from my understanding, or my off on that, which I find that's   Zack Jackson 07:01 fine, it depends. The the Ebers papyrus and again, all these papyrus papyrus papyrus Pappa Ria, I don't know if the plural is. The Papyrus is they are named after the the hippopotami Yes, sorry. They're all happy to discover they're all named there. No, not the Discover. They're named after the white guys who bought it at auction and then brought it back to their country. So, you know, all of Egyptian treasures are in Europe or America somewhere instead of where they belong. But anyway,   Ian Binns 07:35 yeah, the Smith Paul Bader is probably wasn't named for a guy named Smith all that back then.   Zack Jackson 07:40 Right now Pharaoh Smith. No, that's not really an Egyptian name. But the Ebers papyrus was in 1550 BCE, and it had a really detailed explanation of the heart and the entire circulatory system. It was a bit wrong in some of the ways in that they thought that the the heart pumps all fluids. So that includes urine and semen as well as as blood, but they understood the purpose of of the blood going through the muscles and the veins and the arteries and all of that they actually also had some psychiatric conditions that were tied up in conditions of the heart. And they mentioned like dementia and depression, which were problems of the heart because they would dissect people after they died and look at the quality of their ventricles and all of that. So they didn't know what the brain was. They thought that was garbage. But the heart was the center of   Ian Binns 08:37 all thank you for correcting me, Zack, I forgot about that Papyrus. Papyrus? popularized by Bob Yes, go ahead, Rachel.   Zack Jackson 08:46 Papyrus hippopotami   Rachael Jackson 08:47 I was just going to add that because things are because things are so ancient, we tend to forget that there was we say Egyptian. We're looking at 1000s and 1000s of years when we say Ancient Egypt, so 1500 BCE is kind of the middle right? Middle late kingdom, right? This is the these are the new kingdoms. Were this is not, these are not the ones that built those giant pyramids. That's 1000 years earlier that they did that. So I think when we when we talk about that we should do a little bit of justice and say, hey, it would sort of be like saying, hey, all Englanders life for all time, right? Well, that's just been 2000 years like it's at some point. So just to add to that piece and same thing with the the Greek piece or the ancient Greek has been around for a very long time. That's that's the history not the   Zack Jackson 09:45 speaking of the history piece to in about in the 1200s or so BCE, there was this mysterious Bronze Age collapse in which these massive societies, the ancient Egyptians, the Mycenaeans, all the the the Hittite They just they just collapsed. And we're not entirely sure why possibly the sea peoples possibly climate change, possibly a million other things, aliens, if you watch the History Channel, but all of these amazing societies, the Minoans, another one, they all just disappeared. And so you see later Greek society and later Egyptian society, then trying to make sense of the fact that there are these ancient ruins that are massive, and they just assume that ancient heroes built them, which is where a lot of the mythology comes from. But so like this sort of understanding of anatomy and health was probably somewhat lost in going into the period that now you're talking about where people aren't allowed to dissect. So we see them now because we found the papyrus, but they may not have had them   Ian Binns 10:46 as well. So Zach, you mentioned, you know, of that massive loss of civilization around that timeframe? And you mentioned your seafaring people to a man, are you talking about Atlantis there, buddy?   Zack Jackson 11:01 I am actually the Minoans. We're probably the source of the Atlantean myth as far as   Ian Binns 11:07 because wasn't Plato, one of the first ones to talk about it. Plato was the first one to write right about that we have documentation.   Zack Jackson 11:14 It's an Egyptian story that Plato heard and wrote about that there's this island nation that was super advanced in technology and in society, and then they angered Poseidon, right, and then they were wiped out by the sea for their iniquities. And so that lines up really nicely with the Minoan people who were on Crete, who at the time, I mean, we're talking 1500 BCE. Further back had like three storey buildings with hot and cold running water, and indoor plumbing. They had amazing art and architecture. They were they they were doing things that 1000s of years later, people hadn't discovered. And then they were just they were hit by this massive tsunami after the oh, what's that, that place in Greece that everyone goes on vacation with the beautiful blue waters of Santorini the volcano there exploded and caused caused dust it caused tsunamis and basically wiped out their society and in the Mycenaeans conquered them, and then the Bronze Age collapse. So we forgot all about them for 1000s of years, but they were probably the inspiration of Atlantis. It's not aliens, sorry. It's probably just Minoans. It's a bummer. Yeah, well, this has been Zach ruins mythology for you.   Kendra Holt-Moore 12:31 A new segment? I love that. Yeah, exactly.   Ian Binns 12:33 You could just splice this out and move it to the end. So let's get back to because I think while we're doing this to it's interesting, you all I am going to be focusing mostly on how we start to see more of a focus on natural phenomena, natural explanations and a scientific approach to medicine, that you still do see, you know, and like Apocrypha as being one of the individuals again from 420 BCE, trying to move away from Supernatural that even with the work of Hippocrates, that it did not drive out, like the rivals, you know, long that more traditional forms of healing up to that point, those those are traditional forms of healing belief and practice that those still existed. So it's not like when his work and and his contemporaries, you know, and then actually, there's speculation that Hippocrates was multiple people. It was not one. And so, just because of that, though, it did not drive out this the more traditional ways of belief and practices all say, so then I'm going to jump ahead roughly 500 years to Rome, and Galen. So Galen was a individuals from 129, to circa 200 CE. And he really started getting into this notion of we need to rely on the world of our senses. And but he still accepted the idea of the four humors that was originally proposed by Hippocrates. He recognized the arteries contain blood and not merely air, he also showed how the heart sets blood in motion, but he did not have an idea about the whole notion of circulation, blood circulation, but he was he did start figuring out that, you know, the heart did move things at least a little bit. We definitely see evidence with control experimentation with Galen key focus on on anatomy, but again, at the timeframe, dissection of humans was illegal. And so his work was focusing on animals, their section of animals, and it's his work. That actually kind of stayed when you think about Western culture and Western medicine, kind of was the prevailing view of how things were done until the 1500s. was actually the reason why I remember that so much is with that part, because his work was occurring rather right around the time of Ptolemy, when he talked about astronomy, and that stayed around for roughly the same Not a time till you know, Copernicus work. So it was kind of all those things started happening right around the same time. So now again, you know, my apologies for leaving out multiple cultures that I want to jump ahead again now to Medieval and Renaissance Europe. And so as I said galas, views kind of held strong until roughly the 1500s. And this is when we see Andreas alias, emerge. And yes, there were others before him, but he was one of the first ones to really get into dissection of humans. I think he had he was a person who had students who were grave robbers, because it was still illegal at the time. But he realized that we needed for anatomy, we needed a better understanding and body so he would have his students would become grave robbers and steal the bodies, and then they would do special dissections, you know, for like a show. I mean, there were many, many people watching, but they would have lookouts to make sure that they weren't doing anything, they wouldn't get caught.   Zack Jackson 15:58 Do you put them back? I don't know that after you're done? No.   16:02 I would hope so. Yeah,   Ian Binns 16:03 you think so?   Rachael Jackson 16:04 I would think so. Not just think so.   Ian Binns 16:08 Yeah. Then apparently he was a very skilled Dissector. And he felt like you know, it was they had to move away from Galen and his views. And don't forget, you know, I said, you know, we're jumping time. This was 1400 years later. So Galen, his views held strong for a long time. But he did a lot of dissection of humans. And his scientific observations and methods, with these facilities show that Galen can no longer be regarded as the final authority. And so that's when we start to see and again, this is also aligned with the time of the Renaissance. That's when we start seeing movement away from more ancient understandings when it comes to science, to medicine, for example, he believed in the importance of empirical knowledge, independent observation and experimentation. So this alias is really into those types of things. I don't know if he was ever caught. I have to look into that one. Yeah,   Zack Jackson 17:04 well, now he Oh, yeah. You blew his cover, man.   Ian Binns 17:07 Sorry, sorry, everybody. But what's interesting is even when that was occurring, we were also still seeing some people who were holding on to the idea that, you know, while experimentation is important that we still need to Paracelsus was one of them. I think I'm saying that correct. He presents the idea that humans are the ultimate ends of God's creation. So the ultimate form he held on is something called a chemical philosophy, which is a Christian philosophy. But it was not very widely accepted at the time, because as I've already said, this is the time of the Renaissance. So we're trying to move away from those types of explanations. And so he was still around, but he was trying to blend the two, between experimentation, but also to hold into the importance of God and humans kind of being the ultimate form. And then the next person I want to talk about before we start really going into different types of ailments stuff, just because of, as I said, the history as William Harvey, he was 15, seven 816 57. So he advanced medicine even further, because of careful observation, experimentation, he really focused on collecting more evidence. And this is when we really start to see what we now think of as experimentations. So, you know, control experimentation manipulate in nature, so he can see something that normally would not be seen, he came up with the theory of the circulation of blood of blood. So we started trying to have a better understanding how blood circulated throughout the body. And again, you know, he still was someone who did believe in the impact of a designer, but he really focused on the more natural explanations.   Zack Jackson 18:46 It's interesting that you say that he he discovered the circulation of the blood when we just said that 3000 years earlier, the Egyptians knew about the circuit. Oh, you're right.   Ian Binns 18:56 Yeah. Yeah, and plumbing, and plumbing,   19:02 plumbing, our own and in the world, but it   Ian Binns 19:05 is fascinating historical texts still hold us like William Harvey is one of the people who really did that.   Zack Jackson 19:11 Well, God forbid, they credited an African for exactly discovering yessing.   Ian Binns 19:17 And so just because of, you know, because I really want us to get into conversations around like different types of treatments we see throughout history for different ailments. You know, this was the time of the Renaissance. When you start moving past that. I mean, you as we've seen, we've discussed throughout on this show, in the past about the history of science and how scientific advancements just took off during this timeframe. Incredibly fast, right. And it was the same for medical medical advancements, too. And so we continue to see lots of different changes over time to the point where we are to our today, but what I really want to focus on unless someone wants to talk more about other history is getting into these treatments that we see throughout history. If we can   Zack Jackson 19:59 Yeah, That's absolutely yeah, you're chomping at the bit over there. You want to talk about about some some trees.   Ian Binns 20:05 So because one of my hat, like asthma, so asthma used to be treated, it was treated by smoking.   Zack Jackson 20:16 Oh, yes, smoking pipe of   Ian Binns 20:19 tobacco or cigar has the power of relieving a fit of asthma, especially in those not accustomed to it,   Zack Jackson 20:26 which I thought was really amazing custom to tobacco.   Ian Binns 20:29 That was this. That was the argument being presented is amazing. Yeah. There's an when when ish was this it was more like the 1800s.   20:39 Oh, recent.   Zack Jackson 20:40 Yeah. Well, counterpoint. No, that is not don't don't smoke, if you have so please   Ian Binns 20:47 understand that these are old, not accurate. There's a another thing with the whole idea of smoking. Yeah. For Your Health. This is. Back in the late 19th, early 20th century, I found a site talks about these different types of treatments out there smoking, for your health, asthma cigarettes. Yeah. So and they were this is an advertisement, not recommended for children under six. That was nice. But they were actually called asthma cigarettes. And they effectively treat asthma hay fever, foul breath, all diseases of throat, head colds, canker sores, bronchial irritations. So yeah, so that was a good thing.   Zack Jackson 21:30 Well, so when you're talking 19th, and 20th century, and these are like some crazy, wacky solutions for things like when they would give cocaine to children for their cough, and all of that. That's not entirely like saying that the ancient Romans used electric eels to cure hemorrhoids. Which, which is real? Well, when we're in the 19th and 20th centuries, a lot of these are the companies understood the awful things that their, their their products did to people, but they made marketing false advertisements to sell these addictive things to people. You know, the Bayer Corporation knew all about the addictive qualities of cocaine and still pushed it as a as a simple pain reliever, because they could get people addicted to it. And like those sorts of predatory capitalism has existed for the past couple of 100 years with with pharmaceuticals, and we are paying that price now with the opioid epidemic. So when the smoking industry in the 1800s, they didn't understand that it gave cancer, obviously, but they knew it wasn't good. Yeah, no, those advertisements are intentionally misleading, because there was no oversight.   Ian Binns 22:49 Well, and earlier, I referred to bloodletting. And, you know, was talking about, you know, ancient, ancient Greece, you know, and for 400 BCE, bloodletting did not just end then, bloodletting was something that was continued for a very long time, for centuries. And   Rachael Jackson 23:06 right, and I believe, and I have not fact check this. So someone else has please correct me or collaborate, whichever it might be. I said, No, we're doing stuff about presidents. And a little factoid that I heard was that George Washington got a fever, just like you're saying in and at that time. It's George Washington, early, early 19th century, and he got a fever. And so they decided to do bloodletting. And they did bloodletting twice on him. So much, so that he died. Oh, good. I have not, I have not double checked that fact. But I also haven't seen anything to contradict it. So yeah, take that with a grain of salt as it may. But that was, it was all the way up until George Washington is when they were really still using this as a technique to cure people from things like fevers, which are very, very dangerous, but unless you have something to just take down the fever, you're either gonna live it or you're like, or you're not.   Zack Jackson 24:12 Yeah, the Constitution Center. Constitution. center.org says that that process of bloodletting probably let about 40% of his blood supply, right. So you can't really make it through a sickness with 40% of your blood supply.   Rachael Jackson 24:28 Right. So imagine I mean, think about when you donate blood do the three of you donate blood any on a regular or at all ever works. I   Ian Binns 24:37 grew up in Europe. Right? Yeah, Mad Cow Disease just because people don't know.   Rachael Jackson 24:43 Yeah. Yeah. Zack, do you ever   Zack Jackson 24:48 know I don't I don't I mostly have issues with needles. Yeah, exactly. What me not to   Rachael Jackson 24:53 Yeah, don't do that. better for everybody that you don't go to the hospital for donating blood.   Kendra Holt-Moore 24:58 Drive was can So I think because of a COVID related thing, but I would like to, but I haven't.   Rachael Jackson 25:06 Yeah, yeah, it's one of those like really simple, really useful things that if a person is healthy and no guilt, no judgment. For anyone that does or doesn't, you can do it every 56 days, and they take about a leader. And generally speaking, people, adults have five to six leaders. And they say, Okay, you're gonna feel queasy, don't do any weightlifting, don't do anything strenuous for a minimum of 24 hours. Like, you've got to just take it real easy, and you have to be healthy when you donate, because your body needs every blood cell that it has when it's healthy, or when it's sick. And when it's healthy. Yeah, we've got an extra 20%. So let's give it away. But if you take more than that, you're not going to survive very well. And then if you take more than that, and you're sick, your body has no ability to fight off the diseases, right? We talk about blood cells all the time, and the white blood cell counts and red blood cells. And how do we think we were just talking about the circulation system? Right, the circulatory? How do you think all of those good anti me when your immune system actually gets to these infections through your bloodstream? And if you don't have a good flowing bloodstream? Right, if this is August, after a rough summer, it's not happening.   Zack Jackson 26:29 So I know that in modern medicine, they still do use leeches, there are medical legions, and they're usually used to drain excess blood or like, you know, pooling of blood and hematoma hematomas. Is that the thing? Because it's, it's sanitary. And it's easier. And if people are willing to have a leech on him for a while, then it's great. But like, historically, bloodletting has been around for very   Ian Binns 26:56 long, 1000s and 1000s. Like,   Zack Jackson 27:00 it must have worked at least a little bit, or else they wouldn't have kept doing it. Right.   Rachael Jackson 27:06 But don't you think correlation and causation comes into play here. But people get people get better, regardless of what we tried to do them. And so just because someone got better doesn't mean that what we did to them made them better? Well, so   Zack Jackson 27:23 like, there's an old remedy, in which if you got bit by a snake, you would take a duck and put its butt on the wound, and then cut its head off. And then while the bite is on the wound, and the thought was that it would suck out the poison,   Ian Binns 27:37 the dung Would Suck out the poison.   Zack Jackson 27:40 Yes, yes. Yes. Everyone knows this wanted   Ian Binns 27:42 to make that claim. I'm quite excited about that.   Zack Jackson 27:47 Like that. That didn't stick. Yeah. But like draining people have their a painful procedure that is gross, and makes me feel queasy thinking about that stuck around for 1000s of years where like, is there any kind of medical benefit? Like even in obviously not in Washington's case, like if you have an infection, don't get rid of your blood? But like, what that stimulates SIBO antibodies to then like go to the wound, or like adrenaline to help boost the system? What? Are any of you familiar with any positives of blood lead? I   Kendra Holt-Moore 28:28 not? I'm not answering this question to like, describe physiological processes, but the placebo effect is extremely powerful. Like in just the study of medicine, like contemporary researchers, there are some who have done a lot of really interesting work on placebo effects. And obviously, like, we don't have the same kind of data to, like, you know, like double, double blind study results of placebo effects for like, ancient practices, ancient cultures, but I think, you know, cross culturally, all human societies, we all do things that, you know, as Rachel said, we can't really like tie a causation thread between those practices and healing in a definitive way, but a lot of what we do, we do for like cultural or, you know, comfort reasons. And even that is like different than placebo, which, in a lot of cases, like the placebo effect does actually change. Like it does lead to physiological changes. And it's kind of like weird and mysterious, but I think that I think that's not something to take for granted or under appreciate. Because, you know, I think even like early psychological studies showing, you know, if you're in a situation shift where you're around like comforting, familiar people and a comforting, familiar environment, you just fare better. Like even if we're not talking about injury, you fare better in terms of your, like mental health, mental well being, which translates to sometimes like physical well being. And that, you know, those are, those are things that are, I think, often considered, like, non essential pieces of the healing process. But, but yet, we we all, you know, like there are studies to show that people care about a doctor's bedside manner. People care about having, you know, chaplains come into hospital settings to, to support people and that that, that does facilitate something real in terms of healing. But it's it's just not, there's not like a clear, like, hard scientific way of describing that necessarily, but I that it's not to say that it's like not important also.   Rachael Jackson 31:04 Yeah, I would, I would add that, you know, you were just talking to Kendra about hospitals. But also previous to that you were saying, in places where people are surrounded and around things that they're comfortable with, the best healing happens when you're not in a hospital. Right. Hospital is no place for a sick person. I mean, and I mean, that my dad, my dad, was now a doctor said that, to me, it's like, that makes perfect sense. Because to really, unless you're really sick, and you can't be at home, being at home is your best chance of getting better. And I'm using that word intentionally, right, getting closer to a cure and your sense of normal, faster than being in a hospital, and that hospitals are there for the very, very sick people who cannot be at home for whatever reason. So it's one of those other reasons like stay away from a hospital. Also, they just have a lot of germs still stay away from a hospital. Unless, again, you have no other alternative. And so, you know, to answer Zach's question there too, I think the idea of Zack, you were kind of recoiling from the achiness of leeches. And I wonder, are the bloodletting perspective? I wonder if part of the causation and the correlation might be, you're now treating a person differently. You're giving them advantages. Maybe you're giving them more soup, maybe you're giving them more fluids? Maybe you're treating them differently, because Oh, it's so serious that we have to call a doctor in or whoever, whatever their title was, whoever was giving the leeches, the priests perhaps, right, that now they're so different that their everydayness is being being treated differently. You give them the extra blanket, you give them the soup, you take them outside, like whatever it is, that that's really what's happening. And so yes, the leeches are helping but only as a secondary issue.   Zack Jackson 33:08 That reminds me of the correlation causation argument around the increased health of religious people. We've heard that those numbers thrown around a lot that people who regularly are connected to religious communities are healthier live longer than people that don't. Right. Yeah. And the argument from the religious perspective is that well, faithful people have God, and God heals you. And prayer works. And so prayer prayer for people are healthy people. When the opposite argument is then yeah, the opposite argument is that, well, you're connected to a religious community, you've got people that care for you, you've got people that come by There's comfort, there's there's connection, there's soup delivered to your door every day. And those intangibles are what caused the the health and the healing. Yeah,   Kendra Holt-Moore 33:58 and the direction of the correlation is not always clear, if you're looking at like study results. So if you're healthy and able bodied, to like get to your church, or synagogue or whatever, then you can, you can do that. But you were already healthy from the starting point. Whereas if you're like chronically ill and unable to get out of bed, then maybe you don't go to a religious service, because you're not able to but the starting point, the kind of direction of behavior was influenced by the status of your health rather than, like the status of your religiosity. And that that whole like body of literature is like, really, really vast. And it is really interesting, but it's a good, good examples to bring up when we're talking about correlation.   Ian Binns 34:48 Yeah. But Zack, you asked earlier about, you know, why did bloodletting last for so long? I mean, there is, you know, I just started remembering that there are certain Um, chronic diseases, blood diseases that people will have, or blood cancers that will have where it will produce too much either iron and their blood or too much red blood cells. And the way they do that, the way that one of the treatments for that is a phlebotomy and so, which is the removal of amount, a specific amount of blood, it's more than just going in and doing a donation, for example. And so I and that is done for medical purposes, like my dad used to have to do that, because of a blood disease that he had. And so, I saw I started very quickly looking at what is the difference between bloodletting and phlebotomy? And some of this is just saying that bloodletting was a therapeutic practice that started in antiquity, but that there still flub a lot. Phlebotomy is another way of saying bloodletting   35:57 is, when you go rolled, it's phlebotomist. Correct? It's the person that takes   Ian Binns 36:01 control now than it used to be. Right. Yeah.   36:03 Or at least, we think it's   Ian Binns 36:07 yes.   Zack Jackson 36:08 Yeah. So one of the things I wanted, so I want to be cautious about to when we talk about old, older treatments, you know, the cutting off the duck's head and how ridiculous it is, or the how they used to use urine to whiten their teeth. You know, stuff, stuff like that, where we can easily look back at those folksy unintelligent people and say, My goodness, aren't we so intelligent? Today, we have science and science has given us all the answers. And those of you who might be listening at home or have people in your lives, who you've talked to about sorts of things, well, then, you know, get kind of, rightly upset at the sort of hubris of that, that there's there's medicine, and then there's alternative medicine, and alternative medicine is based just on placebo and fantasies and dreams. And real medicine is based on science and truth. And I think Modern medicine is wonderful. And it has given us so much more trust in the process and understanding the why of things work. But that a lot of what we have in modern medicine is based on traditional medicine. You know, the ancient Ancient Egyptians knew that if you had pain, or inflammation or fever that you could chew on birch bark, and it would reduce those things. And it wasn't until much later that that's how we got aspirin now, or I think of penicillin just comes from what mold. And how many of like indigenous cultures will watch the way that nature interacts with itself. And then we'll gain lessons from that, you know, watching what this animal eats when they eat it. And then using that and applying that and finding that those things work. And only much, much, much, much later do we discover the scientific rationale for it. And we're seeing sort of a resurgence in the past couple of decades of people taking indigenous medicines seriously and looking for like the whys of why these things have stuck around for so long. And lots of times discovering that there is there is wisdom behind these traditions. And the whole colonial Western mindset of it's our way, or it's just fantasy is not all that helpful.   Rachael Jackson 38:36 Thank you for that perspective, I think we do need to, you know, recognize our own bias. And also recognize, you know, as we're sort of talking about the with the tobacco industry, that there's a lot of push with marketing, and there's a lot of issues in those ways that we're all very susceptible to that came out of this trusting of the scientific process. And just because it's old, doesn't mean it is old and unscientific doesn't mean that it's not also helpful. Right. So putting that caveat also,   Zack Jackson 39:10 sometimes they are awful. Do the old things, you know, like we if you have syphilis at home, do not inject mercury into your urethra, because that does not work. Right, despite the fact that Blackbeard did it. And   39:27 well, and I think too, are there other are there other? Oh, sorry. Yeah. Well,   Ian Binns 39:31 just real quick, you know, you talk about this, and I think this will be, you know, what you're just discussing, Zach, you know, and wanting to be respectful. And one of the people I hope to get on the show sometime is David distinto, who wrote the book, how God works. And in this particular book, I mean, he is talking in some situations about healing, you know, and says early on, I'm not finished yet but you know, it's says I realized that the surprise of my colleagues and I felt when we saw evidence of religions benefits was a sign of our hubris. Born of a common notion among scientists, all of religion was superstition, and therefore could have little practical benefit is that learned and as this book shows, spiritual leaders often understood in ways that we can now scientifically confirm how to help people live better lives. And so that he is someone I really, you know, reach out to him see if we can get him on the show, because I think that's some interesting research he's done to show. You know, what is it we're learning now? And how it's applicable to helping others but another one I wanted to bring up was the notion of maggot therapy.   40:44 Oh, yes, yeah. Which I've done a little bit   Ian Binns 40:47 here, but if you know more, please, but   Zack Jackson 40:51 which I now say it Rachel hates bugs.   40:57 I do leeches all day long. But maggots.   Zack Jackson 40:59 I got this don't talk about   Ian Binns 41:01 this great book called strange science, wonderful. All these cool things in here, but one of them is pages on maggot therapy. And it says it sounds like something from a horror film fat cream colored maggots eating their way through infected sores and wounds. It's not its medicine. Rachel, says Rachel right there. Since it's so sad since ancient times, doctors have used Magus to prevent wounds from getting infected, and the 1940s Antibiotics replace maggots. But bacteria adapted and started to become resistant to antibiotics. And now we get the return of the maggots. Maggots work by secreting digestive enzymes that feed on dead tissue. Those enzymes also killed bacteria and a wound and speed up healing. Doctors are placed between 203 100 maggots on a wound then cover it maggots and all with mesh beneath the mesh the maggots feed for 48 to 72 hours. When they're done, the doctors remove them. wounds that haven't healed for months even years often respond quickly to maggot medicine. And I really am hopeful this is a video clip we need to share of the wonderful reactions we're seeing from both Rachel and Kendra   Rachael Jackson 42:25 I'm just gonna be real public about this. If I'm ever in a situation where I'd not have a wound that heals and the only thing that could cure me is Maga therapy. Just put me out of my misery. Just don't   Zack Jackson 42:38 just go to   Rachael Jackson 42:42 the blog, the blog and I'm like, kill the maggots like don't even just all amputate or that's I respect people that go through that so much. I'm not one of them. I think that never having that issue.   Kendra Holt-Moore 42:54 You can put the maggots on me but then also punch me in the face and knock me out.   43:02 Alright, so I'll be dead and Kendra will be unconscious. Yeah. And South could be loving every minute.   Zack Jackson 43:09 As well of bugs. Sorry. Yeah.   43:11 All right, Ian, where are you? Where do you fall on this this highly nutritious   Zack Jackson 43:14 to after they're done? Yeah, he's just you can just kill them and dry them and then eat them and then you get all your personal flesh. Then you get the nutrients back. Well should you   43:28 cook in your body,   Zack Jackson 43:34 because they know either way you deal with with insects. You take the insects you suffocate them in a box of carbon dioxide so you don't squish them or anything. Then you take them out and you dehydrate them and then you crush them into a powder and add that into your food. That's the best   Ian Binns 43:50 way to by any chance interview all seasons we're talking about maggots.   Zack Jackson 43:55 Can we continue for the rest of the episode? Rachel?   Ian Binns 44:00 Yes, that's another video clip needs to be shared of Rachel doing the gagging reflex each time I talk about maggots. She's like well   Kendra Holt-Moore 44:09 I feel bad for Rachel.   44:11 Like I don't I'm not queasy, but now I guess I   Ian Binns 44:15 will. So let's let's get into another discussion. Then. Kellogg's cornflakes. Now I'd found a very   Kendra Holt-Moore 44:21 good transition away from dear listener.   Zack Jackson 44:27 Now that's a segue   Ian Binns 44:28 dear listener. So when I mentioned Kellogg's cornflakes prior to recording, both Rachael and Kendra have perked up and seemed to know more information about this than I did. And so I will only share the very little bit of information I have but please reach and Kindle Kendra jump in and tell us what you know about the Kellogg's cornflakes but from what I have read is that Jay is Kellogg one of the people who developed Kellogg's cornflakes he was a medical doctor and health activist and he created the cornflakes. He was one of the people who created any hope that they would prevent sexual urges or more specifically to inhibit the urge to masturbate. And so Rachel, Kendra, you reacted earlier what what did you know? Because this took me by complete surprise because it didn't work. So   Kendra Holt-Moore 45:14 I was gonna say, Rachel, you go because I have to go it's like noon. I don't really have that much to add, either. I just I know that that is a statement.   Ian Binns 45:26 Do we not want to then talk about the very last one about hysteria before Kendra leaves?   Rachael Jackson 45:29 We can keep talking about it. I think she's she's got it. Yeah, I   Kendra Holt-Moore 45:32 mean, I'm gonna say Good. Might have to, like 30 seconds thing   Ian Binns 45:35 for anyone to tell us about hysteria. Kendra. Wow.   Zack Jackson 45:36 Don't eat cornflakes. Just stick with Cheerios. Cheerios make you horny. So you know that's   Ian Binns 45:44 the science apparently   Kendra Holt-Moore 45:45 bowl of cereal if you feel nothing.   Zack Jackson 45:50 Just cereal? If you want to feel nothing at all.   Kendra Holt-Moore 45:55 Land bland, bland cereal for a bland, bland sex life. That's Sorry. All right, see you later.   46:06 Cool. J cereal.   Zack Jackson 46:09 So what kind of what kind of like sexy breakfast? Was he trying to?   Ian Binns 46:13 I don't know. Rachel, can you help us out?   Rachael Jackson 46:16 So I think I'm in the same same boat of it was a factoid that I very much knew and held on to. But beyond that, I don't have a whole lot of information. I mean, the idea is, you know, everyone has breakfast. And so to prevent those urges in the morning, which and also just let's just clarify something here. When they say masturbation, they really mean men. Yeah, I'm sorry. Nobody, nobody. Yeah. Right. And so basically throughout time, and this was a religious issue. And so it wasn't a doctor issue. It was a religious issue of male masturbation is against God, going all the way back to some genesis of Don't spill your seed and, and Leviticus and stuff like that. But it's bad idea to spill your seed and that got translated into don't masturbate. And so as a religious idea, and if you look at men, generally speaking, I think we were talking about this maybe a couple of weeks ago to in the morning, men generally have more of how to say this, erect penises based on what was going on in the evenings, and the dreams and their inability to regulate their own erections. And so if that's the first thing you do in the morning to stop that have cold, dry cereal. Well, something that's bland,   Zack Jackson 47:56 and I will, let's also say, Kellogg, as a human, Mr. Kellogg himself was a bit of an anti sex fanatic, that the man was married, and still never had sex, and wrote books about how he and his wife never had sex. And they lived in separate bedrooms, and they adopted their children. And that sex pollutes the body. And it's the worst thing in the world. And so, like, this guy was afraid of his body, right? And again, not want anyone else's body. Yeah, he   Rachael Jackson 48:28 did this in a religious context. He didn't do it just because he was asexual and thought everyone else shouldn't be too. Yeah, I'm not a sexual anti-sex. So   Ian Binns 48:37 I will say this. And so I did look it up. And so and, you know, this is now I'm getting this from Snopes. And you know, there could be good or bad things getting things. So but according to snopes.com, so the claim, what is the you know, the Kellogg's cornflakes were originally created an effort to discourage American consumers from masturbating. And as you said, Rachel, it's male, actually, so it should say that the rating is mostly false. And so what this they're saying what is true is that the creation of cornflakes was part of JH Kellogg's broader advocacy for a plain bland diet without referring to cornflakes in particular, Kellogg elsewhere recommended a plain bland diet as one of several methods to discourage masturbation. So can I guess that was a people just put that together?   Zack Jackson 49:34 Can I just read a little quote from one of his books, please do other way. So he talks about onanism, which Rachel alluded to is a story of Odin from where we're in Scripture, are we? That is that is where he's supposed to consummate this.   49:55 So this is the story of this is in Genesis in Judah Genesis. Yeah. This is   Zack Jackson 50:01 and where he's supposed to impregnate his brother's widow, and then spills the seed on the ground because   Rachael Jackson 50:08 he doesn't want to because he wants the child to be his own and not be his brother's his dead brother's wife's son, and therefore all the dead brother's property goes to him and he doesn't then have a son. So instead of doing that, they just like,   Zack Jackson 50:26 so then God knocks him out. Right, so, so he talks about onanism. So when he talks about onanism, he's talking about masturbation. He says neither plague nor war nor smallpox have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism. Such a victim dies literally by his own hand. Yeah, such a victim dies literally by his own answer. You must have been so happy with that line. Can you imagine him writing that out? And he's like, Oh, this is a killer. This is good. This is good. This is good. He dies by his own hand. Oh, I gotta show this to someone.   Rachael Jackson 51:04 Yeah. Also, let's just add to who this person was. He spent 30 years of his life dedicated to promoting eugenics.   Ian Binns 51:15 Yes, he did. So near the end of his life,   Rachael Jackson 51:18 whether or not there was the direct cornflakes is for masturbation, it was promoted by a person who was anti sexual and pro eugenic to donate. You know, that's the history   Zack Jackson 51:33 of cornflakes. Yeah. Meanwhile, recent research has found that for most people, sex is actually super healthy. For a person's like continued health and well, being mentally, physically, emotionally, releases all kinds of amazing hormones and good things into your body. And like a lot of religions throughout history have have have recognized that have seen, like Judaism, spiritual ecstasy, like orgasm is like spiritual ecstasy. That's like the moment of connection to the divine. This breaking forth between the natural and the the supernatural. And this thin place and spirituality have, like, celebrated that. And I think we're coming back around to that. That's a good thing. Right? Oh, Christianity is still lagging far, far, far behind. Thank you some combination of Plato and Augustine, but we're getting there. You know,   Rachael Jackson 52:37 maybe it's kind of like Plumbing. Right? They had an ancient Egypt, and then it took like, one or 2000 years to come back. Yeah.   Zack Jackson 52:48 Yeah. Yeah. So   Rachael Jackson 52:49 you know, your plumbing. Yeah. Not quite, not quite that way. But no, my Jewish comment, my Jewish comment was that Judaism sees, and by Judaism, big broad stroke brush using right here, normative ancient orthodoxy style, Judaism saw sex only within a marital heterosexual concept. But inside those boundaries, yay, more of it. Also, it's a double mitzvah, it's a doubly good thing to do on Shabbat, the day that we're supposed to be the highest connected to God. And this was one of the ways to be even more connected to the Divine was through sex with your spouse. And I was thinking, as you're talking about Kellogg to how they didn't have sex, even though they were married. One of the things in an ancient Catawba marriage document, given it to the wife was written that if the husband doesn't fulfill his side of the contract, because, well, he doesn't or he's dead, then she gets XY and Z things, you know, 50 chickens, a sheep or whatever. Depends on what she's worth old widows and or excuse me, old, divorcees are worth nothing. But beyond that. One of the stipulations in there is how often they have to have sex, how often the husband must provide sex to his wife, not the other way around. And it listed how frequent so a day trader was like, once a week at a minimum, right, but a merchant, every three to say they had a donkey driver that was once a month and then a camel driver was once every three months because they recognize that if your camel driver, you're you're gone for a very long time, so don't punish them. And then they had like, and then because these are scholars writing this and I don't know what their problem was, they just want to have sex with each other instead of their wives. They said, Oh, like every seven years. Is all your seven years. Yeah, like it was ridiculous, how often or how not often they had To have sex so that they could go to the go to their rabbi's house and study with him for years on end, and then just come back once every few years have sex with the wife and then go again. So yeah, so having, like having sex in the religious concept again, and that very narrow first understanding of sis heterosexual marriages, has kind of made sex positive in Judea. Yeah. Yeah.   Ian Binns 55:30 So I know because you know, we are approaching the hour. But I do want to at least because, you know, we talked about before recording. And it's a chance for me to get all my giggles out around this idea of hysteria. Your giggles out most of my giggles. But this was something that I do remember hearing about, you know, at one point about female hysteria. And there's different articles that I have found that talk about, you know, because even there were films about it, or there was a film about it, and play. And so the idea was that, and thankfully, I'm gonna keep fumbling this. But Rachel introduced us to a really cool person, I want to do a shout out for sigh babe on Facebook. does some really interesting stuff. I'm really excited about Reading more about her. But what's interesting is that the argument is, is that hold on, let me pull my thing up, and just be easier. It was believed or this is the argument that in the Victorian era, doctors treated women diagnosed with hysteria, which is no longer a diagnosis, by the way, by genital stimulation to induce an orgasm. This hysteria was supposed to be a buildup of fluid in the woman's womb. And doctors assumed that since men and Jackie lated, and felt better that it stood to reason this would work for when women. Apparently, you know, there was multiple, you know, ideas of what was it that the different symptoms that people would have, obviously, if they were experiencing hysteria, and so this was the way to go was this manual massage. But a text came out in 1999. From and I believe that toss are doing more research for this this episode. A historian wrote this book that came out in 1989. And in that she argued that this was the reason why the vibrator was invented, was to make it so that it was easier for the doctors having to treat women for hysteria. I'm just saying that Oh, nice. But you know. So, yeah, and found out that that actually is not accurate. A more recent paper from last couple years has come out showing that this is actually inaccurate, that there is no evidence whatsoever suggests that women are treated for hysteria, by doctors bringing them to orgasm in their offices. So, or that this was the reason why vibrators were invented. But again, a medical treatment. That was something that took off based on one historians perspective, and or book, and then others kind of pushed back on it was fascinating. And we can share these in show notes or something. But in Reading about this particular ailment, and this suppose a treatment Amad. Yes. And suppose the treatment, there was interesting to read about how this particular historian of technology kind of has backpedal a little bit. And so well, no, I didn't mean I meant it more as a hypothesis, not a yes, this is the way it was. But then, you know, when you actually look at the writing shows, that's not actually how it was presented in the text itself. But it still took off, right? Because it was, I mean, when you think about it, this sounds kind of funny. And so it took off, people listen to it and   Rachael Jackson 59:13 right, because also, you know, God forbid, somebody creates something for women's pleasure, simply for women's pleasure,   Ian Binns 59:21 right? And that's actually there's no reason at the very beginning. It's a disturbing insight, implying that vibrators succeeded not because they advance you know, pleasure, but because they saved labor for male physicians.   Rachael Jackson 59:35 Right? So again, yeah, simply for women that has nothing to do with the man right gets co opted into a story of oh, those poor men, just poor, poor doctors, or in a really awful way of the abuse, the potential abuse of Doc Just taking advantage of their women patience, and showing that it's okay. None of this is ever okay.   Ian Binns 1:00:11 But even there, I mean, you can easily go online and find   1:00:17 trying to find their, you know, articles   Ian Binns 1:00:18 to support that this will that it was used for this as as recent 2019. Right. Yeah.   Rachael Jackson 1:00:28 So no, no your sources correct. And use some good thinking. And if you're going to Google things, feel free to use private browsing. Yes.   Zack Jackson 1:00:39 And if your interest the scientific method, you know, and you're feeling a little hysterical, just want to try it out. See if it works for you. That's in your hypothesis. Thank you. Science is just messing around and taking notes right so.   1:01:04 Wash your hands first.   Ian Binns 1:01:05 And after. Okay, that's all I got.   Zack Jackson 1:01:13 Thank you, doctor. Doctor, doctor.  

On the cusp on his Twitter takeover, a Constitution Center event this week reframed the plutocrat for your consideration — and reminded us of the First Amendment's magic

In this episode of the iCantCU Podcast, I talk about going to the Museum of the American Revolution for Vision Council to train students from the University of the Arts on how best to ensure museums are inclusive to blind and visually impaired visitors. I also talk about trouble I had booking travel on Amtrak for an upcoming NFB of PA seminar. Show notes at https://www.iCantCU.com/169 Museum Of The American Revolution This is a great museum to spend some time and it is just a few blocks from Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and the Constitution Center. Learn more about the Museum of the American Revolution at https://www.amrevmuseum.org/ and on social media @AmRevMuseum. My Podcast Gear Here is all my new gear and links to it on Amazon. I participate in the Amazon Associates Program and earn a commission on qualifying purchases. Zoom Podtrak P4: https://amzn.to/33Ymjkt Zoom ZDM Mic & Headphone Pack: https://amzn.to/33vLn2s Gator Frameworks Desk Mounted Boom Arm: https://amzn.to/3AjJuBK Senheiser Headset (1st 162 episodes): https://amzn.to/3fM0Hu0  Support Keystone Chapter Please make a donation to the Keystone Chapter of the National Federation Of The Blind Of Pennsylvania by going to http://www.SupportKeystoneChapter.org.. Scroll down to the text field and enter the amount  you'd like to donate. Payments are handled by PayPal, but you don't need a PayPal account. You can make a donation with any credit or debit card. Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Follow the iCantCU Podcast so you don't miss an episode! Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon | Google | IHeartRadio Reach Out On Social Media Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn Get In Touch If you've got questions, comments, or show ideas, I want to hear from you! Call (646) 926-6350 and leave a message. Include your name and town and let me know if it is okay to use your voice on an upcoming episode. You can also email the show at iCantCUPodcast@gmail.com

Greg Hamilton, President of the Hamilton Library and Constitution Center, discussing current efforts to reverse impact of the Civil War amendments to the Constitution, and the threat they pose to a wide range of civil rights and freedoms, including religious freedom.

Civil War? Greg Hamilton, President of the Hamilton Library and Constitution Center, discussing the growing civic conflict, and the potential for violence and disintegration of the American republic.

Join us as we discuss an exciting partnership between the CHPD and the Adult Basic Education Center. Guests Cpt. Matt Markham and Metro North ABE Program Supervisor Kathleen Moriarty discuss their organizations' work with the National Constitution Center to better educate officers and ABE teachers on a range of historical, legal, and enrichment topics about the United States Constitution and the "Rights and Responsibilities of Community and Police" with the goal to improve civic dialogue and build an ABE curriculum that will be offered to ABE students by December. Officers Mohammed Farah and Darry Jones (on his last day with CHPD) co-host with Columbia Heights Communications Coordinator Ben Sandell. Life Newspaper's Paige Kieffer sat in on this one and threw out a few questions of her own.

Stan Casacio, political heavy-hitter in Montgomery County, rejoins the Dom Giordano Program to preview an upcoming third continental congress that'll take place at the Constitution Center here in Philadelphia. Casacio has been pegged to speak at the event, which will feature bipartisan individuals from around the country debating how to improve the country. Casacio explains that representatives around the country will offer their ideas to make the country better. Casacio will hone in on term limits as a solution to help improve political rhetoric, explaining that he believes a limit should be set on the time that a politician is able to hold a seat. For more information on the event unfolding on July 5th and 6th, head to freedomwatchusa.org. (Photo by Getty Images) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week for a July 4th-inspired episode, Major is joined by the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center Jeffrey Rosen. Rosen talks about his work at the Constitution Center, and how America's founding document has been interpreted over time. Rosen also talks about the political polarization within the United States and the Capitol insurrection on January 6th. This episode was recorded on June 30th, 2021.Privacy Policy and California Privacy Notice.

Christian college professors Matt Parks and David Corbin explore the ideas behind today's headlines.Part 1 (1:06): Headlines - We discuss the debate over whether and how Republicans should attempt to fill the Supreme Court opening created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Gisburg in light of the events of 2016 and the history of post-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court nominations. Links: History of Supreme Court nominations; Justice Ginsburg in the New York Times; Dan McLaughlin at National Review; AP on 2016 v. 2020 hypocrisy; President Trump’s position; Former Vice President Biden’s Constitution Center speech; Senator Joe Biden in 1992 on C-Span; George Neumayr at The Hill; David French at Time; Yuval Levin at National Review; 2018 New York Times list of Supreme Court frontrunners. Part 2 (38:14): Required Reading - We discuss the proper role of the Supreme Court in our republican system with the help of Federalist 78 and Federalist 51. Part 2 (50:58): Open the Grade Book - In anticipation of the first presidential debate next week, we discuss our grading rubrics for Donald Trump and Joe Biden.Part 3 (59:36): Tocqueville's Crystal Ball - After two weeks of picking five different contests in five different sports, Matt leads with a record of 8-2 to Dave’s 2-8. This week we pick: Green Bay at New Orleans (NFL), #23 Kentucky at #8 Auburn (College Football), game 5 of the Stanley Cup finals (NHL), game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals (NBA), and the final four National League playoff teams. Our bonus pick: how many people will watch the first presidential debate? Opening and closing music is from the beginning of "Happy Life" by Ryan Andersen from his 2018 album, Americana volume 1. Available here. Licensed by Creative Commons.Matt Parks is an Associate Professor of Politics at The King’s College in New York City. David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Providence Christian College in Pasadena, California. All views expressed in this podcast are their own.

“I’m not speaking to President Trump who will do whatever he wants. I’m not speaking to Mitch McConnell who will do what he wants and what he does. I’m speaking to those Republicans out there — Senate Republicans — who know deep down what is right for the country and consistent with the Constitution as I stand here in the Constitution Center. Not just what’s best for their party,” Biden said during a speech in Philadelphia.

“I’m not speaking to President Trump who will do whatever he wants. I’m not speaking to Mitch McConnell who will do what he wants and what he does. I’m speaking to those Republicans out there — Senate Republicans — who know deep down what is right for the country and consistent with the Constitution as I stand here in the Constitution Center. Not just what’s best for their party,” Biden said during a speech in Philadelphia. Download our NEW app and watch the show LIVE or watch archived shows. Search for Wayne Dupree Podcast and leave a rating/review which helps us move up amongst the top political podcasts. Support the show: https://paypal.me/waynedupree See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeff Rosen, CEO of The Constitution Center in Philadelphia and a law professor at GWU, speaks about the modern day applicability of the U.S. Constitution to everyday life.  Subscribe and... Good hearts make the world a better place

For Episode 56 we are back this week from Philadelphia. Steve explains all the fun Philadelphia was including the Liberty Bell, Constitution Center, the Rocky Statue and Steps. Now everything was great, Philly cheesesteaks from Genos are a little overrated and overpriced. Also, we let you know if Michelle won any money at the casino! […] The post Episode 56 Back From Philadelphia and Electric Cars appeared first on Fat Guys on a Little Podcast!.

Building on a discussion at SHEAR and on Twitter (h/t Serena Zabin) and a recent Amicus podcast, Frank and David discuss whether the Constitution has outlived its usefulness, including: Whether an 18th century document is appropriate for governing in the 21st century How much the Constitution has changed since 1787 Whether the Senate and the Electoral College can/should be reformed Last Drops Frank: David Blight article in NYT on the Party of Lincoln David: Reconstruction exhibit at Constitution Center

  Bio   Gigi Sohn (@gigibsohn) is a Distinguished Fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy and a Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate. She is one of the nation’s leading public advocates for open, affordable and democratic communications networks. For 30 years, Gigi has worked to defend and preserve the fundamental competition and innovation policies that have made broadband Internet access more ubiquitous, competitive, affordable, open and protective of user privacy. From 2013-2016, Gigi was Counselor to the former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler. From 2001-2013, Gigi served as the Co-Founder and CEO of Public Knowledge, a leading telecommunications, media and technology policy advocacy organization. She was previously a Project Specialist in the Ford Foundation’s Media, Arts and Culture unit and Executive Director of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm. Gigi holds a BS in Broadcasting and Film, Summa Cum Laude from the Boston University College of Communication and a JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.       Resources   GigiSohn.com   Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution by Susan Crawford (Yale University Press, forthcoming, 2019)     News Roundup   Net neutrality bill looks increasingly unlikely The success of the net neutrality bill designed to reinstate the 2015 net neutrality rules that passed the House Energy & Commerce Committee last week by a vote of 30-22, looks increasingly unlikely to succeed, as its still gotta get past the Senate, and the Trump administration has threatened to veto even if it does. A floor vote in the House is expected today.   Congress ramps up tech scrutiny Congress is continuing its ramp up of scrutiny of big tech, looking specifically at how social media and tech companies enable harmful speech. They’re also looking at competition issues like Amazon’s promotion of its own private label products over competing products offered by smaller businesses.   The House Judiciary Committee is holding a bipartisan hearing today on the rise of hate crime and white nationalism 10AM in 2141 Rayburn.   On the competition front…several members are taking a fresh look at antitrust issues following Elizabeth Warren’s SXSW announcement of her proposal to rein in big tech with better antitrust enforcement. And so Amazon quietly removed promotional ads that gave preferential treatment to its own private label products. And Senators Amy Klobuchar and Marsha Blackburn sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission urging it to investigate Google for antitrust and data privacy violations.   Elizabeth Warren also introduced a new bill last week that could hold tech executives criminally liable for tech breaches. And Ed Markey introduced a bill that would require Google and Facebook to comply with online privacy rules. Markey’s bill is designed to stem harmful marketing on channels like YouTube that are largely unregulated in terms of the marketing and advertising that kids are exposed to. Google cancels AI ethics board   Google has killed the AI ethics board it set up. That’s after thousands of employees and public advocates pushed the company to remove Heritage Foundation President Kay Cole James--over comments she made about trans people and for the Heritage Foundation’s skepticism regarding climate change. The board also lacked civil rights leaders, as NAACP President Derrick Johnson noted on Twitter.   Leading AI scientists to Amazon: stop selling facial recognition technology   Leading AI scientists, including Yoshua Bengio, who won the Turing Award, which is basically the Nobel Prize of technology, have signed a letter urging Amazon to stop selling its facial recognition software, known as Rekognition. A couple of peer-reviewed papers have found the software, which police departments have been using, disproportionately misidentifies women and people of color. The New York Times has more.   Microsoft vows to focus on discrimination at employee meetings Microsoft promises to give its employees space to discuss discrimination issues at monthly employee meetings. CEO Satya Nadella and HR Chief Kathleen Hogan announced during an all-hands call last week. The move comes after employees erupted in an email thread, complaining about gender discrimination issues at the company.   Events   House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Hate Crimes and White Nationalism Today, Tues., 4/9 at 10AM Rayburn 2141, Streaming   Federal Trade Commission FTC Hearing #12: Competition and Consumer Protection Tues., 4/9 and Wed., 4/10 Constitution Center 400 7th St SW, Washington, DC 20024     Senate Judiciary Committee Stifling Free Speech: Technological Censorship and the Public Discourse Wed., 4/10 at 2:30PM Dirksen 226, Streaming   Senate Commerce Committee Illegal Robocalls: Calling all to stop the scourge Thurs, 4/11 at 10AM 216 Hart, Streaming   Brookings How Will Emerging Technologies Affect the Future of Work Fri., 4/12 at 10AM 1775 Massachusetts Ave.. NW   FCC Open Meeting Fri., 4/12 at 10:30AM 445 12th St. SW Commission Meeting Room, Streaming  

  Dr. Alisa Valentin: The Unifying Power of Social Justice (Ep. 178) Alisa Valentin of Public Knowledge joined Joe Miller to discuss her approach to building a constructive dialogue at the intersection of tech and social justice. Bio Alisa Valentin (@alisavalentin) is the Communications Justice Fellow at Public Knowledge, where she focuses on digital inclusion policies for communities of color and policies that diversify media ownership. Prior to joining Public Knowledge, Alisa served as an intern in the Office of Commissioner Mignon Clyburn at the Federal Communications Commission and as a legislative fellow for Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke. Alisa was also an adjunct professor at several D.C. area colleges and universities where she taught communications and women’s studies courses. Alisa received her Ph.D. in Communications from Howard University. She also earned her B.S. from the University of Florida and an M.S. from Northwestern University. Resources Public Knowledge Racial Taxation: Schools, Segregation and Taxpayer Citizenship, 1869-1973 (Justice, Power & Politics) by Camille Walsh #TechPolicySoWhite by Alyssa Valentin (Public Knowledge, 2019)   News Roundup Facebook failed to block 20% of New Zealand shooter videos Facebook failed to block some 20% of videos showing the shooting in New Zealand, including videos that praised the shooting. That’s some 300,000 videos. The company reports though that it did manage to take down some 1.2 million videos related to a white supremacist’s massacre of 50 worshippers at 2 mosques in Christchurch. Arlington approves Amazon incentives Arlington County, Virginia has approved $23 million in incentives for Amazon to put its second headquarters in Crystal City. Protestors attended an Arlington County board meeting to oppose the vote saying the county should focus on affordable housing before Amazon. Opponents are also concerned about traffic congestion and school overcrowding. The Arlington chapter of the NAACP also opposed certain aspects of the incentive package. But the County board unanimously approved the incentives with a 5-0 vote. So again—just like in Queens—very superficial engagement by Amazon to reach out to the local community or even include them in negotiations. It’s just extremely poor stakeholder engagement – and they do it because they can. Facebook reinstates Warren ads calling for tech breakup Facebook has reinstated Senator Elizabeth Warren’s ads calling for a breakup of the social media giant along with Google and Amazon. A company spokesman says it removed the ads because they violated a policy regarding the use of Facebook’s logo … even though the whole point of that type of policy is obviously to prevent ads going up that criticize the company. Apple defends is app store policies against Spotify Finally, Apple is defending its app store policies against Spotify after Spotify filed  a complaint against Apple in Europe for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive behavior by setting its cost to carry the Spotify app in the app store too high. Apple currently charges 30% for anything sold in the app store. Apple says Spotify is simply seeking to avoid paying the same fee everyone else pays. Events Federal Trade Commission Hearing on Competition and Consumer Protection in U.S. broadband markets Constitution Center 400 7th St. NW 9AM-5:45pm Wed., 3/20 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-10-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century   Public Knowledge/Georgetown/Goodfriend Group Algorithmic Exclusion and Data Deserts Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave., NW 3:30-5:30PM Monday, 10/25 https://www.georgetowntech.org/datadeserts  

In his new book for The American Presidents Series, the National Constitution Center’s President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen argues that William Howard Taft was our most judicial president and presidential Chief Justice, and explores Taft’s crucial role in shaping how America balances populism with the rule of law. In this exclusive book launch held at the Constitution Center on March 20, Mr. Rosen was interviewed by Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who calls Taft “the most under-appreciated constitutional figure since George Mason.” 

In his new book for The American Presidents Series, the National Constitution Center’s President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen argues that William Howard Taft was our most judicial president and presidential Chief Justice, and explores Taft’s crucial role in shaping how America balances populism with the rule of law. In this exclusive book launch held at the Constitution Center on March 20, Mr. Rosen was interviewed by Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who calls Taft “the most under-appreciated constitutional figure since George Mason.” 

David Schleicher of Yale University and Todd Zywicki of George Mason University discuss the text, history, and future of this contested amendment. New essays are now available on the Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution. Read about the 17th Amendment, the 20th Amendment, the 24th Amendment, and the 25th Amendment. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Christopher Yoo of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Tom Donnelly of the National Constitution Center discuss the Pennsylvania Federalist and America's greatest proponent of popular sovereignty. American Treasures: Documenting the Nation's Founding is now open at the Constitution Center. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Christopher Yoo of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Tom Donnelly of the National Constitution Center discuss the Pennsylvania Federalist and America's greatest proponent of popular sovereignty. American Treasures: Documenting the Nation's Founding is now open at the Constitution Center. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Michael Klarman of Harvard Law School and Patrick Spero of the American Philosophical Society reassess the debates that defined the Founding era. This program was presented live at the Constitution Center on November 14, 2016. You can watch the program on Constitution Daily or at constitutioncenter.org. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and David Stotz, and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Michael Klarman of Harvard Law School and Patrick Spero of the American Philosophical Society reassess the debates that defined the Founding era. This program was presented live at the Constitution Center on November 14, 2016. You can watch the program on Constitution Daily or at constitutioncenter.org. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and David Stotz, and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Journalists and scholars give their take on the Obama presidency. The speakers are Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, Michael Days of The Philadelphia Daily News, David French and Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review, and Michael Gerhardt, scholar-in-residence at the Constitution Center. This program was presented live at the Constitution Center on November 30, 2016, in partnership with the National Review Institute. You can watch the program here on Constitution Daily or at constitutioncenter.org. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and David Stotz, and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Journalists and scholars give their take on the Obama presidency. The speakers are Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, Michael Days of The Philadelphia Daily News, David French and Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review, and Michael Gerhardt, scholar-in-residence at the Constitution Center. This program was presented live at the Constitution Center on November 30, 2016, in partnership with the National Review Institute. You can watch the program here on Constitution Daily or at constitutioncenter.org. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and David Stotz, and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Michael Awkward’s Philadelphia Freedoms captures the disputes over the meanings of racial politics and black identity during the post-King era in the City of Brotherly Love. Looking closely at four cultural moments, he shows how racial trauma and his native city’s history have been entwined. Awkward introduces each of these moments with poignant personal memories of the decade in focus, chronicling the representation of African American freedom and oppression from the 1960s to the 1990s. Philadelphia Freedoms explores NBA players’ psychic pain during a playoff game the day after Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination; themes of fatherhood and black masculinity in the soul music produced by Philadelphia International Records; class conflict in Andrea Lee’s novel Sarah Phillips; and the theme of racial healing in Oprah Winfrey’s 1997 film, Beloved. Awkward closes his examination of racial trauma and black identity with a discussion of candidate Barack Obama’s speech on race at Philadelphia’s Constitution Center, pointing to the conflict between the nation’s ideals and the racial animus that persists even into the second term of America’s first black president. Michael Awkward, Gayl A. Jones Professor of Afro-American Literature and Culture at the University of Michigan, is the author, most recently, of Burying Don Imus: Anatomy of a Scapegoat and Soul Covers: Rhythm and Blues Remakes and the Struggle for Artistic Identity.

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Inspired by senator Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" addressed in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on March 18, 2008, Baruch faculty members and students discuss the race and various issues on April 9, 2008 at the Baruch College Vertical Campus, Room 2-125. Professor Kyra Gaunt, jointed appointed in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Baruch College, moderates the discussion. The event is co-sponsored by Department of Black/Hispanic Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and Center on Equality, Pluralism and Policy, School of Public Affairs. [Part 1: 71 Min.] Opening Remarks - Professor Kyra Gaunt, and Sonia Javis, Distinguished Lecturer, School of Public Affairs; Faculty Speakers: Clarence Taylor, Professor of History Glenn Petersen, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs Johanna Fernandez, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Arthur Lewin, Professor of Black/Hispanic Studies Michel Marriott, Professor of Journalism [Part II: 82 Min.] James McCarthy, Provost and vice President for Academic Affairs; Open Dialog and Discussion

Barack Obama speaks in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on matters not just of race and recent remarks but of the fundamental path by which America can work together to pursue a better future.