POPULARITY
6 episodes with francis college
3 episodes with francis college
3 episodes with francis college
2 episodes with francis college
2 episodes with francis college
2 episodes with francis college
3 episodes with francis college
There is bad luck in New Felicity. The people of the small coastal village have taken in Milagros, an 11-year-old Venezuelan refugee, just as Trinidad's government has begun cracking down on undocumented migrants—and now an American journalist has come to town asking questions.New Felicity's superstitious fishermen fear the worst, certain they've brought bad luck on the village by killing a local witch who had herself murdered two villagers the year before. The town has been plagued since her death by alarming visits from her supernatural mother, as well as by a mysterious profusion of scarlet ibis birds.Skittish that the reporter's story will bring down the wrath of the ministry of national security, the fishermen take things into their own hands. From there, we go backward and forward in time—from the town's early days, when it was the site of a sugar plantation, to Milagros's adulthood as she searches for her mother across the Americas.In between, through the voices of a chorus of narrators, we glimpse moments from various villagers' lives, each one setting into motion events that will reverberate outwards across the novel and shape Milagros's fate.With kinetic, absorbing language and a powerful sense of voice, Ibis meditates on the bond between mothers and daughters, both highlighting the migrant crisis that troubles the contemporary world and offering a moving exploration of how to square where we come from with who we become.Justin Haynes is a novelist and short story writer who was born in Port of Spain and raised just outside of it. He later moved to Brooklyn, NY. He holds degrees from St. Francis College, the University of Notre Dame, and Vanderbilt University.
What happens to older inmates when they are released from prison? Angela Murolo, assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at St. Francis College, takes a look at who is willing to help this population. Angela S. Murolo, PhD is an Assistant Professor at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. She has […]
This is a repost of my episode on MintPress News. Subscribe @MintPressNews for more content like this! Today we are joined by Major General Dennis Laich, US Army Retired - who had a distinguished 35-year career in the Army Reserve. The last 14 of those years were spent in various command positions; most recently as commander of the 94th Regional Readiness Command in Ft. Devens, MA. Laich holds a bachelor's degree in political science from Lafayette College, and Master's degrees from West Virginia University and St. Francis College in business administration and labor relations. He completed post-graduate studies at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and is a graduate of the Army War College. Areas of Expertise * All Volunteer Force (AVF) demographics & tradeoffs * Conscription & national military service * Senior-level military leadership & General Officer Experience * Army Reserve & National Guard force structure & operations * Iraq wars: Persian Gulf to present This episode is on how we cannot solve the recruiting crisis.
Augusta Palmer is a documentary filmmaker and scholar. Her newest film is “The Blues Society”, about the 1960s Memphis Country Blues Festival and the blues revival in Americal. The film won Best Feature Documentary at the Oxford Film Festival. She also directed the short film “Order My Steps” about an incarcerated woman reaching out to her estranged daughter. The film debuted in Rwanda at the Women Deliver Film & Culture Festival. And she's a professor at St. Francis College in NYC.My featured song is my reimagined version of the Skip James classic “I'm So Glad” by my band Project Grand Slam. Spotify link.---------------------------------------------The Follow Your Dream Podcast:Top 1% of all podcasts with Listeners in 200 countries!For more information and other episodes of the podcast click here. To subscribe to the podcast click here .To subscribe to our weekly Follow Your Dream Podcast email click here.To Rate and Review the podcast click here.“Dream With Robert”. Click here.—----------------------------------------“THE GIFT” is Robert's new single featuring his song arranged by Grammy winning arranger Michael Abene. Praised by David Amram, John Helliwell, Joe La Barbera, Tony Carey, Fay Claassen, Antonio Farao, Danny Gottlieb and Leslie Mandoki.Click HERE for all links.—-------------------------------------“LOU'S BLUES” is Robert's recent single. Called “Fantastic! Great playing and production!” (Mark Egan - Pat Metheny Group/Elements) and “Digging it!” (Peter Erskine - Weather Report)!Click HERE for all links.—----------------------------------------“THE RICH ONES”. Robert's recent single. With guest artist Randy Brecker (Blood Sweat & Tears) on flugelhorn. Click HERE for all links.—---------------------------------------“MILES BEHIND”, Robert's debut album, recorded in 1994, was “lost” for the last 30 years. It's now been released for streaming. Featuring Randy Brecker (Blood Sweat & Tears), Anton Fig (The David Letterman Show), Al Foster (Miles Davis), Tim Ries (The Rolling Stones), Jon Lucien and many more. Called “Hip, Tight and Edgy!” Click here for all links.—--------------------------------------“IT'S ALIVE!” is Robert's latest Project Grand Slam album. Featuring 13 of the band's Greatest Hits performed “live” at festivals in Pennsylvania and Serbia.Reviews:"An instant classic!" (Melody Maker)"Amazing record...Another win for the one and only Robert Miller!" (Hollywood Digest)"Close to perfect!" (Pop Icon)"A Masterpiece!" (Big Celebrity Buzz)"Sterling effort!" (Indie Pulse)"Another fusion wonder for Project Grand Slam!" (MobYorkCity)Click here for all links.Click here for song videos—-----------------------------------------Audio production:Jimmy RavenscroftKymera Films Connect with Augusta at:Website - www.thebluessocietyfilm.comInstagram - www.instagram.com/thebluessocietyfilm/Facebook - www.facebook.com/thebluessocietyfilm/ Connect with the Follow Your Dream Podcast:Website - www.followyourdreampodcast.comEmail Robert - robert@followyourdreampodcast.com Follow Robert's band, Project Grand Slam, and his music:Website - www.projectgrandslam.comYouTubeSpotify MusicApple MusicEmail - pgs@projectgrandslam.com
In this episode of Pirate's Eye, we sit down with Brother Gregory Cellini, a Franciscan Brother from Brooklyn whose mission is to embody the Gospel and inspire others to live boldly in God's Love. As the Director of the Office of Mission, Ministry, and Interfaith Dialogue at St. Francis College, Brother Greg is dedicated to fostering a sense of community and purpose in the workplace through his weekly radio show, Thank God For Monday. With a 29-year career in the pharmaceutical industry before joining the Franciscan Order, he brings a unique perspective to the intersection of faith and professional life.
From Siberia to St. Kitts: A Teacher's Journey, A Biography by Ira Sumner SimmondsFollowing the tumultuous and unexpected life of Zenaida Katzen, Simmonds' biography weaves disparate threads from Russia, China, Chile, France, and St. Kitts-Nevis into a vibrant tapestry revealing a surprising and exceptional woman. Stepping outside of the spinster-teacher archetype, Katzen's story is one of a complicated, fiercely independent woman whose decades of unwavering dedication and commitment to the education of children across the globe belie an intriguing, unpredictable and, at times, inexplicable personal life.Ira Sumner Simmonds received a BA in French from St. Francis College, Brooklyn, New York, and M.A. and M.Ed. degrees from Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. After a ten-year stint as House Manager at Alice Tully Hall, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, he spent the next twenty-five years in New York City Public Schools as a teacher, Assistant Principal and Acting Principal. He currently works as an educational consultant in the NYC Metropolitan area. His hobbies include biking, birding, practicing the guitar, writing short stories and family genealogy.https://www.amazon.com/Siberia-St-Kitts-Teachers-Journey/dp/0999872400/ref=sr_1_1?crid=KFQGCXXACVC9&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.N4_fgiXZ946zjJUljzV8T3SUu3OlR9YO2eybu4B8WHet9KwgyDhcAqvsR_im2boxdphUbm140sDxAvkql-ZGU856oXNi6J2FDDpUqgGwHfA.FJNfFhBGO9D73v0BB8jZRf1y-1RZbttSxCzfV9x-aos&dib_tag=se&keywords=From+Siberia+to+St.+Kitts&qid=1723951855&sprefix=from+siberia+to+st.+kitts%2Caps%2C131&sr=8-1https://irasimmonds.com/https://irasimmondsreviews.com/http://www.BookTranceMedia.com http://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/9524issbtr.mp3
Listen to this amazing conversation I had with the one and only Professor Thomas Seyfried regarding cancer and its pathogenesis (which is not genetic or mutational in origin as per his work). I do suggest all in the medical fraternity including oncologists to listen/watch with an open mind and keep their differences at bay. Thomas N. Seyfried (born 1946[1]) is an American professor of biology, genetics, and biochemistry at Boston College. He received his PhD from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 1976. His postdoctoral fellowship studies were in the Department of Neurology at the Yale University School of Medicine where he served as an assistant professor in neurology. He did undergraduate work at the University of New England, formerly St. Francis College, and received a master's degree in genetics from Illinois State University. His research focuses on mechanisms of chronic diseases such as cancer, epilepsy, neurodegenerative lipid storage diseases, and caloric restriction diets.[2] Thomas N. Seyfried has been published in over 150 peer-reviewed publications. You can follow him on his IG - @thomasseyfriedbc All his papers are open access and can be downloaded and read.
Welcome back to another season of LNXdance with your Co-Hosts, Marcus & Mari!Join us as we kick off this season with our first guest, Brianna Rios. We are so thrilled to share Bri's story with you... enjoy! Based out of NYC with a Bachelor's Degree in Education from St. Francis College, and dancing since the age of 4, Brianna has continued to follow her passion through performing, teaching, and competing internationally. At 18 years old, she became the youngest professional World Champion in the Salsa On2 division and now, is a 10x World Champion who's had the opportunity to judge international competitions and even represent the USA in the 2017 World Games held in Poland.Aside from the stage, Brianna can be found on the big screen as a featured dancer in movies such as Shine and Warner Bros.' In The Heights.With an eye for detail and a sense of responsibility to share her talents, Brianna is known for her thorough explanations and teaching style. Her goal is to make a long-lasting impact on her students' dancing. She encourages them to ask for knowledge, not steps. It's common for dancers to forget a choreography, but it's their skills that will last forever.Find Bri on IG: brianna__riosBri's Team on IG: Reflexiones.De.RiosBri's FuegoDance Shoes Code: BriFuego (10% off)Blend NY Article: https://blendnewyork.com/brianna-rios/Comparte el amor with our guest by leaving a comment, and let us know what your favorite part of this chat was. We want to send a big thank you to Brianna Rios for making this Sip & Chat happen and for sharing her story with us!Support the Show.--Brought to you by MotionScoop Dance Corp, LNXdance Podcast is a series of conversations FOR Latinx dancers and educators BY Latinx dancers and educators. Join Mari & Marcus -M&M- as they dive deep into important topics in the dance industry and explore how being part of the Latinx community affects us, our contributions, decisions, and careers. We hope you enjoy our sip and chat, don't forget to subscribe and leave a comment with what you loved, questions and topics for next time! Follow us on our Instagram page LNXdance to interact with our community and with us.For business inquiries and to apply to be a guest, please email motionscoopinfo@gmail.com ¡Adiós! Hosts: Marcus Mantilla-Valentin & Mari VasconezSponsors: MotionScoop Dance Corp.
On this episode, I have David Schreiner on the podcast as we discuss his new book release, Be The Best Part of Their Day. We continue the conversation on how the workplace had faced a huge disruption and we are in a time where people are desiring culture and belonging. We unpack some of the elements that David discusses in his book and emphasize upon why people matter most in our teams and organizations. About David SchreinerMeet Dr. David L. Schreiner, an inspiring and values-driven leader who strives every day to live up to his definition of leadership. For him, being a values-driven leader means living in the moment, continually learning, challenging existing practices, producing positive results, innovating to improve the lives of others, and loving unconditionally. His passion for improving himself, his family, his friends, his community, and the world is unparalleled, and he aims to be a missionary for excellent health and vibrant communities by spreading love through generosity and healing. Dr. Schreiner is a passionate advocate for rural hospitals, having spent most of his life in small towns and working within small communities. His research focuses on improving executive communication. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Dr. Schreiner is an accomplished athlete. He has completed 11 marathons and became an Ironman at Ironman Wisconsin in 2004. His dedication to health and wellness extends beyond his work and is a testament to his commitment to living a well-rounded life. Dr. Schreiner's leadership and contributions to his community have not gone unnoticed. He was the 2007 Dixon, Illinois Citizen of the Year and received the 2022 Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of St. Francis College of Business. He is a past member of the Board of Governors of The American College of Healthcare Executives and the past American Hospital Association Rural Health Task Force Chairman. Dr. Schreiner's positive outlook, enthusiasm, and sincerity are evident in everything he does. He is truly passionate about making a difference in the world and improving the lives of others. His dedication to his values and his work is an inspiration to all who know him. MORE FROM HOSTS OF THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP PODCAST:Get weekly add-value content and inspiration to your inbox: https://shorturl.at/tAJV3Looking for leadership development training and coaching for yourself, your team, or organization? TC Advisory Group empowering individuals and organizations with the skills and knowledge they need to thrive in today's competitive landscape. Transform your leadership, transform your organization with TC Advisory Group through customized leadership training, mastermind groups, and on-demand leadership courses. Learn more on our website at https://tcadvisorygroup.com/CONNECT WITH TC ADVISORY GROUP:Website: https://tcadvisorygroup.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tcadvisorygroup1Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thetcadvisorygroup/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tc-advisory-group1/FOLLOW THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP PODCAST ON SOCIAL MEDIAFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/theexecutiveleadershippodcast/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theexecutiveleadershippodcast/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/the-executive-leadership-podcast/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In Digital Islamophobia: Tracking a Far-Right Crisis (De Gruyter, 2023), Emily Lynell Edwards explores this virtual and vicious threat, analyzing how these networks grow, develop, and circulate Islamophobic hate-speech on Twitter. Edwards details how far-right discourse is not merely national, or even transatlantic, but increasingly transnationalized among American, German, as well as Indian and Nigerian digital networks. By tracking and tracing the contours of these far-right digital communities on Twitter and analyzing the content of their conversations, Digital Islamophobia provides policy-makers, researchers, and scholars with a potential road-map to stop them. Emily Lynell Edwards is an Assistant Professor of Digital Humanities and Educational Technologist at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In Digital Islamophobia: Tracking a Far-Right Crisis (De Gruyter, 2023), Emily Lynell Edwards explores this virtual and vicious threat, analyzing how these networks grow, develop, and circulate Islamophobic hate-speech on Twitter. Edwards details how far-right discourse is not merely national, or even transatlantic, but increasingly transnationalized among American, German, as well as Indian and Nigerian digital networks. By tracking and tracing the contours of these far-right digital communities on Twitter and analyzing the content of their conversations, Digital Islamophobia provides policy-makers, researchers, and scholars with a potential road-map to stop them. Emily Lynell Edwards is an Assistant Professor of Digital Humanities and Educational Technologist at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/islamic-studies
In Digital Islamophobia: Tracking a Far-Right Crisis (De Gruyter, 2023), Emily Lynell Edwards explores this virtual and vicious threat, analyzing how these networks grow, develop, and circulate Islamophobic hate-speech on Twitter. Edwards details how far-right discourse is not merely national, or even transatlantic, but increasingly transnationalized among American, German, as well as Indian and Nigerian digital networks. By tracking and tracing the contours of these far-right digital communities on Twitter and analyzing the content of their conversations, Digital Islamophobia provides policy-makers, researchers, and scholars with a potential road-map to stop them. Emily Lynell Edwards is an Assistant Professor of Digital Humanities and Educational Technologist at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology
In Digital Islamophobia: Tracking a Far-Right Crisis (De Gruyter, 2023), Emily Lynell Edwards explores this virtual and vicious threat, analyzing how these networks grow, develop, and circulate Islamophobic hate-speech on Twitter. Edwards details how far-right discourse is not merely national, or even transatlantic, but increasingly transnationalized among American, German, as well as Indian and Nigerian digital networks. By tracking and tracing the contours of these far-right digital communities on Twitter and analyzing the content of their conversations, Digital Islamophobia provides policy-makers, researchers, and scholars with a potential road-map to stop them. Emily Lynell Edwards is an Assistant Professor of Digital Humanities and Educational Technologist at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable. Emily Horowitz is professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable. Emily Horowitz is professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable. Emily Horowitz is professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable. Emily Horowitz is professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable. Emily Horowitz is professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable. Emily Horowitz is professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable. Emily Horowitz is professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
On Episode 356 of The No Limits Selling Podcast, we have Louis Belisario, Jan Crowley, and Jon Goodell. Lou is a licensed Associate Real Estate Broker. Throughout his over 12 years in the business, Lou Belisario has stood atop the real estate ranks thanks to equal parts hard work and innate skill. Coming from a real estate family, Lou knew early on the profession was his destiny. He pursued his license while still in college and earned his Associate Broker designation just three years later. He was named 'Rookie of the Year' and has remained a top producer ever since. More than a broker, Lou excels in sales management and has overseen and mentored dozens of agents. He has personally closed hundreds of transactions totaling a quarter-billion dollars, and he's assisted with hundreds more. A dedicated leader, clients rave about Lou's responsiveness, transparency, and fierce negotiation skills. Born and raised in Marine Park, he's a proud Brooklynite through and through. He's honored to be part of Brooklyn's evolution, and he's a home in every single neighborhood in the borough. Lou holds a bachelor's degree in communications from St. Francis College. Today, he resides in Belle Harbor with his wife and their pit bull Luca. In their free time, the couple loves the beach, sports, great food, and enjoying the life they've built together. Jan Crowley is a solo agent, located just outside of DC. She's technically in Maryland. She has been selling for 10 years. She mostly does veterans and buyers, but she coaches agents as well. Then we have Jon Goodell. The leader and builder of companies. Background in behavioral science with a focus on learning and motivation. He specializes in Performance Improvement and Leadership Development habits that create long-term success. He has a strong aptitude for logistical and organizational effectiveness as well as communication and interpersonal skills. Jon possesses years of experience in sales marketing and management. Find Louis Belisario: Website Find Jan Crowley: Website, LinkedIn Find Jon Goodell: Website, LinkedIn [EDITOR'S NOTE: This podcast is sponsored by No Limits Selling. It is a fun, fast-paced podcast that delivers hard-fought business advice that you can implement today to improve your sales and performance] Interested In Our Real Estate Coaching Services? Explore Our Website: Link Feeling Not Well Today? You Can Use Our Mindset Boosters App To amp Up Your Mood: Link Find us on Social Media: LinkedIn | Facebook community | Instagram Like what do you listen to? Subscribe to our podcast! Ready to become fearless? We can help you become fearless in 60 days so you accomplish more in your career Schedule A 15 min Call with Umar
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biblical-studies
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies
In his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2023), J. Christopher Edwards explores the early Christian teachings regarding who actually killed Jesus. Historians of early Christianity unanimously agree that Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers. This consensus extends to members of the general population who have seen a Jesus movie or an Easter play and remember Roman soldiers hammering the nails. However, for early Christians, the detail that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of a Roman governor threatened their desire for a stable existence in the Roman world. Beginning with the writings found in the New Testament, early Christians sought to rewrite their history and shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilate and his soldiers and onto Jews. During the second century, a narrative of the crucifixion with Jewish executioners predominated. During the fourth century, this narrative functioned to encourage anti-Judaism within the newly established Christian empire. Yet, in the modern world, there exists a significant degree of ignorance regarding the pervasiveness--or sometimes even the existence!--of the claim among ancient Christians that Jesus was executed by Jews. J. Christopher Edwards is professor of religious studies at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies at Hunter College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
A conversation with the Associate Professor and Chair of Communication Arts at St. Francis College in Brooklyn and filmmaker - Dr. Augusta Palmer - who recently premiered her film about Memphis Country Blues Festivals in the 1960's called "The Blues Society" - www.thebluessocietyfilm.com
In this episode we're joined by Dr. J. Christopher Edwards, who is Professor of Religious Studies at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New York, to talk about his new book, Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus (published by Fortress Press). The present conversation addresses a very difficult topic, but an important one, about how early Christians came to blame the execution of Jesus on the Jewish people. Dr. Edwards traces this history, arguing that it is a wrongheaded and lamentable part of the Christian tradition that needs to be understood but also vigorously rejected. Team members on the episode from The Two Cities include: Dr. John Anthony Dunne.
ABU starts off their 2nd season HOT with one of the original founders of SFC Radio and current Admissions Counselor at St. Francis College, Vann Brewer!
How does society treat people based on their criminal conviction history and how can we better understand the unique experiences of people who are convicted of sexual offenses? Why, in an age where second chances and demands to reduce mass incarceration have become mainstream, are people with these convictions often excluded from reform and relief efforts? In this episode of Amplified Voices, Jason and Amber speak with Emily Horowitz, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College, ahead of the release of her new book: From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Offense Laws Based on Facts Not Fear. During this conversation, Professor Horowitz details her own personal and professional journey, along with powerful stories from the years she spent interviewing people impacted by the registry. The discussion reveals a deep empathy that comes from being in close proximity to people who are experiencing banishment and stigma, as well as an exploration of how laws based on vengeance rather than justice or evidence create new forms of harm while failing to address the real and pervasive problem of sexual violence. About Emily Horowitz, PhDProfessor Emily Horowitz teaches courses in sociology at St. Francis College. She is the founder and co-director of the Justice Initiative. Her scholarly research addresses the causes and consequences of mass incarceration, with a focus on the harms of conviction registries and banishment laws.Her latest book, From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), explores the human carnage wrought by decades of draconian and fear-based sex offense policies. She is also the author of Protecting Our Kids?: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us (Praeger, 2015), which was awarded a 2016 Choice Outstanding Academic Title by the American Library Association, and co-editor, with Law Professor Larry Dubin, of Caught in the Web of the Criminal Justice System: Autism, Developmental Disabilities and Sex Offenses.Professor Horowitz frequently engages in advocacy efforts and public scholarship aimed at challenging myths and misinformation that lead to ineffective and draconian laws. Select recent news publications and media include The Real Monsters (a 2022 essay in Inquest: A Decarceral Brainstorm), a Reason article about the man wrongfully convicted of raping prominent author Alice Sebold (2021), a NY Daily News editorial about the Supreme Court hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (2022), and participation in an Intelligence Squared podcast (2023) debating the sex offense registry.Support the show
This week Martin Bester invited primary schools in Gauteng to take part in our Morning Family Quiz.
(January 10, 2023) Caroline Hagood is an Assistant Professor of Literature, Writing and Publishing and Director of Undergraduate Writing at St. Francis College in Brooklyn. She is the author of the poetry books, Lunatic Speaks and Making Maxine's Baby, the book-length essay, Ways of Looking at a Woman, the novel, Ghosts of America, a book-length essay Weird Girls, and her novel Filthy Creation is forthcoming in March 2023. Her work has appeared in publications including Creative Nonfiction, LitHub, the Kenyon Review, Hanging Loose, the Huffington Post, the Guardian, Salon, and Elle. Caroline lives in Brooklyn and has two kids ages 6 and 9. She describes writer-motherhood in 3 words as: hybrid effing monster.Writer Mother Monster is a conversation series devoted to dismantling the myth of having it all and offering writer-moms solidarity, support, and advice. Each episode is streamed live on Facebook and YouTube, then archived as an audio podcast. www.writermothermonster.comSupport the showIf you appreciate what you hear, consider becoming a patron/ess of Writer Mother Monster. Depending upon your level of support, you can tell me who you want to hear and topics you'd like to hear about, send me questions for guests in advance of interviews, receive a letter of thanks, a signed book–and more! Thank you for contributing to WMM's sustainability. www.writermothermonster.com/donate/
Quantum Quote: “Passion and commitment. You got to be passionate about what you do and committed to accomplish what you're passionate about. That's how I live my life.” – Donovan Gordon How can we save money and help create a better future by transitioning from heating our buildings with fossil fuels to heating and cooling with clean and renewable resources? When we say that we're going to heat and cool our buildings from the earth, more often than not, people scratch their heads and question how it's possible to get 72 degrees from dirt. By running pipes into the ground and transferring the “heat beneath our feet” into our homes and other buildings, we can capture the constant temperature of the earth and use that ~50 degrees as the starting temperature to heat or cool. Then, using the same type of heat pump technologies as today's refrigerators and air conditioners to cool or heat. When we maximize the use of geothermal pipes, we improve comfort and reduce energy costs for almost seven generations. Imagine investing in a heating & cooling system that ensures that your kids and grandkids will have a safe, clean, efficient, and lost-cost heating, cooling and hot water system. Not only are you saving money, but you're also being part of creating a sustainable world. One-third of New York State's carbon emissions come from the heating systems of our buildings. Join us as we bring all the levers that we have to reach our carbon reduction goals of 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050. Donovan Gordon is the Director of Renewable Heating & Cooling at New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA). He leads New York State's efforts to develop markets that support clean, high-efficiency, renewable thermal systems, while conceptualizing, driving and implementing a portfolio of products to encourage and enable customers and partners to invest in low-carbon clean heating and cooling systems and with advancing New York's progress toward self-sustained markets. Donovan has a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from St. Francis College, and a Master in Business Administration from NYU, Stern School of Business. He is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) accredited Green Associate, and an International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA) accredited Geothermal Installer. Sign up for afree webclass to discover how easy is it to get ultra-efficient geothermal heating and cooling installed in your home – without the pain of emptying your savings account. In “The Power Of Earth With Comfort” From Climate Master webclass, you'll discover the answers every homeowner needs to know, including: How geothermal heating and cooling can draw energy from the ground beneath our feet (for pennies) Why homeowners everywhere are making the switch The secrets to securing utility incentives and tax credits to pay for a large portion of your new geothermal system and much more… If you are tired of rising energy costs and want to save up to 70% on your energy bills, Go towww.AWESomeEarthKind.com and register now for this FREE special event that will show you exactly how to get geothermal heating and cooling installed in your home. We'd like to hear from you! Please help us understand how AWESomeEarthKind can help you achieve your clean energy goals – and you'll automatically be entered into a Sweepstakes for a Free LED Light Fixture: SEND YOUR FEEDBACK TODAY SuperNova #1. It works; this thing works. In geothermal, it's nothing new. Once you go down five to 10 feet, the temperature stays constant. It's a technology that is not a technology per se in that we're not inventing some gadget; we're just tapping into a natural resource that's there for the long haul and using it… We really need to do some education, but also, we need to reach a critical mass where it becomes common… We need to show the value to the homeowner of installing these types of technologies for their comfort, but also for the return and value that they can bring to their home. SuperNova #2. Take a look at this because geothermal is going to be around. People need to heat their buildings. And again, with climate change, they're going to need to cool their buildings as well, too. Right now, it's separated. You heat with fossil fuels in furnaces; you cool it with air conditioning that uses electricity. Now, this is an all-in-one system that provides heating, cooling, and domestic hot water. Every home needs one. Be part of that shift. You're helping your own future; this is for you. SuperNova #3. For anyone looking to install it, if you can, I would highly recommend that you do home energy efficiency, maintain your envelope insulation to reduce your thermal load, thereby reducing the size of the system that you need to put in. And if your load is lower, you use less energy and carbon. Because electricity is still going to be a while before it is 100% renewable, that also reduces the carbon footprint. Less is more in this case. Efficiency is the name of the game. Efficient buildings and efficient appliances, meaning heat pumps. Most Energized About Today: “That I'm the guy leading up for New York State. I'm humbled and honored that I'm in this position, and I'm going to give it my all. Again, I'm passionate and committed.” – Donovan Gordon Connect: LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/donovangordon/
In celebration of the Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi (October 4) and National Hispanic Heritage Month, Dr. Miguel Martinez-Saenz - President of St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY - discusses being President of a Franciscan College and his Hispanic Heritage
Dr. Frank M. Sorrentino has served as Chairman of the Department of History, Political Science and Social Studies at St. Francis College in New York, where he has taught for over thirty years. He's also a well-respected author; his latest release is "Presidential Power and the American Political System". As well, he writes a regular blog, searchable on his website, where he discusses current political and historical trends. He joins us to talk about voting, ahead of Tuesday's all-important midterms. www.drfrankmsorrentino.com
Camden Owen Yacobucci, better known as "Yacobucci." He is an American musician born and raised in Akron, Ohio but currently based in Los Angeles, California. He started recording his music at 17 and released his first mixtape, "Strong Static," under his previous stage name, "Lil Yac." He was inspired when it came to music. It did something he could never explain. Yaco couldn't just listen to it; he needed to create it. In high school, he always tried to surround himself with music, so he joined the marching band and played the trombone. He could never really get into the songs they played; he got some affordable studio equipment and learned how to make his own. Soon after, he moved to Brooklyn, New York, to study Criminal Justice at St. Francis College. After classes, He would perform and record new music in his dorm room. Cam felt like an outcast at school and didn't talk to anyone. He often spent his time street performing in front of thousands of strangers in Times Square, underground subways, The Brooklyn Bridge, etc. This made his stage presence better, soon started performing in small venues. He decided to drop out of college after his first semester in 2018 to pursue his dream of music. Then he moved to Los Angeles to take his career to the next level. And pushes himself every day to make the best music possible and never considers quitting an option. With this mindset, he soon could see progress in his music career. He always tells people to embarrass who they are. Embrace the weird because that makes us unique. Now he has to make a career out of it!
Licensed professional counselors Johanna Dwinells and Sarah Bryski-Hamrick are slowly demystifying and destigmatizing therapy, one episode at a time. Recording and living in the Philadelphia area, Johanna and Sarah work to make therapy feel more accessible, with quirky, sometimes intrusive questions that reveal the human side of healthcare professionals, all while they overcome their own anxieties and internalized stigmas. TW: Episode summary: Johanna explores bathrooms. Sarah picks leaves. They both discuss the possibilities of becoming a cheesemonger and the history of college mental health. Guest, Yuliya Golubev, talks about working with the college population and so much more!Guest Bio: Yuliya Golubev is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in the state of New York. She is a seasoned bilingual-bicultural psychotherapist who has been seeing clients for over 14 years. She has been running her private practice since 2017. Prior to starting her private practice, Yuliya worked with a diverse set of clients in a variety of clinical settings: college counseling, outpatient substance abuse program, crisis call center, and hospitals. Yuliya also provided a spectrum of clinical services: individual, group, family therapies, crisis intervention, and supervision. Yuliya is passionate about professional advocacy and teaching. She served one term as the Professional Development Chair and Vice President for the NYC Chapter of the New York Mental Health Counseling Association. Yuliya is a part-time adjunct Professor at St. Francis College. She teaches undergraduate classes of General Psychology and Child and Adolescent Developmental.Yuliya also enjoys volunteering to decrease the stigma of mental health. Yuliya lives with her family in Brooklyn. When not in the office, she enjoys discovering new hiking trails, strolling NYC neighborhoods, going to the theater, and trying new recipes.Resources: Abortion Resources; “Don't hesitate to reach out to [college] counseling centers”; Yuliya's WebsiteQuestions/comments/concerns? Want to be interviewed on TND podcast? Email us at therapistsnextdoor@gmail.com, or visit our instagram @tndpod!Follow us: IG: @tndpodTwitter: @tndpod1Do you want bonus features, including early episodes, the ability to vote on what questions we ask our guests and so much more? Do you want to help support us as we demystify and destigmatize mental health? Visit our Patreon: patreon.com/tndpodcastOr visit our website: Tndpodcast.comWhere can you find Sarah and Johanna:Sarah: website; blog; etsy shop; instagramJohanna: website; instagram
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Licensed professional counselors Johanna Dwinells and Sarah Bryski-Hamrick are slowly demystifying and destigmatizing therapy, one episode at a time. Recording and living in the Philadelphia area, Johanna and Sarah work to make therapy feel more accessible, with quirky, sometimes intrusive questions that reveal the human side of healthcare professionals, all while they overcome their own anxieties and internalized stigmas. TW: Episode summary: Johanna explores bathrooms. Sarah picks leaves. They both discuss the possibilities of becoming a cheesemonger and the history of college mental health. Guest, Yuliya Golubev, talks about working with the college population and so much more!Guest Bio: Yuliya Golubev is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in the state of New York. She is a seasoned bilingual-bicultural psychotherapist who has been seeing clients for over 14 years. She has been running her private practice since 2017. Prior to starting her private practice, Yuliya worked with a diverse set of clients in a variety of clinical settings: college counseling, outpatient substance abuse program, crisis call center, and hospitals. Yuliya also provided a spectrum of clinical services: individual, group, family therapies, crisis intervention, and supervision. Yuliya is passionate about professional advocacy and teaching. She served one term as the Professional Development Chair and Vice President for the NYC Chapter of the New York Mental Health Counseling Association. Yuliya is a part-time adjunct Professor at St. Francis College. She teaches undergraduate classes of General Psychology and Child and Adolescent Developmental.Yuliya also enjoys volunteering to decrease the stigma of mental health. Yuliya lives with her family in Brooklyn. When not in the office, she enjoys discovering new hiking trails, strolling NYC neighborhoods, going to the theater, and trying new recipes.Resources: Abortion Resources; “Don't hesitate to reach out to [college] counseling centers”; Yuliya's WebsiteQuestions/comments/concerns? Want to be interviewed on TND podcast? Email us at therapistsnextdoor@gmail.com, or visit our instagram @tndpod!Follow us: IG: @tndpodTwitter: @tndpod1Do you want bonus features, including early episodes, the ability to vote on what questions we ask our guests and so much more? Do you want to help support us as we demystify and destigmatize mental health? Visit our Patreon: patreon.com/tndpodcastOr visit our website: Tndpodcast.comWhere can you find Sarah and Johanna:Sarah: website; blog; etsy shop; instagramJohanna: website; instagram
Scholar, author, and editor Gregory F. Tague, Ph.D. (1998), New York University, was a Professor in the departments of Literature, Writing and Publishing / Interdisciplinary Studies and founder and senior developer of The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative at St. Francis College, N.Y. He was also the founder and organizer of a number of Darwin-inspired Moral Sense Colloquia and other multidisciplinary events. Books include: The Vegan Evolution: Transforming Diets and Agriculture (2022); An Ape Ethic and the Question of Personhood (2020); Art and Adaptability: Consciousness and Cognitive Culture (2018); Evolution and Human Culture (2016); and Making Mind: Moral Sense and Consciousness (2014). In book series or journals, Tague's published work in evolutionary studies spans disciplines across literature, material culture and visual art, moral philosophy, law, science, and paleoanthropology. Professor Tague has also written or edited nine other academic books or literary anthologies, including Character and Consciousness (2005), Origins of English Dramatic Modernism (2010), and Puzzles of Faith and Patterns of Doubt (2013). He is the founding editor of the peer-reviewed ASEBL Journal, now a website (ethics/arts/evolution), and is general editor of the Bibliotekos literary site and Literary Veganism: An Online Journal. Links mentioned in the podcast: The Vegan Evolution Literary Veganism
On the 193rd episode of You Know I'm Right, Nick Durst and Joe Calabrese are joined by Staten Island FerryHawks Executive Vice President/General Manager Gary Perone for an exclusive interview to discuss: - Rickey Henderson ruining his day when he was 12 - Brooklyn guy born and raised before moving to Staten Island as an adult. Favorite places to eat growing up? - Went to St. Francis College. What did he study? - Working for the MTA - Brooklyn Cyclones launch in 2000 and he joins the team as Director of Community Relations Marketing/Sales. How did that come about? - Working from 2004 - 2006 as the Assistant General Manager of the Staten Island Yankees - 2007 return to the Cyclones and coming up with great promotions - 2007 become an Associate Professional Scout for the Mets - 2014 became Adjunct professor at LIU Brooklyn - Founded the Borough Cup - Relationship with John Franco and former You Know I'm Right guest Craig Carton - November 2021 became the Executive VP and GM of the FerryHawks. How did it happen? - NY1's Shannan Ferry believing she should be the FerryHawks mascot - What future events could we see at the SIUH Community Park? - You Know I'm Right moment
Brother Greg sits down with April Barton - Mental Health Counselor, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY - and Meaghan Davis - Director of the First-Year Experience, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY - provide perspective on the challenges of LGBTQ+ humans in the workplace and tips for celebrating Pride Month.
Brother Greg sits down with Karen Fox - Executive Assistant for Student Affairs & Student Engagement Specialist, the Division of Student Affairs at St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY - shares her perspective regarding what makes an effective Administrative Professional.
Eat the 80s is the number one spot all things eighties on SFC Radio, the official station of St. Francis College. Hosted by Edoardo Giribaldi and Laik J Green (host of Rockshow: SFCs Spot for Rock), the clocks are turned back forty years for an in depth discussion of the decade. Various albums, artists, and popular culture themes from the decade of glam and excess are showcased. Tune in to take a trip back in time, and to learn all about a decade like no other!
Today's guest is Injury Rehabilitation and Prevention Specialist Dorota Lewandowski. Dorota takes us through her mission & love for expanding others potential through recovery and movement. Dorota has a Master's of Science in Kinesiology, concentrated in Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation from CUNY Brooklyn College, a Double Bachelors of Science in Biology and Physical Education from St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY, and an Associate Degree of Applied Science in Polysomnography from Oregon Institute of Technology. She is a certified Exercise Physiologist through the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and is a board certified Polysomnographic Technologist, or Sleep Disorder Specialist.In this episode she takes us through her own injury recovery journey of breaking her neck while surfing. She shares with us how this experience has allowed her to develop an emotional understanding of recovery and rehabilitation to integrate with her intellectual understanding of it. She goes on to share how she was able to extrapolate her experience and apply it both to the rehabilitation and preventative work she does with her clients. We move on to discuss to the mental, emotional, & spiritual side of recovering from an injury to the benefits non-athletes experience from applying preventative, recovery and movement practices to their regime, the importance of social support, and the heart and soul she pours into her clients to facilitate their journey towards their highest health potential. https://linktr.ee/Plateau2peak@plateau2peak
The U.S. is experiencing an inflation rate of almost 8%, the highest it's been in 40 years. The cost of just about everything is going up, up and up. To rein in inflation, the Federal Reserve plans to steadily increase interest rates over the coming year. To help us better understand what the Federal Reserve is, why it's doing what it's doing and who the winners and losers, Paddy Quick joins us. Quick is a retired professor of economic at St. Francis College in New York, a member of the Union of Radical Political Economists and a contributing writer for The Indypendent. Her latest piece, is titled “Get Ready for a Government-Engineered Increase in Unemployment." Read it here: https://indypendent.org/2022/03/get-ready-for-a-government-engineered-increase-in-unemployment/
The story of the late Kalief Browder helped inspire the movement to dramatically reduce the use of cash bail for people charged with crime. In 2010, Kalief was thrown into Rikers for allegedly stealing a backpack at the age of 16. He refused to take a guilty plea and was held there for 3 years awaiting a trial. His case was eventually dismissed. But, he was so traumatized by his experience at Rikers that he took his own life after he was released. His older brother, Akeem Browder, has committed his life to incarceration reform from Rikers to Albany. Akeem is the founder of the Kalief Browder Foundation, which operates a youth program in the penal colony. The foundation also helps to organize city and state-wide campaigns for criminal justice reform and played a key role in winning a historic bail reform law in 2019. Akeem talks to us about what Rikers is like today and what Governor Kathy Hochul's last-minute plan to gut some of New York's landmark criminal-justice reforms. There's not a lot of justice in our criminal justice system. And when it does come, it is often years in the making. In 2015, Saul Robles was convicted of killing Alex Santiago during a 20-person brawl that took place in Park Slope, Brooklyn. In 2019, an appeals court overturned the conviction finding numerous faults with how the Brooklyn DA's office handled the case. Earlier this week, the DA's office finally announced it would not try to retry Robles. The Indypendent's Ted Hamm has been following this case closely and updates us on the recent good news. The U.S. is experiencing an inflation rate of almost 8%, the highest it's been in 40 years. The cost of just about everything is going up, up and up. To rein in inflation, the Federal Reserve plans to steadily increase interest rates over the coming year. To help us better understand what the Federal Reserve is, why it's doing what it's doing and who the winners and losers, Paddy Quick joins us. Quick is a retired professor of economic at St. Francis College in New York, a member of the Union of Radical Political Economists and a contributing writer for The Indypendent. Her latest piece, is titled “Get Ready for a Government-Engineered Increase in Unemployment." Read it here: indypendent.org/2022/03/get-ready…-in-unemployment/
On this episode of Knowing Animals, we speak to Professor Gregory Tague, who is Professor in the Department of Literature, Writing and Publishing and the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies at St. Francis College, New York. He is the author or editor of over a dozen books, as well as the editor of both Literary Veganism: An Online Journal and ASEBL Journal. We talk about his monograph An Ape Ethic and the Question of Personhood, which was published by Lexington Books in 2020. You can learn more about Gregory at https://sites.google.com/site/gftague/, and you can explore the Animals, Climate Change and Global Health webinar series mentioned in the episode at https://animalsclimatehealth.com/. This episode is brought to you by the Australasian Animal Studies Assocation, which you can join today, and the Animal Publics book series from Sydney University Press. You can learn more about AASA at https://animalstudies.org.au/, and about Animal Publics at https://sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/collections/series-animal-publics.
He will be inducted this year into the St. Ignatius Athletics Hall of Fame. For 20 years he has run a basketball camp in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and has coached both basketball and track at two different high schools, plus he also coached AAU basketball. As a student-athlete he had played basketball on a full athletic scholarship at St. Francis College of Pennsylvania, which followed a high school career during which he was a four-year letterman in track and three-year letterman in basketball. Prior to his senior season of basketball, he was selected as one of the top players in Ohio by USA Today. Last year he published a book called, "A Penny's Thoughts: Sometimes All You Need is a Change of Perspective."
Tedrick Wilcox Jr. joins the show. Tedrick talks about he experience he having living out one of his dreams playing division 1 basketball, what it has been like to play against Wisconsin, Penn State, St John's, coming home to RI to play Bryant and face up against a friend, how to be a part of the Bake Team and much more! Find out more at https://the-rhody-runback.pinecast.co
Tristan Smith is the Founder of Fit Lab USA in Mansfield, Texas. Fit Lab USA provides athletic development training for athletes in multiple sports and at all levels. Tristan is a former college & pro basketball player who grew up in Amityville, New York. Tristan played his high school basketball for Jack Agostino at Amityville (NY) High School where he was a two-time New York Public School State Champion, a McDonald's Top 100 High School All-American, and the Suffolk County Player of the Year in 2001. Smith played his first two seasons of college basketball at St. John's before transferring to St. Francis College where he finished his career. Tristan later played professional basketball in Uruguay, the ABA, and the USBL. If you're looking to improve your coaching please consider joining the Hoop Heads Mentorship Program. We believe that having a mentor is the best way to maximize your potential and become a transformational coach. By matching you up with one of our experienced mentors you'll develop a one on one relationship that will help your coaching, your team, your program, and your mindset. The Hoop Heads Mentorship Program delivers mentoring services to basketball coaches at all levels through our team of experienced Head Coaches. Find out more at hoopheadspod.com or shoot me an email directly mike@hoopheadspod.com Follow us on social media @hoopheadspod on Twitter and Instagram and be sure to check out the Hoop Heads Podcast Network for more great basketball content. Take some notes while you listen to this episode with Tristan Smith, Founder of Fit Lab USA in Mansfield, Texas. Website - https://thefitlabusa.com/ (https://thefitlabusa.com/) Email - mrtristansmith83@gmail.com Twitter - http://twitter.com/fitlabusa (@fitlabusa) Visit our Sponsors! https://www.drdishbasketball.com/ (Dr. Dish Basketball) Mention the Hoop Heads Podcast when you place your order and get $300 off a brand new state of the art Dr. Dish Shooting Machine! http://www.fastmodelsports.com/ (Fast Model Sports) Use Code HHP15 to get 15% off the number one play diagramming software for coaches. https://www.qwikcut.com/basketball/ (QwikCut) QwikCut is all cloud-based, and comes packed with features to help high schools and youth programs - STORE, SHARE, and ANALYZE game film. Make the switch, get double the storage, and save your program up to 50% on the fastest-growing video editing system in the country. Twitter Podcast - https://twitter.com/hoopheadspod (@hoopheadspod) Mike - https://twitter.com/hdstarthoops (@hdstarthoops) Jason - https://twitter.com/jsunkle (@jsunkle) Network - https://twitter.com/HoopHeadsPodNet (@HoopHeadsPodNet) Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hoopheadspod/ (@hoopheadspod) Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hoopheadspod/ (https://www.facebook.com/hoopheadspod/) YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDoVTtvpgwwOVL4QVswqMLQ (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDoVTtvpgwwOVL4QVswqMLQ) Support this podcast
Adam Segal, Ira A. Lipman chair in emerging technologies and national security and director of the Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program at CFR, leads a conversation on cyberspace and U.S.-China relations. FASKIANOS: Welcome to the first session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Adam Segal with us to discuss cyberspace and U.S.-China relations. Adam Segal is CFR's Ira A. Lipman chair in emerging technologies and national security and director of the Council's Digital and Cyberspace Policy program. Previously, he served as an arms control analyst for the China Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He has been a visiting scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, MIT's Center for International Studies, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, and Tsinghua University in Beijing. And he's taught courses at Vassar College and Columbia University. Dr. Segal currently writes for the CFR blog, Net Politics—you should all sign up for those alerts, if you haven't already. And he is the author several books, including his latest, The Hacked World Order: How Nations Fight, Trade, Maneuver, and Manipulate in the Digital Age. So, Adam, thanks very much for being with us. We can begin with a very broad brush at cyberspace, the role cyberspace plays in U.S.-China relations, and have you make a few comments on the salient points. And then we'll open it up to the group for questions. SEGAL: Great. Irina, thanks very much. And thanks, everyone, for joining us this afternoon. I'm looking forward to the questions and the discussion. So broadly, I'm going to argue that the U.S. and China have the most far-reaching competition in cyberspace of any countries. And that competition goes all the way from the chip level to the rules of the road. So global governance all the way down the to the chips that we have in all of our phones. Coincidentally, and nicely timed, last week the Washington Post did a survey of their network of cyber experts about who was the greater threat to the United States, China or Russia. And it was actually almost exactly evenly split—forty to thirty-nine. But I, not surprisingly, fell into the China school. And my thinking is caught very nicely by a quote from Rob Joyce, who's a director at the National Security Agency, that Russia is like a hurricane while China is like climate change. So Russia causes sudden, kind of unpredictable damage. But China represents a long-term strategic threat. When we think about cyberspace, I think it's good to think about why it matters to both sides. And on the Chinese side, I think there are four primary concerns. The first is domestic stability, right? So China is worried that the outside internet will influence domestic stability and regime legitimacy. And so that's why it's built an incredibly sophisticated system for controlling information inside of China that relies both on technology, and intermediate liability, and other types of regulation. China is worried about technological dependence on other players, in particular the U.S., for semiconductors, network equipment, and other technologies. And they see cybersecurity as a way of reducing that technology. China has legitimate cybersecurity concerns like every other country. They're worried about attacks on their networks. And the Snowden revelations from the—Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor—show that the U.S. has significant cyber capabilities, and it has attacked and exploited vulnerabilities inside of China. And while the Chinese might have used to think that they were less vulnerable to cyberattacks given the shape of the Chinese network in the past, I think that probably changed around 2014-2015, especially as the Chinese economy has become increasingly dependent on ecommerce and digital technology. It's now—GDP is about a third dependent on digital technology. So they're worried about the same types of attacks the United States is worried about. And then, fourth and finally, China does not want the United States to be able to kind of define the rules of the road globally on cyber, create containing alliances around digital or cyber issues, and wants to constrain the ability of the U.S. to freely maneuver in cyberspace. Those are China's views. The U.S. has stated that it's working for a free, open, global, and interoperable internet, or an interoperable cyberspace. But when it looks at China, it has a number of specific concerns. The first is Chinese cyber operations, in particular Chinese espionage, and in particular from that Chinese industrial espionage, right? So the Chinese are known for being the most prolific operators, stealing intellectual property. But they're also hacking into political networks, going after think tanks, hacking activists—Uighur activists, Tibetan activists, Taiwanese independence activists. We know they're entering into networks to prepare the battlefield, right, so to map critical infrastructure in case there is a kinetic conflict with the United States—perhaps in the South China Sea or over the Taiwan Strait—and they want to be able to deter the U.S., or perhaps cause destructive attacks on the U.S. homeland, or U.S. bases in South Korea, or Japan. The U.S. is also extremely concerned about the global expansion of Chinese tech firms and Chinese platforms, for the collection of data, right? The U.S. exploited the globalization of U.S. tech firms. Again, that was something that we learned from the Snowden documents, that the U.S. both had legal and extralegal measures to be able to get data from users all around the world because of their knowledge of and relationship to U.S. tech firms. And there's no reason to believe that the Chinese will not do the same. Now, we hear a lot about, you know, Huawei and the national intelligence law in China that seems to require Chinese companies to turnover data. But it would be very hard to believe that the Chinese would not want to do the same thing that the U.S. has done, which is exploit these tech platforms. And then finally, there is increasingly a framing of this debate as one over values or ideology, right? That democracies use cybertechnologies or digital technologies in a different way than China does. China's promoting digital authoritarianism, that has to do about control of information as well as surveillance. And the U.S. has really pushed back and said, you know, democracies have to describe how we're going to use these technologies. Now, the competition has played itself out both domestically and internationally. The Chinese have been incredibly active domestically. Xi Jinping declared that cybersecurity was national security. He took control of a small leadership group that became a separate commission. The Cyberspace Administration of China was established and given lots of powers on regulating cybersecurity. We had a creation of three important laws—the cybersecurity law, the data security law, and the private—personal information protection law. We see China pushing very hard on specific technologies they think are going to be important for this competition, especially AI and quantum. And we see China pushing diplomatically, partly through the idea of what's called cyber-sovereignty. So not the idea that internet is free and open and should be somewhat free from government regulation, but instead that cyberspace, like every other space, is going to be regulated, and that states should be free to do it as they see fit, as fits their own political and social characteristics, and they should not be criticized by other states. They promoted this view through U.N. organizations in particular. And they've been working with the Russians to have a kind of treaty on information and communication technologies that would include not only cybersecurity, but their concerns about content and the free flow of information. The U.S. right now is essentially continuing a policy that was started under the Trump administration. So part of that is to try and stop the flow of technology to Chinese firms, and in particular to handicap and damage Huawei, the Chinese telecom supplier, to put pressure on friends to not use Huawei. But the most important thing it did was put Huawei on an entity list, which cut it off from semiconductors, most importantly from Taiwan Semiconductor, which has really hurt the Huawei of products. The U.S. tried to come to an agreement about—with China about what types of espionage are considered legitimate. And not surprisingly, the U.S. said there was good hacking and back hacking. And the good hacking is the type of hacking that the U.S. tends to do, and the bad hacking is the type of hacking that the Chinese tend to do. So, basically the argument was, well, all states were going to conduct political and military espionage, but industrial espionage should be beyond the pale. Or if you put it—you can think of it as the way President Obama put it, you can hack into my iPhone to get secrets about what I'm discussing with my Cabinet, but you can't hack into Apple to get the secrets about how iPhones are made to give to Huawei. There was an agreement formed in 2015, where both sides said they weren't going to engage in industrial espionage—cyber industrial espionage. For about a year and a half, that agreement seemed to hold. And then it—and then it fell apart. The Chinese are engaged in that activity again. And as a result, the U.S. has once again started indicting Chinese hackers, trying to create—enforce that norm through indictments and naming and shaming. The U.S. probably also—although I have no evidence of it—has engaged in disrupting Chinese hackers. So we know under the Trump administrationm Cyber Command moved to a more forward-leaning posture, called defending forward or persistent engagement. We've heard about some of those operations against Russian or Iranian actors. John Bolton, before he left the NSC, suggested they were getting used against Chinese cyberhackers as well. So what comes next? And it's often hard, if not impossible, to end cyber talks on a positive note, but I will try. So I think from a U.S. perspective, clearly the kind of tech pressure, not only of Huawei but on a broader range of companies, is going to continue. The Biden administration has shown no signal that it is going to roll any of that back. And it's actually expanded it, to more companies working on quantum and other technologies. The Biden administration has worked much more actively than the Trump administration on building alliances around cybersecurity. So in particular, the tech and trade competition group with the Europeans and the quad, with Australia, India, and Japan all have discussions on cybersecurity norms. So how do you actually start imposing them? Now, where you would hope that the U.S. and China would start talking to each other, again, is where I hope the Biden administration can eventually get to. So there were some very brief discussions in the Obama administration. The Trump administration had one round of talks, but that were not particularly useful. The Chinese were very unwilling to bring people from the People's Liberation Army to actually kind of talk about operations, and generally were in denial about that they had any cyber forces. But you want both sides really to start talking more about where the threshold for the use of force might be in a cyberattack, right? So if you think about—most of what we've seen, as I said, is spying. And so that is kind of the—is below the threshold for use of force or an armed attack, the thing that generally triggers kinetic escalation. But there's no general understanding of where that threshold might be. And in particular, during a crisis, let's stay, in the street or in the South China Sea, you want to have some kind of clarity about where that line might be. Now, I don't think we're ever going to get a very clear picture, because both sides are going to want to be able to kind of skate as close to it as possible, but we would certainly want to have a conversation with the Chinese about how we might signal that. Can we have hotlines to discuss those kind of thresholds? Also, we want to make sure that both sides aren't targeting each other's nuclear command and control systems, right, with cyberattacks, because that would make any crisis even worse. There's some debate about whether the Chinese command and control systems are integrated with civilian systems. So things that the U.S. might go after could then perhaps spillover into the Chinese nuclear system, which would be very risky. So you want to have some talks about that. And then finally, you probably want to talk—because the Chinese open-source writing seems to suggest that they are not as concerned about escalation in cyber as we are. There's been a lot of debate in the U.S. about if escalation is a risk in cyber. But the Chinese don't actually seem to think it's much of a risk. And so it would be very useful to have some discussions on that point as well. I'll stop there, Irina, and looking forward to the questions. FASKIANOS: Thank you, Adam. That was great analysis and overview and specifics. So we're going to go first to Babak Salimitari, an undergrad student at the University of California, Irvine. So please be sure to unmute yourself. Q: I did. Can you guys hear me? SEGAL: Yeah. Q: Thank you for doing this. I had a question on the Beijing Olympics that are coming up. Recently the told the athletes to use, like, burner phones because the health apps are for spying, or they've got, like, security concerns. What specific concerns do they have regarding those apps, and what do they do? SEGAL: So I think the concerns are both specific and broad. I think there was a concern that one of the apps that all of the athletes had to download had significant security vulnerabilities. So I think that was a study done by Citizens Lab at the University of Toronto. And it basically said, look, this is a very unsafe app and, as you said, allowed access to health data and other private information, and anyone could probably fairly easily hack that. So, you know, if you're an athlete or anyone else, you don't want that private information being exposed to or handled by others. Then there's, I think, the broader concern is that probably anybody who connects to a network in China, that's going to be unsafe. And so, you know, because everyone is using wi-fi in the Chinese Olympics, and those systems are going to be monitored, those—your data is not going to be safe. You know, I'm not all that concerned for most athletes. You know, there's probably not a lot of reason why Chinese intelligence or police are interested in them. But there are probably athletes who are concerned, for example, about Xinjiang and the treatment of the Uighurs, or, you know, maybe Tibetan activists or other things, and maybe have somewhere in the back of their minds some idea about making statements or making statements when they get back to the U.S. or safer places. And for those people, definitely I would be worried about the risk of surveillance and perhaps using that data for other types of harassment. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the written question from Denis Simon, who received two upvotes. And Denis is senior advisor to the president for China affairs and professor of China business and technology. When you say “they” with respect to Chinese cyber activity, who is “they”? To what extent are there rogue groups and ultranationalists as well as criminals involved? SEGAL: Yes, Denis, will send me a nasty email if I don't mention that Denis was my professor. We're not going to go how many years ago, but when I was at Fletcher. So, and Denis was one of the first people I took—was the first person I took a class on Chinese technology. So, you know, and then I ended up here. So I think, “they.” So it depends what type of attacks we're talking about. On the espionage side, cyber espionage side, what we've generally seen is that a lot of that was moved from the PLA to the Ministry of State Security. The most recent indictments include some actors that seem to be criminal or at least front organizations. So some technology organizations. We do know that there are, you know, individual hackers in China who will contract their services out. There were in the '90s a lot of nationalist hacktivist groups, but those have pretty much dissipated except inside of China. So we do see a lot of nationalist trolls and others going after people inside of China, journalists and others, for offending China or other types of violations. So “they” is kind of a whole range of actors depending upon the types of attack we're talking about. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So our next question we're going to take from Terron Adlam, who is an undergraduate student at the University of Delaware. And if you can unmute yourself. Q: Can you hear me now? FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Hi. Good evening. Yes. So I was wondering, do you think there will be a time were we have net neutrality? Like, we have a peace agreement amongst every nation? Because I feel like, honestly, if Russia, U.S., Mexico, any other country out there that have a problem with each other, this would be, like, there's rules of war. You don't biohazard attack another country. Do you think—(audio break)—or otherwise? SEGAL: So I think it's very hard to imagine a world where there's no cyber activity. So there are discussions about can you limit the types of conflict in cyberspace, though the U.N. primarily. And they have started to define some of the rules of the road that are very similar to other international law applying to armed conflict. So the U.S.' position is essentially that international law applies in cyberspace, and things like the International Humanitarian Law apply in cyberspace. And you can have things like, you know, neutrality, and proportionality, and distinction. But they're hard to think about in cyber, but we can—that's what we should be doing. The Chinese and Russians have often argued we need a different type of treaty, that cyber is different. But given how valuable it seems, at least on the espionage side so far, I don't think it's very likely we'll ever get an agreement where we have no activity in cyberspace. We might get something that says, you know, certain types of targets should be off limits. You shouldn't go after a hospital, or you shouldn't go after, you know, health data, things like that. But not a, you know, world peace kind of treaty. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to take the next question from David Woodside at Fordham University. Three upvotes. What role does North Korea play in U.S.-China cyber discussions? Can you China act outside of cybersecurity agreements through its North Korean ally? SEGAL: Yeah. I think, you know, like many things with North Korea, the Chinese probably have a great deal of visibility. They have a few levers that they really don't like using, but not a huge number. So, in particular, if you remember when North Korea hacked Sony and because of the—you know, the movie from Seth Rogan and Franco about the North Korean leader—those hackers seemed to be located in northern China, in Shenyang. So there was some sense that the Chinese probably could have, you know, controlled that. Since then, we have seen a migration of North Korean operators out of kind of north China. They now operate out of India, and Malaysia, and some other places. Also, Russia helped build another cable to North Korea, so the North Koreans are not as dependent on China. I think it's very unlikely that the Chinese would kind of use North Korean proxies. I think the trust is very low of North Korean operators that they would, you know, have China's interest in mind or that they might not overstep, that they would bring a great deal of kind of blowback to China there. So there's been very little kind of—I would say kind of looking the other way earlier in much of North Korea's actions. These days, I think probably less. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Joan Kaufman at Harvard University. And if you can unmute yourself. Q: Yes. Thank you very much. I'm also with the Schwarzman Scholars program, the academic director. And I wanted to ask a follow up on your point about internet sovereignty. And, you know, the larger global governance bodies and mechanisms for, you know, internet governance and, you know, China's role therein. I know China's taken a much more muscular stance on, you know, the sovereignty issue, and justification for firewalls. So there's a lot—there are a lot of countries that are sort of in the me too, you know, movement behind that, who do want to restrict the internet. So I just—could you give us a little update on what's the status of that, versus, like, the Net Mundial people, who call for the total openness of the internet. And where is China in that space? How much influence does it have? And is it really—do you think the rules of the road are going to change in any significant way as a result of that? SEGAL: Yeah. So, you know, I think in some ways actually China has been less vocal about the phrase “cyber sovereignty.” The Wuzhen Internet Conference, which is kind of—China developed as a separate platform for promoting its ideas—you don't see the phrase used as much, although the Chinese are still interjecting it, as we mentioned, in lots of kind of U.N. documents and other ideas. I think partly they don't—they don't promote as much because they don't have to, because the idea of cyber sovereignty is now pretty widely accepted. And I don't think it's because of Chinese actions. I think it's because there is widespread distrust and dissatisfaction with the internet that, you know, spans all types of regime types, right? Just look at any country, including the United States. We're having a debate about how free and open the internet should be, what role firms should play in content moderation, should the government be allowed to take things down? You know, we've seen lots of countries passing fake news or online content moderation laws. There's a lot of concern about data localization that countries are doing because of purported economic or law enforcement reasons. So I don't think the Chinese really have to push cyber sovereignty that much because it is very attractive to lots of countries for specific reasons. Now, there is still, I think, a lot of engagement China has with other countries around what we would call cyber sovereignty, because China—countries know that, you know, China both has the experience with it, and will help pay for it. So certainly around the Belt and Road Initiative and other developing economies we do see, you know, the Chinese doing training of people on media management, or online management. There was this story just last week about, you know, Cambodia's internet looking more like the Chinese internet. We know Vietnam copied part of their cybersecurity law from the Chinese law. A story maybe two years ago about Huawei helping in Zambia and Zimbabwe, if I remember correctly, in surveilling opposition members. So I think China, you know, still remains a big force around it. I think the idea still is cyber sovereignty. I just don't think we see the phrase anymore. And I think there's lots of demand pulls. Not China pushing it on other countries, I think lots of countries have decided, yeah, of course we're going to regulate the internet. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Next question, from Ken Mayers, senior adjunct professor of history and political science at St. Francis College. Following up on Denis Simon's question, to what extent to Chinese state actors and U.S. state actors share concerns about asymmetric threats to cybersecurity? Is there common ground for discussion? And I'm going to—actually, I'll stop there, because— SEGAL: All right. So I'm going to interpret asymmetric threats meaning kind of cyber threats from other actors, meaning kind of nonstate or terrorist actors, or criminal actors. So I think there could be a shared interest. It's very hard to operationalize. Probably about six or seven years ago I wrote a piece with a Chinese scholar that said, yes, of course we have a shared interest in preventing the proliferation of these weapons to terrorist actors and nonstate actors. But then it was very hard to figure out how you would share that information without exposing yourself to other types of attacks, or perhaps empowering your potential adversary. On cyber—for example, on ransomware, you would actually expect there could be some shared interest, since the Chinese have been victims of a fair number of Russian ransomware attacks. But given the close relationship between Putin and Xi these days, it's hard to imagine that the U.S. and China are going to gang up on Russia on ransomware. So, again, I think there could be, it's just very hard to operationalize. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So just to follow on from Skyler Duggan, who is an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo. Likewise, to these questions, how do we differentiate individual criminal groups from the state? And how can we be sure this isn't China just trying to abdicate—or, one party, he doesn't specify, trying to abdicate the responsibility? SEGAL: Yeah, I think—because there's—one of the challenges faced by the U.S. and other liberal democracies is that we tend to primarily keep a fairly tight legal control over the cyber operations. They tend to be, you know, intelligence operations or military operations. So Title 10 or Title 50. There's kind of a whole set of legal norms around it. The U.S. does not rely on proxy actors. And other, you know, liberal democracies tend to don't. And U.S. adversaries in this space tend to do so. We know Iran does. We know Russia does. We know China does, although less than the others. Now according to this discussion group that I mentioned before at the U.N., the group of—what's called the group of government experts, one of the norms that all the actors agreed upon was the norm of state responsibility, which is a common one in international law, that you are responsible for whatever happens in your territory. So using proxies should not, you know, be able to give you an out. You shouldn't be able to say, well, it's happening from our territory, we just—you know, we don't know who they are and we can't control them. But, you know, in operation that norm is being fairly widely ignored. Now, the other problem, of course, is the—is how do you actually decide who the actor is, the attribution problem, right? So here, you know, a lot of people are basically saying, well, we have to rely on the U.S. or the U.K. or others to say, well, you know, we say it's these actors, and how do we know—how do we know for sure? Now, attribution is not as hard as we once thought it was going to be. When I first, you know, started doing the research for the book that Irina mentioned, attribution was considered, you know, a pretty big challenge. But now, you know, there's a fairly high expectation that the U.S. will be able to eventually identify who's behind an attack. Now, it may take some time. And we may not be able to completely identify who ordered the attack, which is, you know, as you mentioned, the problem with the proxies. But it's not—it's also not completely reliant on digital clearances. It's not just the code or the language of the keyboard. All those things can be manipulated, don't necessarily give you proof. Lots of time the U.S. is pulling in other intelligence—like, human intelligence, signals intelligence, other types of gathering. So, you know, part of it is how much do we believe the attribution, and then how much of it is—you know, what can you do with it afterwards? And, you know, I don't think the proxy problem is going to go away. FASKIANOS: Great. So I'm going next to Tim Hofmockel's question. It's gotten seven upvotes. He's a graduate student at Georgetown University. To flip Denis Simon's question: Who should the “we” be? To what extent should the U.S. intelligence community and the Department of Defense cooperate on offensive cyber operations? And how would we signal our intentions in a crisis given the overlap in authorities between the intelligence community and DOD? SEGAL: Yeah. I mean, so right now NSA and Cyber Command are dual hatted, meaning that one person is in charge of both of them, General Nakasone. So to some extent that could theoretically help deconflict between kind of intelligence gathering, offensive operations, and kind of signaling to the Chinese. But it's unclear. It's very—signaling in cyber so far seems to be kind of developing and unknown. That seems to be one of the big theories between the U.S. taking these more kinds of operations and, in fact, kind of bringing the fight to the Chinese is a very kind of sociological understanding of deterrence is that over time both sides will kind of understand where those red lines are by engaging and seeing where they're acting. You know, others have talked about could you create some kind of watermark on the actual attack or vulnerability, so that the—you know, you might discover some type of malware in your system and there'd be like a little, you know, NFT, maybe, of sorts, that says, you know, the U.S. government was here. We're warning you not to do this thing. You know, a lot of these have, you know, kind of technical problems. But the question of signaling I think is really hard, and that's part of the reason why, you know, I think these discussions are so important, that at least we have a sense that we're talking about the same types of things, and the same general set of tools. But I think probably through cyber signaling is going to be really hard. It's going to be mostly other types of signaling. FASKIANOS: Next question from Maryalice Mazzara. She's the director of educational programs at the State University of New York's Office of Global Affairs. How can people who are working with China and have a very positive relationship with China balance the issues of cybersecurity with the work we are doing? Are there some positive approaches we can take with our Chinese colleagues in addressing these concerns? SEGAL: Good question, Ali. How are you? So I guess it's very—so I do think there are forward-looking things that we can talk about. You know, several of the questions have asked, are there shared interests here? And I do think there are shared interests. You know, you we mentioned the proliferation one. We mentioned the nonstate actors. You know, there is a lot of language in the most recent statement from the Chinese government about—you know, that the internet should be democratic and open. I don't think they mean it in the same way that we do, but we can, I think, certainly use that language to have discussions about it and hope push to those sides. But I think it is hard because it is—you know, partly because government choices, right? The U.S. government chooses to attribute lots of attacks to China and be very public about it. Chinese for the most part don't attribute attacks, and don't—they talk about the U.S. as being the biggest threat in cyberspace, and call the U.S. The Matrix and the most, you know, damaging force in cyberspace. But for the most part, don't call out specific actors. So they kind of view it—the Chinese side is often in a kind of defensive crouch, basically saying, you know, who are you to judge us, and you guys are hypocrites, and everything else. So I think there are lots of reasons that make it hard. I think probably the way to do it is to try to look forward to these shared interests and this idea that we all benefitted immensely from a global internet. We now have different views of how open that internet should be. But I think we still want to maintain—the most remarkable thing about it is that we can, you know, still communicate with people around the world, we can still learn from people around the world, we can still draw information, most information, from around the world. And we want to, you know, keep that, which is a—which is—you know, not to use a Chinese phrase—but is a win-win for everybody. FASKIANOS: Great. I see a raised hand from Austin Oaks. And I can't get my roster up fast enough, so, Austin, if you can unmute and identify yourself. Q: So I'm Austin Oaks. And I come from the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater. And I used to live in Guangdong province in China. And I used to go visit Hong Kong and Macau, more Hong Kong, very often. And Hong Kong has this very free internet, which China doesn't particularly like. Macau tends to be more submissive to Beijing rather than Hong Kong does. But Chinese government has kind of started to put in people in the Hong Kong government to kind of sway the government into Beijing's orbit more. So then how—so what is China doing in the cyberspace world for both of its separate administrative regions? Because one is a lot easier to control than the other. SEGAL: Yeah. So I think the idea of Hong Kong's internet being independent and free is—it's pretty much ending, right? So the national security law covers Hong Kong and allows the government to increasingly censor and filter and arrest people for what they are posting. We saw pressure on U.S. companies to handover data of some users. A lot of the U.S. companies say they're going to move their headquarters or personnel out of Hong Kong because of those concerns. So, you know, it certainly is more open than the mainland is, but I think long-term trends are clearly pretty negative for Hong Kong. I expect Macau is the same direction, but as you mentioned, you know, the politics of Macau is just so much different from Hong Kong that it's less of a concern for the Chinese. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next written question from Robert Harrison, a law student at Washburn University School of Law. My understanding is that there have been significant thefts of American small and medium-size business intellectual property by Chinese-based actors. This theft/transfer of knowledge may reduce the competitive edge from the original property holder. Are there any current efforts to curb IP thefts? Any ongoing analysis of the Belt and Road Initiative to evaluate the use of IP acquired by theft? SEGAL: Yeah. So, you know, as I mentioned, the U.S. tried to reach this agreement with China on the IP theft challenge. China held to it for about a year, and then essentially kind of went back to it. It's been very hard to quantify the actual impact of what the theft has been. You know, there are numbers thrown around, a certain percent of GDP, or 250 billion (dollars) a year. There is what's called the IP Commission, which is run out of the National Bureau of Asia Research that has been updating its report. But it's very hard because, you know, a lot of the knowledge and data that's stolen is tacit knowledge. Or, you know, is actual blueprints or IP, but they don't have the tactic knowledge. So you can have the blueprints, but it's then hard to turn from that to an actual product. And it's hard in the civilian space to kind of track lots of products that seem stolen from U.S. products, as opposed to—on the military side you can look at, oh, here's the Chinese stealth jet. It looks a lot like the U.S. stealth jet. Now, this could be physics. It could be intellectual property theft. But it's harder on the commercial side to kind of put a number on it and see what the impact is. Although clearly, it's had an impact. We do know that Chinese operators, you know, go after other targets other than the U.S., right? So they certainly go—are active in Europe. We've seen them in Southeast Asia. Most of that is probably political espionage, not as much industrial espionage. Although, there has been—has been some. I don't know of any specific cases where we can point to anything along the Belt and Road Initiative that, you know, seems in and of itself the outcome of IP theft. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take a written question from Caroline Wagner, who is the Milton and Roslyn Wolf chair in international affairs at Ohio State University. Chinese actors seem to have incredibly pervasive links to track online discussions critical of China. Are these mostly bots, or are there human actors behind them? SEGAL: So I'm going to interpret that to me for the net outside of China. So, yes. I think what we're learning is there's several things going on. Part of it is bots. So they have, you know, a number of bots that are triggered by certain phrases. Some of it is human, but increasingly probably a lot of it is machine learning. So there was a story maybe last month in the Post, if I remember it correctly, about, you know, Chinese analytical software data companies offering their services to local Ministry of State Security to basically kind of scrape and monitor U.S. platforms. And that is primarily going to be done through, you know, machine learning, and maybe a little human operations as well. FASKIANOS: Thank you. And this is a bit of a follow-on, and then I'll go to more. William Weeks, who is an undergraduate at Arizona State University asks: What role does unsupervised machine learning play in China's cyberspace strategy? SEGAL: Yeah, it's a good question. I don't have a lot of details. You know, like everybody else there, they are going to start using it on defense. It is a big push on what's called military-civil fusion. You know, we know that they are trying to pull in from the private sector on AI, both for the defense and the offense side. But right now, all I can give you is kind of general speculation about how actors think about offense and defense with ML and AI. Not a lot of specifics from the Chinese here. FASKIANOS: Thank you. OK, Morton Holbrook, who's at Kentucky Wesleyan College. Q: Yes. Following up on your comment about Hong Kong, about U.S. companies reconsidering their presence due to internet controls, what about U.S. companies in China and Beijing and Shanghai? Do you see a similar trend there regarding internet controls, or regarding IPR theft? SEGAL: I think, you know, almost all firms that have been in China, this has been a constant issue for them. So it's not particularly new. I think almost all of them have, you know, made decisions both about how to protect their intellectual property theft—intellectual property from theft, and how to maintain connections to the outside, to make them harder. You know, VPNs were fairly widely used. Now they're more tightly regulated. We know that the Chinese actually can attack VPNs. So it think, you know, those issues have been constant irritants. I think, you know, COVID and the lack of travel, the worry about getting kind of caught up in nationalist backlashes online to, you know, Xinjiang issues or if you refer to Taiwan incorrectly, those are probably higher concerns right now than these kind of more constant concerns about cyber and IP. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Anson Wang, who's an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo. We have three upvotes. Is China considered the major threat to the U.S. hegemony because China is actively trying to replace the U.S. as the new global hegemon? Or simply because China is on a trajectory to get there, without or without their active intention in involving other countries' internal politics, the same way that the U.S. does? SEGAL: Yeah. So I think this is a—you know, a larger question about what China wants in the world. And do we—you know, we do we think it has a plan or ideology of replacing the U.S.? And does it want—or, would it be happen even with regional dominance? Does it just want to block U.S. interest and others? It's a big debate. You know, lots of people have contrasting views on where they think China is coming. I'll just use the cyber example. And I think here, you know, the Chinese started with wanting to block the U.S., and prevent the U.S. from criticizing China, and protect itself. I don't think it had any desire to reshape the global internet. But I think that's changed. I think under Xi Jinping they really want to change the definitions of what people think the state should do in this space. I think they want to change the shape of the internet. I don't think they want to spread their model to every country, but if you want to build their model they're certainly welcome to help you. And they don't mind pushing, perhaps highlighting, in some cases exploiting the weaknesses they see in the U.S. as well. FASKIANOS: OK. Thank you. I'm going to go to Helen You, who's a student at NYU. It appears that governments are reluctant to restrict their cyber capabilities because they fundamentally do not want to limit their own freedom to launch cyberattacks. As a result, countries fail to follow voluntary norms on what is permissible in cyberspace. To what extent are industry standards influencing international cybersecurity norms? And what incentives would need to be in place to move these conversations forward? SEGAL: Yeah, that's a great point. I mean, I think that's one of the reasons why we haven't seen a lot of progress, is because states don't have a lot of reason to stop doing it. The costs are low, and the benefits seem to be high. Now, I understand your question in two separate ways. One, there is a kind of private attempt to push these norms, and basically arguing that states are going too slow. Part of that was promoted by Microsoft, the company, right? So it promoted the idea of what they were calling the Digital Geneva Convention, and then they have been involved in what's now known as the Paris Accords that define some of these rules, that the U.S. just signed onto, and some other states have signed onto. But again, the norms are pretty vague, and haven't seemed to have that much effect. There's a thing called the cybersecurity—Global Cybersecurity Stability Commission that the Dutch government helped fund but was mainly through think tanks and academics. It also has a list of norms. So there is a kind of norm entrepreneurship going on. And those ideas are slowly kind of bubbling out there. But you need to see changes in the state to get there. That's when we know that norms matter. And that we really haven't seen. On the—there is a lot of work, of course, going on, on the standards of cybersecurity, and what companies should do, how they should be defined. And that happens both domestically and internationally. And of course, the companies are very involved in that. And, you know, that is much further, right? Because that has to do about regulation inside of markets, although there's still, you know, a fair amount of difference between the U.S. and EU and other close economies about how those standards should be defined, who should do the defining, how they should be implemented. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take group two questions from Dr. Mursel Dogrul of the Turkish National Defense University. In a most recent article we focused on the blockchain literature expansion of superpowers. In terms of publications and citations, China clearly outperformed the United States and Russia. Do you believe the technological advancement will have an impact on the cybersecurity race? And the Michael Trevett—I don't have an affiliation—wanted you to speak a little bit more about the cyber triangle with Russia. How are China and Russia coordinating and cooperating? SEGAL: Yeah. So the first question, you know, clearly, as I have briefly mentioned in my opening comments, that the Chinese are pushing very hard on the technologies they think are going to be critical to the—to the future competition in this space—blockchain, quantum, AI. The Chinese have made a lot of advances on quantum communication and quantum key distribution. Probably behind the U.S. on quantum computing, but it's hard to say for sure. And blockchain is a space the Chinese have developed some usages and are rolling some test cases out on the security side and the internet platforming side. On the China-Russia question, so closer cooperation. Most of it has been around cyber sovereignty, and the ideas of kind of global governance of cyberspace. The Chinese were, you know, pretty helpful at the beginning stages, when Russia started using more technological means to censoring and controlling the Russian internet. So helping kind of build some of the—or, export some of the technologies used in the China great firewall, that the Russians could help develop. Russia is pretty much all-in with Huawei on 5G. And so a lot of cooperation there. Although, the Russians are also worried about, you know, Chinese espionage from Russian technology and other secrets. They did sign a nonaggression cyber pact between the two, but both sides continue to hack each other and steal each other's secrets. And have not seen any evidence of cooperation on the operations side, on intelligence. with them doing more and more military exercises together, I would suspect we would perhaps start seeing some suggestion that they were coordinating on the military side in cyber. But the last time I looked, I didn't really see any—I did not see any analysis of that. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Next question from Jeffrey Rosensweig, who is the director of the program for business and public policy at Emory University. Q: Adam, I wonder if you could fit India in here anywhere you would like to? Because it think it'll be the other great economy of the future. SEGAL: Yeah. So India's a—you know, a really interesting actor in this space, right? So, you know, India basically think that it has two major cyber threats—Pakistan, and China being the other. China, you know, was reportedly behind some of the blackouts in Mumbai after the border clash. I am somewhat skeptical about reporting, but it's certainly a possibility, and there's no reason to doubt the Chinese have been mapping critical infrastructure there. India pushed back on TikTok and ByteDance. You know, also concerns about data control and other things. There is a long history of kind of going back and forth on Huawei. The intelligence agency has not really wanted to use, but others wanting to help, you know, bridge the digital divide and build out pretty quickly. India right now is talking about its own type of 5G. But from a U.S. perspective, you know, I think the most important thing—and this is often how India comes up—is that, you know, we want India to be an amplifier, promoter of a lot of these norms on cyber governance, because it is a, you know, developing, multiethnic, multiparty democracy. And so we want it just not to be the U.S.' voice. Now, India's a pretty complicated, difficult messenger for those things these days, right? India leads the world in internet shutdowns, and we've seen a lot of harassment of opposition leaders and other people who are opposed to Modi. So it's not going to be easy. But I think the U.S. for a long time has hoped that we could forge a greater understanding on the cyber side with India. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to take the next question from Michael O'Hara, who is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College. And I'm going to shorten it. He asks about China's fourteenth five-year plan, from 2021 to 2025. It includes a section titled “Accelerate digitalization-based development and construct a digital China.” Do you see their five-year plan as a useful way for thinking about Chinese future in cyberspace? SEGAL: Yes. So we're on the same page, the digital plan came out two or three weeks ago. It was just translated. Yeah, I mean, the plan is useful. Like, all Chinese plans are useful in the sense that it certainly gives us clear thinking about the direction that China wants to go, and the importance it puts on a topic. You know, the implementation and bureaucratic obstacles and all those other things are going to play a role. But as I mentioned, I think, you know, the Chinese economy is becoming increasingly digitalized. And in particular, they want to digitize, you know, more and more of the manufacturing sector and transportation, mining, other sectors that are traditionally not, you know, thought of as being digital, but the Chinese really want to move into that space. Now, from a cybersecurity perspective, that, you know, raises a whole range of new vulnerabilities and security issues. And so I think that's going to be very high on their thinking. And just today I tweeted a story that they held a meeting on thinking about cybersecurity in the metaverse. So, you know, they're looking forward, and cybersecurity is going to be a very high concern of people. FASKIANOS: Well, we couldn't have the Naval Academy without the U.S. Air Force Academy. So, Chris Miller, you wrote your question, but you've also raised your hand. So I'm going to ask to have you articulate it yourself. Q: Well, actually, I changed questions, Irina. Adam, thank you. FASKIANOS: Oh, OK. (Laughs.) But still, the Air Force Academy. Q: So two quick questions. I'll combine them. One is: I'm curious how you see the new cyber director—national cyber director's role changing this dynamic, if it at all, or changing the parts of it on our side of the Pacific that we care about. And second of all, curious how you see China viewing the Taiwanese infrastructure that they probably desire, whether or not they eventually take it by force or by persuasion. SEGAL: Yeah. So I don't think the NCD changes the dynamic very much. You know, I think there's lots of—you know, everyone is watching to see how the NCD and the National Security Council, and CISA, the Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency, work out the responsibilities among the three of them, which will have an impact, you know, of making us more secure. And, you know, Chris Inglis, the head of the NCD has given lots of talks about how they're going to manage and work together. And I think we're beginning to see some signs of that. But I think that's probably the most direct impact it'll have on the dynamic. Your second question, you know, I think primarily is about, you know, Taiwan Semiconductor. And, you know, do the Chinese eventually decide, well, chips are so important, and the U.S. is working so hard to cut us off, that, you know, for all the other reasons that we might want to see Taiwan, you know, that one is going to get moved up? You know, I think it's a possibility. I think it's a very low possibility. I do think we don't know what the red lines are on the tech war, right? You know, there's been talk about cutting off SMIC, the Shanghai manufacturer of integrated circuits, are also a very important company to the Chinese. Would that push the Chinese to do more aggressive or assertive things in this space? You know, what is it that we do in that space that eventually pulls them out? But I think it's very hard—(audio break)—that they could capture TSMC in a shape that would be useful. Am I breaking up? FASKIANOS: Just a little bit, but it was fine. We have you now. SEGAL: Yeah. That you could capture TSMC in a shape that would be useful, right? I mean, there was that piece, I think, that was written by an Army person, maybe in Parameters, that, you know, the U.S. and Taiwan's plan should be basically just to—you know, to sabotage TSMC in case there's any invasion, and make that clear that that's what it's going to do. But even without that risk, you're still dealing—you know, any damage and then, flight of people outside of Taiwan, because the Taiwanese engineers are really important. So it would be very high risk, I think, that they could capture it and then use it. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Well, I am sorry that we couldn't get to all the questions, but this has been a great conversation. Adam Segal, thank you very much for being with us. You know, you're such a great resource. I'm going to task you after this, there was a question from Andrew Moore at the University of Kansas about other resources and books that you would suggest to learn more about China and cybersecurity. So I'm going to get—come to you after this for a few suggestions, which we will send out to the group along with the link to this video and the transcript. So, Andrew, we will get back to you and share with everybody else. And so, again, you can follow Dr. Segal on Twitter at @adschina. Is that correct, Adam? SEGAL: That's right. FASKIANOS: OK. And also sign up for—to receive blog alerts for Net Politics you can go to CFR.org for that. Our next webinar will be on Wednesday, February 9, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. And we're excited to have Patrick Dennis Duddy, director of the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at Duke, to talk about democracy in Latin America. So thank you for being with us. You can follow us on Twitter at @CFR_Academic. Visit CFR.org, foreignaffairs.com and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for new research and analysis on other global issues. And again, Adam, thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate it. SEGAL: My pleasure. FASKIANOS: Take care. FASKIANOS: Welcome to the first session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Adam Segal with us to discuss cyberspace and U.S.-China relations. Adam Segal is CFR's Ira A. Lipman chair in emerging technologies and national security and director of the Council's Digital and Cyberspace Policy program. Previously, he served as an arms control analyst for the China Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He has been a visiting scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, MIT's Center for International Studies, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, and Tsinghua University in Beijing. And he's taught courses at Vassar College and Columbia University. Dr. Segal currently writes for the CFR blog, Net Politics—you should all sign up for those alerts, if you haven't already. And he is the author several books, including his latest, The Hacked World Order: How Nations Fight, Trade, Maneuver, and Manipulate in the Digital Age. So, Adam, thanks very much for being with us. We can begin with a very broad brush at cyberspace, the role cyberspace plays in U.S.-China relations, and have you make a few comments on the salient points. And then we'll open it up to the group for questions. SEGAL: Great. Irina, thanks very much. And thanks, everyone, for joining us this afternoon. I'm looking forward to the questions and the discussion. So broadly, I'm going to argue that the U.S. and China have the most far-reaching competition in cyberspace of any countries. And that competition goes all the way from the chip level to the rules of the road. So global governance all the way down the to the chips that we have in all of our phones. Coincidentally, and nicely timed, last week the Washington Post did a survey of their network of cyber experts about who was the greater threat to the United States, China or Russia. And it was actually almost exactly evenly split—forty to thirty-nine. But I, not surprisingly, fell into the China school. And my thinking is caught very nicely by a quote from Rob Joyce, who's a director at the National Security Agency, that Russia is like a hurricane while China is like climate change. So Russia causes sudden, kind of unpredictable damage. But China represents a long-term strategic threat. When we think about cyberspace, I think it's good to think about why it matters to both sides. And on the Chinese side, I think there are four primary concerns. The first is domestic stability, right? So China is worried that the outside internet will influence domestic stability and regime legitimacy. And so that's why it's built an incredibly sophisticated system for controlling information inside of China that relies both on technology, and intermediate liability, and other types of regulation. China is worried about technological dependence on other players, in particular the U.S., for semiconductors, network equipment, and other technologies. And they see cybersecurity as a way of reducing that technology. China has legitimate cybersecurity concerns like every other country. They're worried about attacks on their networks. And the Snowden revelations from the—Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor—show that the U.S. has significant cyber capabilities, and it has attacked and exploited vulnerabilities inside of China. And while the Chinese might have used to think that they were less vulnerable to cyberattacks given the shape of the Chinese network in the past, I think that probably changed around 2014-2015, especially as the Chinese economy has become increasingly dependent on ecommerce and digital technology. It's now—GDP is about a third dependent on digital technology. So they're worried about the same types of attacks the United States is worried about. And then, fourth and finally, China does not want the United States to be able to kind of define the rules of the road globally on cyber, create containing alliances around digital or cyber issues, and wants to constrain the ability of the U.S. to freely maneuver in cyberspace. Those are China's views. The U.S. has stated that it's working for a free, open, global, and interoperable internet, or an interoperable cyberspace. But when it looks at China, it has a number of specific concerns. The first is Chinese cyber operations, in particular Chinese espionage, and in particular from that Chinese industrial espionage, right? So the Chinese are known for being the most prolific operators, stealing intellectual property. But they're also hacking into political networks, going after think tanks, hacking activists—Uighur activists, Tibetan activists, Taiwanese independence activists. We know they're entering into networks to prepare the battlefield, right, so to map critical infrastructure in case there is a kinetic conflict with the United States—perhaps in the South China Sea or over the Taiwan Strait—and they want to be able to deter the U.S., or perhaps cause destructive attacks on the U.S. homeland, or U.S. bases in South Korea, or Japan. The U.S. is also extremely concerned about the global expansion of Chinese tech firms and Chinese platforms, for the collection of data, right? The U.S. exploited the globalization of U.S. tech firms. Again, that was something that we learned from the Snowden documents, that the U.S. both had legal and extralegal measures to be able to get data from users all around the world because of their knowledge of and relationship to U.S. tech firms. And there's no reason to believe that the Chinese will not do the same. Now, we hear a lot about, you know, Huawei and the national intelligence law in China that seems to require Chinese companies to turnover data. But it would be very hard to believe that the Chinese would not want to do the same thing that the U.S. has done, which is exploit these tech platforms. And then finally, there is increasingly a framing of this debate as one over values or ideology, right? That democracies use cybertechnologies or digital technologies in a different way than China does. China's promoting digital authoritarianism, that has to do about control of information as well as surveillance. And the U.S. has really pushed back and said, you know, democracies have to describe how we're going to use these technologies. Now, the competition has played itself out both domestically and internationally. The Chinese have been incredibly active domestically. Xi Jinping declared that cybersecurity was national security. He took control of a small leadership group that became a separate commission. The Cyberspace Administration of China was established and given lots of powers on regulating cybersecurity. We had a creation of three important laws—the cybersecurity law, the data security law, and the private—personal information protection law. We see China pushing very hard on specific technologies they think are going to be important for this competition, especially AI and quantum. And we see China pushing diplomatically, partly through the idea of what's called cyber-sovereignty. So not the idea that internet is free and open and should be somewhat free from government regulation, but instead that cyberspace, like every other space, is going to be regulated, and that states should be free to do it as they see fit, as fits their own political and social characteristics, and they should not be criticized by other states. They promoted this view through U.N. organizations in particular. And they've been working with the Russians to have a kind of treaty on information and communication technologies that would include not only cybersecurity, but their concerns about content and the free flow of information. The U.S. right now is essentially continuing a policy that was started under the Trump administration. So part of that is to try and stop the flow of technology to Chinese firms, and in particular to handicap and damage Huawei, the Chinese telecom supplier, to put pressure on friends to not use Huawei. But the most important thing it did was put Huawei on an entity list, which cut it off from semiconductors, most importantly from Taiwan Semiconductor, which has really hurt the Huawei of products. The U.S. tried to come to an agreement about—with China about what types of espionage are considered legitimate. And not surprisingly, the U.S. said there was good hacking and back hacking. And the good hacking is the type of hacking that the U.S. tends to do, and the bad hacking is the type of hacking that the Chinese tend to do. So, basically the argument was, well, all states were going to conduct political and military espionage, but industrial espionage should be beyond the pale. Or if you put it—you can think of it as the way President Obama put it, you can hack into my iPhone to get secrets about what I'm discussing with my Cabinet, but you can't hack into Apple to get the secrets about how iPhones are made to give to Huawei. There was an agreement formed in 2015, where both sides said they weren't going to engage in industrial espionage—cyber industrial espionage. For about a year and a half, that agreement seemed to hold. And then it—and then it fell apart. The Chinese are engaged in that activity again. And as a result, the U.S. has once again started indicting Chinese hackers, trying to create—enforce that norm through indictments and naming and shaming. The U.S. probably also—although I have no evidence of it—has engaged in disrupting Chinese hackers. So we know under the Trump administrationm Cyber Command moved to a more forward-leaning posture, called defending forward or persistent engagement. We've heard about some of those operations against Russian or Iranian actors. John Bolton, before he left the NSC, suggested they were getting used against Chinese cyberhackers as well. So what comes next? And it's often hard, if not impossible, to end cyber talks on a positive note, but I will try. So I think from a U.S. perspective, clearly the kind of tech pressure, not only of Huawei but on a broader range of companies, is going to continue. The Biden administration has shown no signal that it is going to roll any of that back. And it's actually expanded it, to more companies working on quantum and other technologies. The Biden administration has worked much more actively than the Trump administration on building alliances around cybersecurity. So in particular, the tech and trade competition group with the Europeans and the quad, with Australia, India, and Japan all have discussions on cybersecurity norms. So how do you actually start imposing them? Now, where you would hope that the U.S. and China would start talking to each other, again, is where I hope the Biden administration can eventually get to. So there were some very brief discussions in the Obama administration. The Trump administration had one round of talks, but that were not particularly useful. The Chinese were very unwilling to bring people from the People's Liberation Army to actually kind of talk about operations, and generally were in denial about that they had any cyber forces. But you want both sides really
The woman who allegedly told three Jewish kids “Hitler should have killed you all” before spitting on an 8-year-old boy in Brooklyn has been arrested, cops said Friday. Suspect Christina Darling, a 21-year-old student at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, was busted Friday morning and charged with aggravated harassment and menacing, both as hate crimes, and acting in a manner injurious to a child, NYPD hate crimes said. Darling is accused of storming up to the boy, who was with two other kids, around 12:30 p.m. Jan. 14 on Avenue P near Coleman Street in Marine Park, about five blocks from her home, police said. She snarled at the kids, “Hitler should have killed you all. I'll kill you and know where you live,” cops said. Footage released by the NYPD on Tuesday shows Christina standing directly in front of the kids as she spat on the boy, cops said. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Stefano Forte is 23 years old and running as a Republican for the NYS Senate. Stefano graduated from St. Francis College of Brooklyn with a Bachelors Degree in Political Science. He is currently the leader of the 24th District Republican Party. Stefano vows to ne tough on crime. Is against defunding the police and bail reform. He's a bright light in horizon for NYC residents. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/otcpod1/support
She is in her fourth season as the head women's basketball coach at NCAA Division I St. Francis College in Brooklyn Heights, New York, a Franciscan and Catholic college. She had previously spent four seasons as head coach at Binghamton University. Prior to that she'd spent eight years as the head coach at a Catholic-Dominican school, Caldwell University, where she was also the Associate Director of Athletics and Senior Woman Administrator. She has also held roles as assistant coach at Adelphi University, head girls' varsity basketball coach at Calhoun High School, and head coach at Queensborough Community College. From 2016 to 2020 she served a four-year term on the NCAA Women's Basketball Rules Committee. In 2019, she was inducted into the Rhode Island Interscholastic League Hall of Fame. As a student-athlete her name continues to appear in the record books in numerous categories for the Adelphi University women's basketball program. In high school she had been All-State in both basketball and softball.
The Box that Changed the World with Richard Danderline Richard Danderline and Joe Lynch discuss the box that changed the world. Richard is the Co-Founder and CFO of Staxxon, a shipping container company that has developed an innovative shipping container that is poised to revolutionize the space. About Richard Danderline Richard Danderline, has over 35 years of executive level financial and operating experience, primarily in the fashion footwear and apparel businesses. He has served as COO/CFO of several large fashion companies, including Marc Fisher Footwear, Aerogroup International (Aerosoles brand), Kenneth Cole and Iconix Brand Group ( a publicly traded company that was a pioneer of the fashion brand management/licensing business model ). Mr. Danderline began his career with Touche Ross & Co.(predecessor to Deloitte & Touche) and is a graduate of St. Francis College in Brooklyn NY. He and George Kochanowski , CEO of Staxxon, co-founded the Company in 2011. About Staxxon Staxxon, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability company based in New Jersey. It operates as a technology and intellectual property licensing company. The company outsources its manufacturing to third party Staxxon certified manufacturing partners and parts suppliers. Staxxon has developed, patented, and certified a new design for ISO (International Organization for Standardization) shipping containers. The technology is the first to enable containers to fold upright, like an accordion. Staxxon's upright system allows up to five empty containers to be folded, bundled, and moved together as a single container. The load bearing strength of the upright design also allows the container to be placed anywhere from top to bottom in a shipboard stack. Whether fully loaded or bundled together when empty, the Company anticipates that its containers will be 100% interchangeable with standard ISO container fleets. Container owners stand to benefit through substantially reduced operating costs and increased efficiency. Additionally, improved logistics in the handling of empties should materially mitigate global port congestion and environmental pollution. The Company is privately owned and financed by a small group of investors including the current management team. Key Takeaways: The Box that Changed the World Richard Danderline is the Co-Founder and CFO of Staxxon, a shipping container company that has developed an innovative shipping container that is poised to revolutionize the space. In the podcast interview, Joe and Richard discuss the box that changed the world – that box is the shipping container that was developed in the 1950's by Malcom McLean. The Staxxon team believes their box (shipping container) is going to make containerized shipping even more effective and efficient. The shipping container drastically reduced the time and cost associated with loading and unloading ships. The shipping container reduced the cost of shipping significantly and enabled the rapid growth of world trade in the past generation. However, there are still issues with global trade – mainly the trade imbalances that leads to empty containers being shipped around the world – at great cost to shippers and the environment. In the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, up 78% of the containers leaving the ports for Asia are empty. In some cases, agricultural exports from the USA are not shipped overseas because the demand for empty containers back to Asia is so great. As a result, agricultural exports and profits were down in 2021. Staxxon has developed the world's only upright folding shipping container, which enables shippers the ability to fold the Staxxon container like an accordion. Up to 5 Staxxon containers can be transported in the space required for one traditional container. Until now, an empty container took up just as much space as a full container. Staxxon shipping containers enables shippers to free up valuable space in warehouses and ports. It also frees up capacity on ships, rail, and drayage trucks. Staxxon's foldable shipping containers reduces the cost of shipping empty containers and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, Staxxon frees up capacity and lessens port congestion. Learn More About The Box that Changed the World Richard Danderline LinkedIn Staxxon Linkedin Staxxon The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger The Logistics of Logistics Podcast If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a positive review, subscribe, and share it with your friends and colleagues. The Logistics of Logistics Podcast: Google, Apple, Castbox, Spotify, Stitcher, PlayerFM, Tunein, Podbean, Owltail, Libsyn, Overcast Check out The Logistics of Logistics on Youtube
Brother Greg sits down with Christopher Safi - St. Francis College student and cancer survivor - shares about his battles with cancer and how to choose hope.
My name is Keisha Swafford and I am a sports freelancer in Louisiana who is on my own spiritual and mental health journey. I started this podcast to hone my skills as a sports journalist, share my love for God, and fall in love with myself. I love talking sports with people in the industry, and I love helping people with their mental, physical, and spiritual health through sports podcasting, connecting with others, and networking. Join me for sports talk and self-discovery! I drop episodes every Monday at 7 am! Stay brave, stay bold, and stay ballin! In this week's episode, my guest is Dexter Henry is a Brooklyn born and raised, multi-talented video journalist. Dexter obtained a B.A. in Media Communications after graduation from the University of Pittsburgh in 2005 and has over twelve years of experience in journalism both in broadcast and print media. He has written for the Brooklyn View, New York SportsScene Magazine, the Canarsie Courier, NYCHoops.net and RedStormReport.com. In 2010 Dexter founded his own media outlet on Youtube called Backpack Broadcasting and has produced live and original content including the web series 'The Sports Walk' (a 2017 NYC WebFest Official Selection), 'Sideline Stories' & the 'Ain't Hard To Tell Podcast'. Dexter also served as a freelance video journalist for the News 12 Networks and Nets Daily.com, a sideline reporter for the Terrier Sports Network and the New Media Coordinator at St. Francis College. Kansas City Chiefs: Are they drowning or barely swimming? Are they for real or not? I will tell you what Patrick Mahomes needs to do to get them back to Super Bowl status. In Quiet Time with God segment, God is always going to be there for you, guiding you every step of the way. Listen to me tell a personal story of how God has showed up strong in my family. In Mental Health Check In, I show you how to stop overreacting and start listening to your emotions. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/ballinwithkeisha/support
Steven A. Cook, Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies and director of the International Affairs Fellowship for Tenured International Relations Scholars at CFR, leads a conversation on geopolitics in the Middle East. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic, if you want to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Today's topic is geopolitics in the Middle East. Our speaker was supposed to be Sanam Vakil, but she had a family emergency. So we're delighted to have our very own Steven Cook here to discuss this important topic. Dr. Cook is the Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies, and director of the International Affairs Fellowship for Tenured International Relations Scholars at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of several books, including False Dawn; The Struggle for Egypt, which won the 2012 Gold Medal from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and Ruling But Not Governing. And he's working on yet another book entitled The End of Ambition: America's Past, Present, and Future in the Middle East. So keep an eye out for that in the next year or so. He's a columnist at Foreign Policy magazine and contributor and commentator on a bunch of other outlets. Prior to coming to CFR, Dr. Cook was a research fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Soref research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. So, Dr. Cook, thank you for being with us. I thought you could just—I'm going to give you a soft question here, to talk about the geopolitical relations among state and nonstate actors in the Middle East. And you can take that in whatever direction you would like. COOK: Well, thanks so much, Irina. It's a great pleasure to be with you. Good afternoon to everybody who's out there who's on an afternoon time zone, good morning to those who may still be in the evening, and good evening to those who may be somewhere where it's the evening. It's very nice to be with you. As Irina mentioned, and as I'm sure it's plenty evident, I am not Sanam Vakil, but I'm happy to step in for her and offer my thoughts on the geopolitics of the Middle East. It's a small topic. That question that Irina asked was something that I certainly could handle effectively in fifteen to twenty minutes. But before I get into the details of what's going on in the region, I thought I would offer some just general comments about the United States in the Middle East. Because, as it turns out, I had the opportunity last night to join a very small group of analysts with a very senior U.S. government official to talk precisely about the United States in the Middle East. And it was a very, very interesting conversation, because despite the fact that there has been numerous news reporting and analytic pieces about how the United States is deemphasizing the Middle East, this official made it very, very clear that that was practically impossible at this time. And this was, I think, a reasonable position to take. There has been a lot recently, in the last recent years, about withdrawing from the region, from retrenchment from the region, reducing from the region, realignment from the region. All those things actually mean different things. But analysts have essentially used them to mean that the United States should deprioritize the Middle East. And it seems to me that the problem in the Middle East has not necessarily been the fact that we are there and that we have goals there. It's that the goals in the region and the resources Washington uses to achieve those goals need to be realigned to address things that are actually important to the United States. In one sense that sound eminently reasonable. We have goals, we have resources to meet those goals, and we should devote them to—and if we can't, we should reassess what our goals are or go out and find new resources. That sounds eminently reasonable. But that's not the way Washington has worked over the course of the last few decades when it comes to the Middle East. In many ways, the United States has been overly ambitious. And it has led to a number of significant failures in the region. In an era when everything and anything is a vital interest, then nothing really is. And this seems to be the source of our trouble. For example, when we get into trying to fix the politics of other countries, we're headed down the wrong road. And I don't think that there's been enough real debate in Washington or, quite frankly, in the country about what's important in the Middle East, and why we're there, and what we're trying to achieve in the Middle East. In part, this new book that I'm writing called the End of Ambition, which, as Irina pointed out, will be out hopefully in either late 2022 or early 2023, tries to answer some of these questions. There is a way for the United States to be constructive in the Middle East, but what we've done over the course of the last twenty years has made that task much, much harder. And it leads us, in part, to this kind of geostrategic picture or puzzle that I'm about to lay out for you. So let me get into some of the details. And I'm obviously not going to take you from Morocco all the way to Iran, although I could if I had much, much more time because there's a lot going on in a lot of places. But not all of those places are of critical importance to the United States. So I'll start and I'll pick and choose from that very, very large piece of geography. First point: There have been some efforts to deescalate in a region that was in the middle of or on the verge of multiple conflicts. There has been a dialogue between the Saudis and the Iranians, under the auspices of the Iraqis, of all people. According to the Saudis this hasn't yielded very much, but they are continuing the conversation. One of the ways to assess the success or failure of a meeting is the fact that there's going to be another meeting. And there are going to be other meetings between senior Iranian and Saudi officials. I think that that's good. Egyptians and Turks are talking. Some of you who don't follow these issues as closely may not remember that Turkey and Egypt came close to trading blows over Libya last summer. And they pulled back as a result of concerted diplomacy on the part of the European Union, as well as the Egyptian ability to actually surge a lot of force to its western border. Those two countries are also talking, in part under the auspices of the Iraqis. Emiratis and Iranians are talking. That channel opened up in 2019 after the Iranians attacked a very significant—two very significant oil processing facilities in Saudi Arabia, sort of scaring the Emiratis, especially since the Trump administration did not respond in ways that the Emiratis or the Saudis had been expecting. The Qataris and the Egyptians have repaired their relations. The Arab world, for better or for worse, is moving to reintegrate Syria into is ranks. Not long after King Abdullah of Jordan was in the United States, he and Bashar al-Assad shared a phone call to talk about the opening of the border between Jordan and Syria and to talk about, among other things, tourism to the two countries. The hope is that this de-escalation, or hope for de-escalation coming from this dialogue, will have a salutary effect on conflicts in Yemen, in Syria, in Libya, and Iraq. Thus far, it hasn't in Yemen, in particular. It hasn't in Syria. But in Libya and Iraq, there have been some improvements to the situation. All of this remains quite fragile. These talks can be—can break off at any time under any circumstances. Broader-scale violence can return to Libya at any time. And the Iraqi government still doesn't control its own territory. Its sovereignty is compromised, not just by Iran but also by Turkey. But the fact that a region that was wound so tight and that seemed poised to even deepen existing conflicts and new ones to break out, for all of these different parties to be talking—some at the behest of the United States, some entirely of their own volition—is, I think, a relatively positive sign. You can't find anyone who's more—let's put it this way, who's darker about developments in the Middle East than me. And I see some positive signs coming from this dialogue. Iran, the second big issue on the agenda. Just a few hours ago, the Iranians indicated that they're ready to return to the negotiating table in Vienna. This is sort of a typical Iranian negotiating tactic, to push issues to the brink and then to pull back and demonstrate some pragmatism so that people will thank for them for their pragmatism. This agreement to go back to the negotiating table keeps them on decent terms with the Europeans. It builds on goodwill that they have developed as a result of their talks with Saudi Arabia. And it puts Israel somewhat on the defensive, or at least in an awkward position with the Biden administration, which has very much wanted to return to the negotiating table in Vienna. What comes out of these negotiations is extremely hard to predict. This is a new government in Iran. It is certainly a harder line than its predecessor. Some analysts believe that precisely because it is a hardline government it can do the negotiation. But we'll just have to see. All the while this has been going on, the Iranians have been proceeding with their nuclear development, and Israel is continuing its shadow campaign against the Iranians in Syria, sometimes in Iraq, in Iran itself. Although, there's no definitive proof, yesterday Iranian gas stations, of all things, were taken offline. There's some suspicion that this was the Israelis showing the Iranians just how far and deep they are into Iranian computer systems. It remains unclear how the Iranians will retaliate. Previously they have directed their efforts to Israeli-linked shipping in and around the Gulf of Oman. Its conventional responses up until this point have been largely ineffective. The Israelis have been carrying on a fairly sophisticated air campaign against the Iranians in Syria, and the Iranians have not been able to mount any kind of effective response. Of course, this is all against the backdrop of the fact that the Iranians do have the ability to hold much of the Israeli population hostage via Hezbollah and its thousands of rockets and missiles. So you can see how this is quite worrying, and an ongoing concern for everybody in the region, as the Israelis and Iranians take part in this confrontation. Let me just continue along the line of the Israelis for a moment and talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict, something that has not been high on the agenda of the Biden administration, it hasn't been high on the agenda of many countries in the region. But since the signing of the Abraham Accords in September 2020, there have been some significant developments. The normalization as a result of the Abraham Accords continues apace. Recently in the Emirates there was a meeting of ministers from Israel, the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan. This is the first kind of face-to-face meeting of government officials from all of these countries. Now, certainly the Israelis and the Emiratis have been meeting quite regularly, and the Israelis and the Bahrainis have been meeting quite regularly. But these were broader meetings of Cabinet officials from all of the Abraham Accords countries coming together in the United Arab Emirates for talks. Rather extraordinary. Something that thirteen months—in August 2020 was unimaginable, and today is something that doesn't really make—it doesn't really make the headlines. The Saudis are actually supportive of the normalization process, but they're not yet willing to take that step. And they're not willing to take that step because of the Palestinian issue. And it remains a sticking point. On that issue, there was a lot of discussion after the formation of a new Israeli government last June under the leadership, first, of Naftali Bennett, who will then hand the prime ministership over to his partner, Yair Lapid, who are from different parties. That this was an Israeli government that could do some good when it comes to the Palestinian arena, that it was pragmatic, that it would do things that would improve the lives of Palestinians, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, and seek greater cooperation with both the United States and the Palestinian authority toward that end. And that may in fact turn out to be the case. This government has taken a number of steps in that direction, including family reunification, so that if a Palestinian on the West Bank who is married to a Palestinian citizen of Israel, the Palestinian in the West Bank can live with the family in Israel. And a number of other things. But it should also be clear to everybody that despite a kind of change in tone from the Israeli prime ministry, there's not that much of a change in terms of policy. In fact, in many ways Prime Minister Bennett is to the right of his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu. And Yair Lapid, who comes from a centrist party, is really only centrist in terms of Israeli politics. He is—in any other circumstances would be a kind of right of center politician. And I'll just point out that in recent days the Israeli government has declared six Palestinian NGOs—long-time NGOs—terrorist organizations, approved three thousand new housing units in the West Bank, and worked very, very hard to prevent the United States from opening a consulate in East Jerusalem to serve the Palestinians. That consulate had been there for many, many, many years. And it was closed under the Trump administration when the U.S. Embassy was moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Biden administration would like to reopen that consulate. And the Israeli government is adamantly opposed. In the end, undoubtably Arab governments are coming to terms with Israel, even beyond the Abraham Accords countries. Egypt's flag carrier, Egyptair, announced flights to Tel Aviv. This is the first time since 1979. You could—you could fly between Cairo and Tel Aviv, something that I've done many, many times. If you were in Egypt, you'd have to go and find an office that would sell you a ticket to something called Air Sinai, that did not have regular flights. Only had flights vaguely whenever, sometimes. It was an Egyptair plane, stripped of its livery, staffed by Egyptair pilots and staff, stripped of anything that said Egyptair. Now, suddenly Egyptair is flying direct flights to Tel Aviv. And El-Al, Israel's national airline, and possibly one other, will be flying directly to Cairo. And there is—and that there is talk of economic cooperation. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett met with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi in Sharm al-Sheikh not long ago. That was the first meeting of Israeli leaders—first public meeting of Israeli leaders and Egyptian leaders in ten years. So there does seem to be an openness on the part of Arab governments to Israel. As far as populations in these countries, they don't yet seem to be ready for normalization, although there has been some traffic between Israel and the UAE, with Emiratis coming to see Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and so on and so forth. But there are very, very few Emiratis. And there are a lot of Egyptians. So as positive as that all is, this is—this has not been a kind of broad acceptance among the population in the Arab world for Israel's legitimate existence. And the kind of issue du jour, great-power competition. This is on everybody's lips in Washington, D.C.—great-power competition, great-power competition. And certainly, the Middle East is likely to be an arena of great-power competition. It has always been an arena of great-power competition. For the first time in more than two decades, the United States has competitors in the region. And let me start with Russia, because there's been so much discussion of China, but Russia is the one that has been actively engaged militarily in the region in a number of places. Vladimir Putin has parlayed his rescue of Hafez al-Assad into influence in the region, in an arc that stretches from NATO ally Turkey, all the way down through the Levant and through Damascus, then even stretching to Jerusalem where Israeli governments and the Russian government have cooperated and coordinated in Syria, into Cairo, and then into at least the eastern portion of Libya, where the Russians have supported a Qaddafist general named Khalifa Haftar, who used to be an employee of the CIA, in his bid for power in Libya. And he has done so by providing weaponry to Haftar, as well as mercenaries to fight and support him. That episode may very well be over, although there's every reason to believe that Haftar is trying to rearm himself and carry on the conflict should the process—should the political process in Libya break down. Russia has sold more weapons to Egypt in the last few years than at any other time since the early 1970s. They have a defense agreement with Saudi Arabia. It's not clear what that actually means, but that defense agreement was signed not that long after the United States' rather chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which clearly unnerved governments in the Middle East. So Russia is active, it's influential, its militarily engaged, and it is seeking to advance its interests throughout the region. I'll point out that its presence in North Africa is not necessarily so much about North Africa, but it's also about Europe. Its bid in Libya is important because its ally controls the eastern portion of Libya, where most of Libya's light, sweet crude oil is located. And that is the largest—the most significant reserves of oil in all of Africa. So it's important as an energy play for the Russians to control parts of North Africa, and right on Russia's—right on Europe's front doorstep. China. China's the largest investor and single largest trading partner with most of the region. And it's not just energy related. We know how dependent China is on oil from the Gulf, but it's made big investments in Algeria, in Egypt, the UAE, and in Iran. The agreement with Iran, a twenty-five-year agreement, coming at a time when the Iranians were under significant pressure from the United States, was regarded by many in Washington as an effort on the part of the Chinese to undercut the United States, and undercut U.S. policy in the region. I think it was, in part, that. I think it was also in part the fact that China is dependent in part on Iranian oil and did not want the regime there to collapse, posing a potential energy crisis for China and the rest of the world. It seems clear to me, at least, that the Chinese do not want to supplant the United States in the region. I don't think they look at the region in that way. And if they did, they probably learned the lesson of the United States of the last twenty-five years, which has gotten itself wrapped around the axle on a variety of issues that were unnecessary and sapped the power of the United States. So they don't want to get more deeply involved in the region. They don't want to take sides in conflicts. They don't want to take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They don't take sides in the conflict between the United States and Iran, or the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran. They want to benefit from the region, whether through investment or through extraction, and the security umbrella that the United States provides in the region. I'm not necessarily so sure that that security umbrella needs to be so expensive and so extensive for the United States to achieve its goals. But nevertheless, and for the time being at least, we will be providing that security umbrella in the region, from which the Chinese will benefit. I think, just to close on this issue of great-power competition. And because of time, I'm leaving out another big player, or emerging player in the region, which is India. I'm happy to talk about that in Q&A. But my last point is that, going back to the United States, countries in the region and leaders in the region are predisposed towards the United States. The problem is, is that they are very well-aware of the political polarization in this country. They're very well-aware of the political dysfunction in this country. They're very well-aware of the incompetence that came with the invasion of Iraq, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, or any number of disasters that have unfolded here in the United States. And it doesn't look, from where they sit in Abu Dhabi, in Cairo, in Riyadh, and in other places, that the United States has staying power, the will to lead, and the interest in remaining in the Middle East. And thus, they have turned to alternatives. Those alternatives are not the same as the United States, but they do provide something. I mean, particularly when it comes to the Chinese it is investment, it's economic advantages, without the kind of trouble that comes with the United States. Trouble from the perspective of leaders, so that they don't have to worry about human rights when they deal with the Chinese, because the Chinese aren't interested in human rights. But nevertheless, they remain disclosed toward the United States and want to work with the United States. They just don't know whether we're going to be there over the long term, given what is going on in the United States. I'll stop there. And I look forward to your questions and comments. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Steven, that was fantastic. Thank you very much. We're going to now to all of you for your questions. So the first raised hand comes from Jonas Truneh. And I don't think I pronounced that correctly, so you can correct me. Q: Yeah, no, that's right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Cook, for your talk. I'm from UCL, University College London, in London. COOK: So it is—(off mic). Q: Indeed, it is. Yeah. That's right. COOK: Great. Q: So you touched on it there somewhat particularly with great-power competition, but so my question is related to the current energy logic in the Middle East. The Obama administration perhaps thought that the shale revolution allowed a de-prioritization, if I'm allowed to use that word, of the Middle East. And that was partly related to the pivot to Asia. So essentially does the U.S. still regard itself as the primary guarantor of energy security in the Persian Gulf? And if so, would the greatest beneficiary, as I think you indicated, would that not be China? And is that a case of perverse incentives? Is there much the U.S. can do about it? COOK: Well, it depends on who you ask, right? And it's a great question. I think that the—one of the things that—one of the ways in which the Obama administration sought to deprioritize and leave the region was through the shale revolution. I mean, the one piece of advice that he did take from one of his opponents in 2002—2008, which was to drill, baby, drill. And the United States did. I would not say that this is something that is specific to the Obama administration. If you go back to speeches of presidents way back—but I won't even go that far back. I'll go to George W. Bush in 2005 State of the Union addressed, talked all about energy independence from the Middle East. This may not actually be in much less the foreseeable future, but in really—in a longer-term perspective, it may be harder to do. But it is politically appealing. The reason why I say it depends on who you ask, I think that there are officials in the United States who say: Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. But when the Iranians attacked those two oil processing facilities in Saudi Arabia, that temporarily took off 50 percent of supply off the markets—good thing the Saudis have a lot stored away—the United States didn't really respond. The president of the United States said: I'm waiting for a call from Riyadh. That forty years of stated American policy was, like, it did not exist. The Carter doctrine and the Reagan corollary to the Carter doctrine suddenly didn't exist. And the entirety of the American foreign policy community shrugged their shoulders and said: We're not going to war on behalf of MBS. I don't think we would have been going to war on behalf of MBS. We would have been ensuring the free flow of energy supplies out of the region, which is something that we have been committed to doing since President Carter articulated the Carter doctrine, and then President Reagan added his corollary to it. I think that there are a number of quite perverse incentives associated with this. And I think that you're right. The question is whether the competition from China outweighs our—I'm talking about “our”—the United States' compelling interest in a healthy global economy. And to the extent that our partners in Asia, whether it's India, South Korea, Japan, and our important trading partner in China, are dependent upon energy resources from the Gulf, and we don't trust anybody to ensure the free flow of energy resources from the Gulf, it's going to be on us to do it. So we are kind of hammered between that desire to have a healthy global economy as being—and being very wary of the Chinese. And the Chinese, I think, are abundantly aware of it, and have sought to take advantage of it. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question, which got an up-vote, from Charles Ammon, who is at Pennsylvania State University. And I think this goes to what you were building on with the great-power competition: What interests does India have in the Middle East? And how is it increasing its involvement in the region? COOK: So India is—imports 60 percent of its oil from the region. Fully 20 percent of it from Saudi Arabia, another 20 percent of it from Iran, and then the other 20 percent from other sources. So that's one thing. That's one reason why India is interested in the Middle East. Second, there are millions and millions of Indians who work in the Middle East. The Gulf region is a region that basically could not run without South Asian expatriate labor, most of which comes from India—on everything. Third, India has made considerable headway with countries like the United Arab Emirates, as well as Saudi Arabia, in counterextremism cooperation. This has come at the expense of Pakistan, but as relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and relations between Pakistan and the UAE soured in recent years, the Indians have been able to take advantage of that. And Indian leaders have hammered away at the common interest that India and leaders in the region have in terms of countering violent extremism. And then finally, India and Israel have quite an extraordinary relationship, both in the tech field as well as in the defense area. Israel is a supplier to India. And the two of them are part of a kind of global network of high-tech powerhouse that have either, you know, a wealth of startups or very significant investment from the major tech players in the world. Israel—Microsoft just announced a huge expansion in Israel. And Israeli engineers and Indian engineers collaborate on a variety of projects for these big tech companies. So there's a kind of multifaceted Indian interest in the region, and the region's interest in India. What India lacks that the Chinese have is a lot more capacity. They don't have the kind of wherewithal to bring investment and trade in the region in the other direction. But nevertheless, it's a much more important player than it was in the past. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Curran Flynn, who has a raised hand. Q: How do you envision the future of Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia politics for the next thirty years? Ethiopia controls the Nile dam projects. And could this dispute lead to a war? And what is the progress with the U.S. in mediating the talks between the three countries? COOK: Thank you. FASKIANOS: And that is coming from the King Fahd University in Saudi Arabia. COOK: Fabulous. So that's more than the evening. It's actually nighttime there. I think that the question of the great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is really an important one, and it's something that has not gotten as much attention as it should. And for those of you who are not familiar, in short the Ethiopians have been building a massive dam on the Blue Nile, which is a tributary to the Nile. And that if—when competed, threatens the water supply to Egypt, a country of 110 million people that doesn't get a lot of rainfall. Ethiopia, of course, wants to dam the Nile in order to produce hydroelectric power for its own development, something that Egypt did when it dammed the Nile River to build the Aswan High Dam, and crated Lake Nasser behind it. The Egyptians are very, very concerned. This is an existential issue for them. And there have been on and off negotiations, but the negotiations aren't really about the issues. They're talks about talks about talks. And they haven't gotten—they haven't gotten very far. Now, the Egyptians have been supported by the Sudanese government, after the Sudanese government had been somewhat aligned with the Ethiopian government. The Trump administration put itself squarely behind the Egyptian government, but Ethiopia's also an important partner of the United States in the Horn of Africa. The Egyptians have gone about signing defense cooperation agreements with a variety of countries around Ethiopia's borders. And of course, Ethiopia is engaged in essentially what's a civil war. This is a very, very difficult and complicated situation. Thus far, there doesn't seem to be an easy solution the problem. Now, here's the rub, if you talk to engineers, if you talk to people who study water, if you talk to people who know about dams and the flow of water, the resolution to the problem is actually not that hard to get to. The problem is that the politics and nationalism have been engaged on both sides of the issue, making it much, much more difficult to negotiate an equitable solution to the problem. The Egyptians have said in the past that they don't really have an intention of using force, despite the fact of this being an existential issue. But there's been somewhat of a shift in their language on the issue. Which recently they've said if red lines were crossed, they may be forced to intervene. Intervene how? What are those red lines? They haven't been willing to define them, which should make everybody nervous. The good news is that Biden administration has appointed an envoy to deal with issues in the Horn of Africa, who has been working very hard to try to resolve the conflict. I think the problem here however is that Ethiopia, now distracted by a conflict in the Tigray region, nationalism is running high there, has been—I don't want to use the word impervious—but not as interested in finding a negotiated solution to the problem than it might have otherwise been in the past. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Bob Pauly, who's a professor of international development at the University of Southern Mississippi. It got three up-votes. What would you identify as the most significant likely short and longer-term effects of Turkey's present domestic economic and political challenges on President Erdogan's strategy and policy approaches to the Middle East, and why? COOK: Oh, well, that is a very, very long answer to a very, very interesting question. Let's see what happens in 2023. President Erdogan is facing reelection. His goal all along has been to reelected on the one hundredth anniversary of the republic, and to demonstrate how much he has transformed Turkey in the image of the Justice and Development Party, and moved it away from the institutions of the republic. Erdogan may not make it to 2023. I don't want to pedal in conspiracy theories or anything like that, but he doesn't look well. There are large numbers of videos that have surfaced of him having difficulties, including one famous one from this past summer when he was offering a Ramadan greeting on Turkish television to supporters of the Justice and Development Party, and he seemed to fade out and slur his words. This is coupled with reports trickling out of Ankara about the lengths to which the inner circle has gone to shield real health concerns about Erdogan from the public. It's hard to really diagnose someone from more than six thousand miles away, but I think it's a scenario that policymakers in Washington need to think seriously about. What happens if Erdogan is incapacitated or dies before 2023? That's one piece. The second piece is, well, what if he makes it and he's reelected? And I think in any reasonable observer sitting around at the end of 2021 looking forward to 2023 would say two things: One, you really can't predict Turkish politics this far out, but if Turkish elections were held today and they were free and fair, the Justice and Development Party would get below 30 percent. Still more than everybody else. And Erdogan would have a real fight on his hands to get reelected, which he probably would be. His approaches to his domestic challenges and his approaches to the region are really based on what his current political calculations are at any given moment. So his needlessly aggressive posture in the Eastern Mediterranean was a function of the fact that he needed to shore up his nationalist base. Now that he finds himself quite isolated in the world, the Turks have made overtures to Israel, to the UAE, to Saudi Arabia. They're virtually chasing the Egyptians around the Eastern Mediterranean to repair their relationship. Because without repairing these relationships the kind of investment that is necessary to try to help revive the Turkish economy—which has been on the skids for a number of years—is going to be—is going to be more difficult. There's also another piece of this, which is the Middle East is a rather lucrative arms market. And during the AKP era, the Turks have had a significant amount of success further developing their defense industrial base, to the point that now their drones are coveted. Now one of the reasons for a Saudi-Turkish rapprochement is that the United States will not sell Saudi Arabia the drones it wants, for fear that they will use them in Yemen. And the Saudis are looking for drones elsewhere. That's either China or Turkey. And Turkey's seem to work really, really well, based on experience in Syria, Libya, and Nagorno-Karabakh. So what—Turkish foreign policy towards the region has become really dependent upon what Erdogan's particularly political needs are. There's no strategic approach to the region. There is a vision of Turkey as a leader of the region, of a great power in its own right, as a leader of the Muslim world, as a Mediterranean power as well. But that's nothing new. Turkish Islamists have been talking about these things for quite some time. I think it's important that there's been some de-escalation. I don't think that all of these countries now love each other, but they see the wisdom of pulling back from—pulling back from the brink. I don't see Turkey's position changing dramatically in terms of its kind of reintegration into the broader region before 2023, at the least. FASKIANOS: Great. Let's go next to, raised hand, to Caleb Sanner. And you need to unmute yourself. Q: Hello, my name is Caleb. I'm from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. So, Dr. Cook, you had mentioned in passing how China has been involved economically in North Africa. And my question would be, how is the U.S. taking that? And what are we doing, in a sense, to kind of counter that? I know it's not a military advancement in terms of that, but I've seen what it has been doing to their economies—North Africa's economies. And, yeah, what's the U.S. stance on that? COOK: Well, I think the United States is somewhat detached from this question of North Africa. North Africa's long been a—with the exception of Egypt, of course. And Egypt, you know, is not really North Africa. Egypt is something in and of itself. That China is investing heavily in Egypt. And the Egyptian position is: Please don't ask us to choose between you and the Chinese, because we're not going to make that choice. We think investment from all of these places is good for—is good for Egypt. And the other places where China is investing, and that's mostly in Algeria, the United States really doesn't have close ties to Algeria. There was a tightening of the relationship after the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, recognizing that the Algerians—extremist groups in Algerian that had been waging war against the state there over the course of the 1990s were part and parcel of this new phenomenon of global jihad. And so there has been a security relationship there. There has been some kind of big infrastructure kind of investment in that country, with big companies that build big things, like GE and others, involved in Algeria. But the United States isn't helping to develop ports or industrial parks or critical infrastructure like bridges and airports in the same way that the Chinese have been doing throughout the region. And in Algeria, as well as in Egypt, the Chinese are building a fairly significant industrial center in the Suez Canal zone, of all places. And the United States simply doesn't have an answer to it, other than to tell our traditional partners in the region, don't do it. But unless we show up with something to offer them, I'm afraid that Chinese investment is going to be too attractive for countries that are in need of this kind of investment. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to a written question from Kenneth Mayers, who is at St. Francis College in Brooklyn. In your opinion, what would a strategic vision based on a far-sighted understanding of both resources and U.S. goals—with regard to peace and security, prosperity and development, and institutions and norms and values such as human rights—look like in the Middle East and North Africa? COOK: Well, it's a great question. And I'm tempted to say you're going to have to read the last third of my new book in order to get the—in order to get the answer. I think but let me start with something mentioned about norms and values. I think that one of the things that has plagued American foreign policy over the course of not just the last twenty years, but in the post-World War II era all the way up through the present day, you see it very, very clearly with President Biden, is that trying to incorporate American values and norms into our approach to the region has been extraordinarily difficult. And what we have a history of doing is the thing that is strategically tenable, but morally suspect. So what I would say is, I mean, just look at what's happened recently. The president of the United States studiously avoided placing a telephone call to the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The Egyptians, as many know, have a terrible record on human rights, particularly since President Sisi came to power. Arrests of tens of thousands of people in the country, the torture of many, many people, the killings of people. And the president during his campaign said that he was going to give no blank checks to dictators, including to Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. And then what happened in May? What happened in May was that fighting broke out between Israel and Hamas and others in the Gaza Strip, a brutal eleven-day conflict. And Egypt stepped up and provided a way out of the conflict through its good offices. And that prompted the United States to—the president of the United States—to have two phone calls in those eleven days with the Egyptian leader. And now the United States is talking about Egypt as a constructive partner that's helping to stabilize the region. Sure, the administration suspended $130 million of Egypt's annual—$130 million Egypt's annual allotment of $1.3 billion. But that is not a lot. Egypt got most of—most of its military aid. As I said, strategically tenable, morally suspect. I'm not quite sure how we get out of that. But what I do know, and I'll give you a little bit of a preview of the last third of the book—but I really do want you to buy it when it's done—is that the traditional interests of the United States in the Middle East are changing. And I go through a kind of quasi, long, somewhat tortured—but very, very interesting—discussion of the origins of our interests, and how they are changing, and how we can tell they are changing. And that is to say that the free flow of energy resources may not be as important to the United States in the next twenty-five years as it was over the course of the previous fifty or sixty years. That helping to ensure Israeli security, which has been axiomatic for the United States, eh, I'd say since the 1960s, really, may not be as important as Israel develops its diplomatic relations with its neighbors, that has a GDP per capita that's on par with the U.K., and France, and other partners in Europe, a country that clearly can take care of itself, that is a driver of technology and innovation around the globe. And that may no longer require America's military dominance in the region. So what is that we want to be doing? How can we be constructive? And I think the answers are in things that we hadn't really thought of too systematically in the past. What are the things that we're willing to invest in an defend going forward? Things like climate change, things like migration, things like pandemic disease. These are things that we've talked about, but that we've never been willing to invest in the kind of the resources. Now there are parts of the Middle East that during the summer months are in-habitable. That's going to produce waves of people looking for places to live that are inhabitable. What do we do about that? Does that destabilize the Indian subcontinent? Does it destabilize Europe? Does it destabilize North Africa? These are all questions that we haven't yet answered. But to the extent that we want to invest in, defend and sacrifice for things like climate, and we want to address the issue—related issue of migration, and we want to deal with the issue of disease and other of these kind of functional global issues in the Middle East is better not just for us and Middle Easterners, but also in terms of our strategic—our great-power competition in the region. These are not things that the Chinese and the Russians are terribly interested in, despite the fact that the Chinese may tell you they are. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Ahmuan Williams, with a raised hand, at the University of Oklahoma. COOK: Oklahoma. Q: Hi. And thank you for being here. You kind of talked about the stabilization of northern Africa and the Middle East. And just a few days ago the Sudanese government—and they still haven't helped capture the parliamentarian there—have recycled back into a military—somewhat of military rule. And it's been since 2005 since the end of their last civil war, which claimed millions of innocent civilians through starvation and strife and, you know, the lack of being able to get humanitarian aid. There was also a huge refugee crisis there, a lot of people who evacuated Sudan. How's that going to impact the Middle East and the American take to Middle East and northern Africa policy, especially now that the Security Council is now considering this and is trying to determine what we should do? COOK: It's a great question. And I think that, first, let's be clear. There was a coup d'état in Sudan. The military overthrew a transitional government on the eve of having to hand over the government to civilians. And they didn't like it. There's been tension that's been brewing in Sudan for some time. Actually, an American envoy, our envoy to East Africa and Africa more generally, a guy named Jeff Feltman, was in Khartoum, trying to kind of calm the tension, to get the two sides together, and working to avert a coup. And the day after he left, the military moved. That's not—that doesn't reflect the fact that the United States gave a blessing for the military to overthrow this government. I think what it does, though, and it's something that I think we all need to keep in mind, it demonstrates the limits of American power in a variety of places around the world. That we don't have all the power in the world to prevent things from happening when people, like the leaders of the Sudanese military, believe that they have existential issues that are at stake. Now, what's worry about destabilization in Sudan is, as you point out, there was a civil war there, there was the creation of a new country there, potential for—if things got really out of hand—refugee flows into Egypt, from Egypt across the Sanai Peninsula into Israel. One of the things people are unaware of is the large number of Sudanese or Eritreans and other Africans who have sought refuge in Israel, which has created significant economic and social strains in that country. So it's a big deal. Thus far, it seems we don't—that the U.S. government doesn't know exactly what's happening there. There are protesters in the streets demanding democracy. It's very unclear what the military is going to do. And it's very unclear what our regional allies and how they view what's happening. What Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, what Saudi Arabia, what Israel—which Sudan is an Abraham Accords country now—what they are doing. How they view the coup as positive or negative will likely impact how effective the United States can be in trying to manage this situation. But I suspect that we're just going to have to accommodate ourselves to whatever outcome the Sudanese people and the Sudanese military come to, because I don't think we have a lot of—we don't have a lot of tools there to make everybody behave. FASKIANOS: OK. So I'm going to take the next question from Elena Murphy, who is a junior at Syracuse University's Maxwell School. And she's a diplomatic intern at the Kurdistan Regional Government's Representation in the United States. COOK: That's cool. FASKIANOS: That's very cool. So as a follow up, how much do you believe neo-Ottomanism and attempting regional hegemony has affected Erdogan's domestic and foreign policy, especially in consideration of Turkey's shift towards the MENA in their foreign policy, after a period of withdrawals and no problems with neighbors policy? COOK: Great. Can I see that? Because that's a long question. FASKIANOS: Yeah, it's a long question. It's got an up-vote. Third one down. COOK: Third one down. Elena, as a follow up, how much do you believe neo-Ottomanism—I'm sorry, I'm going to have to read it again. How much do you believe neo-Ottomanism and attempting regional has affected Erdogan's both domestic and foreign policy, especially in consideration of Turkey's shift towards the MENA in their foreign policy, after a period of withdrawals and no problems with neighbors? OK. Great. So let us set aside the term “neo-Ottomanism” for now. Because neo-Ottomanism actually—it does mean something, but people have often used the term neo-Ottomanism to describe policies of the Turkish government under President Erdogan that they don't like. And so let's just talk about the way in which the Turkish government under President Erdogan views the region and views what Turkey's rightful place should be. And I think the Ottomanism piece is important, because the kind of intellectual framework which the Justice and Development Party, which is Erdogan's party, views the world, sees Turkey as—first of all, it sees the Turkish Republic as a not-so-legitimate heir to the Ottoman Empire. That from their perspective, the natural order of things would have been the continuation of the empire in some form or another. And as a result, they believe that Turkey's natural place is a place of leadership in the region for a long time. Even before the Justice and Development Party was founded in 2001, Turkey's earlier generation of Islamists used to savage the Turkish leadership for its desire to be part of the West, by saying that this was kind of unnatural, that they were just merely aping the West, and the West was never actually going to accept Turkey. Which is probably true. But I think that the Justice and Development Party, after a period of wanting to become closer to the West, has turned its attention towards the Middle East, North Africa, and the Muslim world more generally. And in that, it sees itself, the Turks see themselves as the natural leaders in the region. They believe they have a cultural affinity to the region as a result of the legacies of the Ottoman Empire, and they very much can play this role of leader. They see themselves as one of the kind of few real countries in the region, along with Egypt and Iran and Saudi Arabia. And the rest are sort of ephemeral. Needless to say, big countries in the Arab world—like Egypt, like Saudi Arabia—don't welcome the idea of Turkey as a leader of the region. They recognize Turkey as a very big and important country, but not a leader of the region. And this is part of that friction that Turkey has experienced with its neighbors, after an earlier iteration of Turkish foreign policy, in which—one of the earliest iterations of Turkish foreign policy under the Justice and Development Party which was called no problems with neighbors. In which Turkey, regardless of the character of the regimes, wanted to have good relations with its neighbors. It could trade with those neighbors. And make everybody—in the process, Turkey could be a driver of economic development in the region, and everybody can be basically wealthy and happy. And it didn't really work out that way, for a variety of reasons that we don't have enough time for. Let's leave it at the fact that Turkey under Erdogan—and a view that is shared by many—that Turkey should be a leader of the region. And I suspect that if Erdogan were to die, if he were unable to stand for election, if the opposition were to win, that there would still be elements of this desire to be a regional leader in a new Turkish foreign policy. FASKIANOS: Steven, thank you very much. This was really terrific. We appreciate your stepping in at the eleventh hour, taking time away from your book. For all of you— COOK: I'm still not Sanam. FASKIANOS: (Laughs.) I know, but you were an awesome replacement. So you can follow Steven Cook on Twitter at @stevenacook. As I said at the beginning too, he is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine. So you can read his work there, as well as, of course, on CFR.org, all of the commentary, analysis, op-eds, congressional testimony are there for free. So I hope you will follow him and look after his next book. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday November 3, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time on the future of U.S.-Mexico relations. In the meantime, I encourage you to follow us, @CFR_Academic, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for new research and analysis on global issues. And stay well, stay safe, and thank you, again. COOK: Bye, everyone. FASKIANOS: Bye. (END)
About Today's Show:In this week's episode of Mental Status, I sat down with Yulia Golubev, LMHC who speaks about her experiences with burnout as she navigated the ways in which her identities & background intersected with the work she was doing in the field.Yulia explores the impact of being an immigrant to the USA and her experience of providing therapy in a place & language she did not grow up with. She discusses how her various identities impacted the work she did with mandated clients at a rehab facility in New York. Yulia is honest and transparent in sharing her stories and provides thoughtful ways of approaching this work through the lens of burnout prevention.About Today's Guest:Yuliya is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in the state of New York. She runs her private practice in NYC. Yuliya is a seasoned bilingual-bicultural psychotherapist who has been seeing clients for over 14 years. She has been running her private practice since 2017. Prior to starting her private practice, Yuliya worked with a diverse set of clients in a variety of clinical settings: college counseling, outpatient substance abuse program, crisis call center, hospitals, and managed care. Yuliya also provided a spectrum of clinical services: individual, group, family therapies, crisis intervention, and supervision. Yuliya is passionate about professional advocacy and teaching. She served one term as the Professional Development Chair and Vice President for the NYC Chapter of the New York Mental Health Counseling Association. Yuliya is a part-time adjunct Professor at St. Francis College. She teaches undergraduate classes of General Psychology and Child and Adolescent Developmental. Yuliya also enjoys volunteering to decrease the stigma of mental health. Yuliya lives with her family in Brooklyn. When not in the office, she enjoys discovering new hiking trails, strolling NYC neighborhood, going to the theater, and trying new recipes.Find Yulia on Instagram @golubev.therapy and on her website at www.yuliyagolubev.comCredits, links & other things: Intro & Outro Music: DriftMaster by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.com Join the Patreon Community! www.patreon.com/mentalstatuspod Mental Status IG: @mentalstatuspod Talk to me: mentalstatuspod [at] gmail.com Apply to be a guest on this show: Interviewee Interest form Submit an anonymous burnout story: Lister-Submitted Story Form Support the show: ways to support Schedule a 1-1 burnout coaching session with Meg on Calendly Disclaimer, y'all: This is a podcast meant for education and entertainment purposes only. I'm not your therapist. This podcast doesn't replace therapy or clinical supervision and isn't supposed to replace those things. If you need a therapist or supervisor, please find one. My opinions are my own and don't reflect the opinion(s) of my past/present/future employers.
Thomas Graham, distinguished fellow at CFR, leads a conversation on constraining Putin's Russia. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's meeting is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website CFR.org/academic if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Thomas Graham with us to talk about Putin's Russia. Mr. Graham is a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior advisor at Kissinger Associates, where he focuses on Russian and Eurasian affairs. He is cofounder of the Russian, East European, and Eurasian studies program at Yale University, and is also a research fellow at the MacMillan Center at Yale. He previously served as special assistant to President George W. Bush and senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff from 2004 to 2007, and director for Russian affairs from 2002 to 2004. His résumé is very distinguished. I will just also say that he is a U.S. diplomat who served two tours of duty in Moscow, where he worked on political affairs. So, Mr. Graham, thanks very much for being with us today. I thought you could get us started by talking about the primary interests at stake in U.S.-Russia relations. GRAHAM: Great. Thank you very much, Irina, for that introduction, and it's a real pleasure to be with all of you here today. I want to start with three broad points that will frame the rest of our discussion. The first is that the problem that the United States faces is not simply with Putin; it is with Russia more generally speaking. The last seven years of very difficult, challenging adversarial relationship is really not an aberration in the history of the relationship between our two countries. In fact, from the moment the United States emerged as a major power on the global stage at the very end of the nineteenth century, we have had a rivalry with Russia. And the issues that divide us today are the ones that divided us 125, 150 years ago: We have opposing worldviews. We have different geopolitical interests. And clearly, we have different systems of values that inform our domestic political systems. This rivalry has intensified, ebbed and flowed during the twentieth century. But the effort we made at partnership after the breakup of the Soviet Union up until 2014, marked by the eruption of the crisis in Ukraine, is really the aberration in the history of relations between our two countries and one that was founded very much on the fact that Russia endured a period of strategic weakness. So the issue we have to deal with Russia and how we're going to deal with Russia well into the future, even after Putin departs—which he will, obviously, at some point, if only for biological reasons. The second point that I would make is that Russia is not going to go away. We hear a lot in the public debate in the United States about Russian decline, about the population/demographic problems it has, about its stagnating economy, and so forth. None of this is necessarily untrue, but I think it tends to exaggerate the problems that Russia faces. It ignores the problems that all other major countries face—including China, the United States, and many major European countries—but it also overlooks the very great strengths that Russia has had for decades that are going to make it a player and an important player on the global stage, nuclear weapons to begin with. We should never forget that Russia remains the only country that can destroy the United States as a functioning society in thirty minutes. Russia has the largest natural endowment of any country in the world, a country that can pretend to self-sufficiency and, in fact, is better placed than most other countries to deal with a breakdown in globalization in the decades to come if that, indeed, happens. It has a veto on the U.N. Security Council, which makes it an important player on issues of importance to the United States, and it has a talented population that has fostered a scientific community that, for example, is capable of taking advances in technology and developing the military applications from them. Just look at the strength that Russia exhibits in cyberspace, for example—again, a major challenge for the United States. So Russia is going to continue to be a challenge. One other thing that I should have mentioned here is that the Russian state throughout history and Putin's Russia today has demonstrated a keen ability to mobilize the resources of their own society for state purposes. So even if in relative terms they may be weaker and weakening vis-à-vis China and the United States, in some ways that political will, that ability to mobilize, allows Russia to play a much larger role than mere indicators of its economic size and population size would suggest. Now, Russia clashes with the United States across a whole range of issues, and as I said that is going to continue for some time. And this brings me to my third point: How we should think about American foreign policy, what our guidelines should be in dealing with Russia. And here there are three, I think, key elements to this. First, the United States needs to preserve strategic stability. We need to have that nuclear balance between us (sic) and the United States. This is an existential question. And as I already mentioned, Russia does have a tremendous nuclear capability. Second, the United States should seek to manage its competition with Russia responsibly. We want to avoid or reduce the risk of a direct military conflict that could escalate to the nuclear level. This is—also, I think, recognizes that the United States is not going to be able to compel Russia to capitulate on issues that are of interest to us, nor are we going to be able to radically change the way they think about their own national interests. So it's a competitive relationship and we need to manage that responsibly. And finally, given the complex world that we live in today—the very real transnational challenges we face: climate change, pandemic diseases, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—the United States should seek, to the extent possible, ways to cooperate with Russia in dealing with these issues. We should recognize that Russia is not necessarily the only player nor necessarily the most important player in dealing with these challenges, but it does have a role to play along with other major powers in handling these transnational issues. So those, I think, are three sort of broad points that help set the stage for our discussion. Now let me turn sort of very briefly to the questions about U.S. policy. How do we deal with this Russia? What are sort of—the way we should think about American foreign policy? And here the point I would make is that we should think of the policy in terms of what I would call the three Ds: defense, deterrence, and dialogue. Now, defense and deterrence in many ways go together. If you have a very good defense, if you demonstrate an ability and willingness to defend your interests effectively and deliberately, then you tend to deter another power. They have less reason to want to attack you. But if deterrence fails, you very much need to be able to defend yourself—to disrupt Russian operations in cyberspace, for example, or disrupt military operations by the Russians that you find problematic in some way. So defense and deterrence go together, and we need to think about that. Now, you build these elements on a number of other things that we're all familiar with. A strong military—strong, capable military—is, obviously, an element of both defense and deterrence, and something that we have managed quite well in the past and I imagine will manage quite well going into the future. Cyber defenses are also an important element of constraining Russia on the global stage. Now, here the United States really has much room for improvement. We built our internet, our cyberspace largely for the accessibility, the ability to pass information from one entity to another, and we spent much less attention to the security of that system. As cyberspace has become more important to our socioeconomic and political lives, we really need to devote much more attention to cybersecurity, hardening our commuter—computer networks, for example, making sure we have strong passwords and so forth, something that I think we now recognize but we need to put a much greater effort into doing that. Third area of defense and deterrence is strong alliances. When we're thinking about Russia, this is clearly the transatlantic community, NATO, our relations with our other European partners. And here, we need to develop the types of military/defense cooperation that we need to demonstrate quite clearly that the United States, along with the rest of the NATO allies, is ready and prepared to meet its Article 5 guarantees to collective security should the Russians do something that is untoward in our neighborhood. And then, finally, and I think of increasing importance, is the question of national unity. National unity, national resilience, has really become a key element in defense and deterrence at this point. We need to demonstrate to the Russians that we have sufficient national unity to clearly identify what our interests are and pursue them on the international stage. One of Putin's close colleagues several years ago said that what Putin is doing is messing with the Americans' minds, and certainly we've seen that over the past several years. Putin hasn't sowed the discord in the United States, but he certainly has tried to exploit it for Russian purposes. And this is something that he's going to concentrate on in the future, in part because he recognizes the dangers of military confrontation with the United States. So great-power competition, from the Kremlin's standpoint, is going to move very, very quickly from the kinetic realm to the cyber realm, and we need to be able to deal with that. So building national unity at home, overcoming our polarization, is really perhaps one of the key steps in constraining Russia on the global stage. And then, finally, some very brief words about dialogue. We tend to downplay this in our national discussion. Many believe that diplomatic relations are—should not be branded as a reward for bad behavior. But I think if you look at this objectively, you'll see that diplomatic relations are very important as a way of defending and advancing our national concerns. It's a way that we can convey clearly to the Russians what our expectations are, what our goals are, what our redlines are, and the responses that we're capable of taking if Russia crosses them. At the same time, we can learn from the Russians what their goals are, what their motivations are, what their redlines are, and we can factor that into our own policy. This is a major element of managing the competition between our two countries responsibly. You'll see that we have begun to engage in negotiations and diplomacy with the Russians much more under President Biden than we did under President Trump. We've already launched strategic stability talks with the aim of coming up with a new concept of strategic stability that's adequate to the strategic environment of the present day and the near future. We've engaged in cybersecurity talks, which my understanding is have, in fact, had some success over the past several weeks. Where we, I think, have lagged is in the discussion of regional issues—Europe, Ukraine, the Middle East, for example. These are areas where there is still potential for conflict, and the United States and Russia ought to be sitting down and talking about these issues on a regular basis. So three Ds—defense, deterrence, and diplomacy or dialogue—are the ways that we should be thinking about our relationship with Russia. And obviously, we'll need to adjust each of these three elements to the specific issue at hand, whether it be in Europe, whether it be in the nuclear realm, cyberspace, and so forth. Now, with that as a way—by way of introduction, I am very pleased to entertain your questions. FASKIANOS: Tom, thanks very much for that terrific overview and analysis. We're going to go to all of you now for your questions. You can either raise your hand by clicking on the icon, and I will call on you, and you can tell us what institution you are with; or you can type your question in the Q&A box, although if you want to ask it you can raise your hand. We encourage that. And if you're typing your question, please let us know what college or university you're with. So I'm going to take the first raised-hand question from Babak Salimitari. And unmute yourself. Q: Can you guys hear me? GRAHAM: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Hello. I'm a third-year UCI student, economics. I have a question. I'm going to sound a bit like Sean Hannity here, so please forgive me, but I have a question about that Nord Stream 2 pipeline that you constantly hear on the news, and it just doesn't make that much sense for me of why this pipeline was allowed to be completed into the heart of Europe considering Russia's strength with natural gases and the leverage that they have over Europe with that pipeline. Why was that allowed to be completed? GRAHAM: Well, I think from the standpoint of the Biden administration this was a matter of what we call alliance management. Germany is clearly a key ally for the United States in Europe, and the Germans were very committed to the completion of that pipeline, starting with Chancellor Angela Merkel down through I think both the leading political parties and the German business community. So I think they made the decision for that. But let me step back because I'd like to challenge a lot of the assumptions about the Nord Stream 2 project here in the United States, which I think misconceive it, misframe the question, and tend to exaggerate the dangers that is poses. The first point that I would make is that Europe now and in the future will have and need Russian gas. It's taken a substantial amount in the past—in the past decades, and even as it moves forward towards a green revolution it will continue to take considerable amounts of Russian gas. It can't do without that gas. So the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, contrary to what you hear in the United States or at the U.S. Congress, I don't think poses an additional threat to Europe's energy security, no larger than the threat that was posed before that pipeline was completed. The Europeans, I think are aware of the problems that that poses, and they've taken steps over the past several years to integrate the gas—the gas distribution network in Europe, to build facilities to import liquified natural gas, all as a way of eroding the leverage that Gazprom might have had over energy markets in Europe. And that has been quite successful over the past—over the past several years. Now, I think, you know, the other issue that comes up in the discussion in the United States is Ukraine, because Nord Stream 2 clearly provides Russia with a way to import the gas into Europe and bypass Ukraine at the—at the same time. And Ukraine is going to suffer a significant loss in budgetary revenue because of the decline in transit fees that it gets from the transportation of Russian gas across its territory. You know, that is a problem, but there are ways of dealing with that: by helping Ukraine fill the budgetary gap, by helping Ukraine transition away from a reliance on gas to other forms of energy, of helping Ukraine develop the green-energy resources that will make it a much more important partner in the European energy equation than it is now. And then finally, you know, it strikes me as somewhat wrongheaded for Ukraine to put itself in a position where it is reliant on a country that is clearly a belligerent for a significant part of its federal revenue. So we need to think hard with the Ukrainians about how they deal with this issue, how they wean themselves off Russian transit fees, and then I think we have a situation where we can help Ukraine, we can manage the energy-security situation in Europe, we can reduce any leverage that Russia might have, and that Nord Stream 2 really doesn't pose a significant risk to the United States or our European allies over the long run. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We're going to take the next question from the written queue from Kenneth Mayers, who's at St Francis—sorry, that just popped away; oh, sorry—St. Francis College. Thinking beyond this triangular framework, what pathways and possibilities can be envisioned for a more positive dimension of working together in mutually, even globally, beneficial ways? GRAHAM: What triangular relationship are we talking about? FASKIANOS: His—thinking beyond this triangular framework and— GRAHAM: Oh, OK. So I think it's defense, deterrence, and diplomacy is the— FASKIANOS: Correct. GRAHAM: OK. Can you repeat the final part of the question, then? FASKIANOS: What pathways and possibilities can be envisioned for a more positive dimension of working together in mutually beneficial ways? GRAHAM: Well, there are a number of areas in which we can work together beneficially. If you think about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, for example, the United States and Russia over the past two decades have played a major role in both securing weapons that were located in Russia, but also in securing highly-enriched uranium that was in Soviet-designed reactors throughout the former Soviet space. We have taken a lead together in setting down rules and procedures that reduce the risk of nuclear material—fissile material getting into the hands of terrorist organizations. And we have played a role together in trying to constrain the Iranian nuclear program. Russia played an instrumental role in the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that we signed in 2015 that the Trump administration walked away with, but they will continue to play a role in constraining Iranians' nuclear ambitions going forward. And we've also worked in a cooperative fashion in dealing with the North Korean nuclear program. So there are areas in nonproliferation where the two countries can work together. On climate change, I mean, I think the big challenge for the United States is actually persuading Russia that climate change is a significant threat to their own security. They're slowly beginning to change that view, but as they come around to recognizing that they have to deal with climate change there are a number of areas where the two countries can cooperate. One of the things that climate is doing is melting the permafrost. That is destabilizing the foundation of much of Russia's energy infrastructure in areas where gas and oil are extracted for export abroad. The United States has dome technologies that the Russians might find of interest in stabilizing that infrastructure. They suffer from problems of Siberian fires—peat-bog fires, forest fires—an area that, obviously, is of concern to the United States as well. And there may be room for cooperation there, two. And then, finally, you know, the United States and Russia have two of the leading scientific communities in the entire world. We ought to be working together on ways that we can help mitigate the consequences of climate change going forward. So I see an array of areas where the two countries could cooperate, but that will depend on good diplomacy in Washington and a receptivity on the part of the Russians which we haven't seen quite yet. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let's go next to Jeffrey Ko. You can unmute yourself. Thank you. Q: Hi. So I'm Jeffrey Ko. I'm an international relations master's student at Carnegie Mellon. And my question has to deal with these private military forces, and especially the Wagner Group. And so I would like to know, you know, how does this play into our security strategy regarding Russia in countries that have seen proxy warfare? And how does this—how difficult will it be to engage with Russia either diplomatically or militarily on the use of these gray-zone tactics, and specifically utilizing the Wagner Group as an informal branch of Russia's military? GRAHAM: Well, look, I mean, I do think that we need, one, to sit down and have a discussion with Russia about the use of these private military forces, particularly the Wagner firm, which has played a significant role in a number of conflicts across the globe in the Middle East, Africa, and in Latin America. But we also ought to help the countries that are of interest to us deal with the problems that the Wagner Group causes. You know, the United States had to deal with the Wagner Group in Syria during the Syrian civil war. You know, despite the fact that we had a deconfliction exercise with the Russians at that point, tried to prevent military conflicts between our two militaries operating in close proximity, when the Wagner forces violated those strictures and actually began to attack a U.S. facility, we had no hesitation about using the force that we had to basically obliterate that enemy. And the Wagner Group suffered casualties numbering in the hundreds, one to two hundred. I think the Russians got the message about that, that you don't—you don't mess with the United States military, certainly not while using a private military company like Wagner. You know, in places like Libya, where Wagner is quite active, I think the United States needs a major diplomatic effort to try to defuse the Libyan crisis. And part of the solution to that would be negotiating an agreement that calls for the withdrawal of all foreign military forces and certainly private military groups from Libyan territory, and lean on the Russians to carry that through. In any event, you know, this is not going to be an easy issue to resolve. I think we deal with this by—country by country, and we focus our attention on those countries where our national interests are greatest. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Jill Dougherty, who's at Georgetown University. The Putin administration appears to be hardening its control of Russia's society with the purpose of keeping Putin in power at least until 2036. Most recent example is the Duma elections that just took place. Will this crackdown domestically affect or damage U.S.-Russia relations? GRAHAM: Thank you, Jill. Always a good question and always a difficult question to answer. You know, I think the issue here is the extent to which the Biden administration wants to make the domestic political situation in Russia a key item on its agenda with Russia over the next—over the next few years. You know, my impression from the conversations I've had with people in the administration—in and around the administration is that President Biden is not going to focus on this. You know, his focus really is going to be China, and what he wants to do is maintain something of a status quo in the relationship with Russia. You will notice that the second round of sanctions that the United States levied with regard to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, something that was mandated by U.S. law, were actually quite mild—much less extreme, much less punitive than the legislation allowed—I think a signal that the Biden administration was not going to let domestic political issues in Russia overwhelm the agenda that the United States has, which is going to be focused on strategic stability, cyber issues, and so forth. So my immediate reaction is that the Duma election is really not going to have a dramatic impact on the state of the relationship between our two countries. We accept the fact that Russia is an authoritarian system. It is becoming more authoritarian. We will continue to try to find ways to support those elements of civil society we can, but always being careful not to do it in ways that causes the Russian government to crack down even harder on those individuals. This is a very sort of difficult needle to thread for the United States, but I think that's the way we'll go and you won't see this as a major impediment to the improvement of relations—which, as we all know, are at a very low level at this point in any event. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Let's go next to Sujay Utkarsh. Q: Hi, yeah. Can you hear me? GRAHAM: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Awesome. So, regarding the issue about cyber warfare, I was wondering if you can go into more detail about what advantages the Russians have in cyberspace and what the United States can do to compete with those advantages. GRAHAM: A good question and a difficult question for people outside the government to answer, since we're not privy to all the information about Russian cyber capabilities nor are we privy to the information about American cyber capabilities. Both countries cloak those programs in a great deal of secrecy. You know, it seemed to me that one of the advantages that perhaps Russia has is that it's a much more closed society than the United States. Now, I'm thinking simply in terms of the way societies can be disrupted through cyberspace. We're a much more open society. It's easier to access our internet. We are—just as I mentioned before, we are a polarized society right now. That allows Russia many avenues into our domestic political system in order to exacerbate the tensions between various elements in our society. The United States can't reply in the same way in dealing with Russia. You know, second, Russia, in building its own internet, its own cyberspace, has paid much more attention to security than the United States has. So, you know, I would presume that its computer systems are somewhat harder to penetrate than American systems are at this point, although another factor to take into account here is that much of the initial effort in building up cyberspace—the Web, the computer networks—in Russia was built with American technology. You know, the Googles, the Intels, and others played an instrumental role in providing those types of—that type of equipment to the Russians. So I wouldn't exaggerate how much stronger they are there. And then, finally, I think what is probably one of the strengths, if you want to call it that, is that Russia is probably a little more risk-prone in using its cyber tools than the United States is at this point, in part because we think as a society we're more vulnerable. And that does give Russia a slight advantage. That said, this shouldn't be a problem that's beyond the capability of the United States to manage if we put our minds to it. We have done a lot more over the past several years. We are getting better at this. And I think we'll continue to improve in time and with the appropriate programs, the appropriate education of American society. FASKIANOS: Thank you. The next question is a written one from Kim-Leigh Tursi, a third-year undergraduate at Temple University. Where do you see Russia in relation to the rise of China, and how does that affect how the U.S. might approach foreign policy toward Russia? GRAHAM: Well, you know, that's an important question, obviously one that a lot of people have focused on recently. You know, Russia and China have developed a very close working strategic relationship over the—over the past several years, but I think we should note that the Russian effort to rebuild its relations with China go back to the late Soviet period to overcome the disadvantages that then the Soviet Union felt they had because of the poor relationship with China and the ability of the United States to exploit that relationship to Moscow's detriment. So relations have been improving for the past twenty-five, thirty years; obviously, a dramatic acceleration in that improvement after 2014 and the breakdown in relations between Russia and the West. Now, there are a number of reasons for this alignment at this point. One, the two countries do share at a very general level a basic view of for—a basic dislike of what they see as American ambitions to dominate the global—the global security and economic environment. They don't like what they consider to be American hegemonic goals. Second, the economies seem to be complementary at this point. Russia does have a wealth of natural resources that the Chinese need to fuel their robust economic growth. You have similar domestic political systems. And all of this, I think, is reinforced by what appears to be a very good personal relationship between President Putin and President Xi Jinping. These two leaders have met dozens of times over the past five to seven years and have maintained, I think, very robust contact even during the—during the pandemic. So there are very good strategic reasons why these two countries enjoy good relations. They are going to step those up in the near term. The Russians are continuing to provide the Chinese with significant sophisticated military equipment. They've also undertaken to help the Chinese build an early warning system for ballistic missiles, and when that's completed it will make China only the third country in the world to have such a system along with Russia and the United States. Now, I would argue that this strategic alignment does pose something of a challenge to the United States. If you look at American foreign policy or American foreign policy tradition, one of the principles that has guided the United States since the end of the nineteenth century, certainly throughout the twentieth century, was that we needed to prevent the—any hostile country or coalition of hostile countries from dominating areas of great strategic importance, principally Europe, East Asia, and more recently the Middle East. A Russian-Chinese strategic alignment certainly increases the chances of China dominating East Asia. Depending on how close that relationship grows, it also could have significant impact on Europe and the way Europe relates to this Russian-Chinese bloc, and therefore to the United States as a whole. So we should have an interest in trying to sort of attenuate the relationship between the two countries. At a minimum, we shouldn't be pursuing a set of policies that would push Russia closer to China. Second, I think we ought to try to normalize our diplomatic relationship with the Russians. Not that we're necessarily going to agree on a—on a range of issues at this point, but we need to give the Russians a sense that they have other strategic options than China going forward—something that would, I think, enhance their bargaining position with the Chinese going forward and would complicate China's own strategic calculus, which would be to our advantage. I think we also should play on Russia's concerns about strategic autonomy, this idea that Russia needs to be an independent great power on the global stage, that it doesn't want to be the junior partner or overly dependent on any one country as a way, again, of attenuating the tie with China. The one thing that I don't think we can do is drive a wedge between those two countries, in part because of the strategic reasons that I've mentioned already that bring these two countries together. And any very crude, I think, effort to do that will actually be counterproductive. Both Beijing and Moscow will see through that, quite clearly, and that will only lead to a closing of the ranks between those two countries, which as I said is a strategic challenge for the United States going forward. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Holli Semetko, who's at Emory University. Polarization is something we must overcome, as you said, but those of us working on social media have some evidence to suggest that social media has fostered political polarization in the U.S. Yuri Milner, a Russian Israeli entrepreneur, invested in an early round of Facebook funding with help from VTB, a Russian state-controlled bank, as well as his investment in Jared Kushner's real estate firm. What is the level of FDI from Russia in the U.S. and do you see it as a threat to national security? GRAHAM: Well, look, I mean, the actual level of Russian FDI in the United States is quite small. You know, you have some few, I think, good examples of it—the one that you've mentioned with Yuri Milner, for example. There was some investment in a steel factory some years ago. But by and large, there hasn't been a significant amount of Russian foreign direct investment in the United States. I think our growing concerns about Russia have made us even more leery of allowing Russian investment, particularly in sectors that we consider critical to American national security. So I'm not deeply concerned about that going forward. I think we probably face a much greater challenge from the Chinese in that regard. Of course, you've seen efforts by the United States to deal more harshly or look more closely at Chinese investment in the United States over the past several years. Let me just make one sort of final point on social media since it's come up. You know, Russia is a problem. We need to pay attention to Russia in that space. But again, I don't think that we should exaggerate Russia's influence, nor should we focus simply on Russia as the problem in this area. There is a major problem with disinformation in social media in the United States, much of that propagated by sources within the United States, but there are a host of other countries that also will try to affect U.S. public opinion through their intrusions into American social media. You know, given our concerns about First Amendment rights, freedom of speech and so forth, you know, I think we have problems in sort of really clamping down on this. But what we need to do, certainly, is better educate the American public about how to deal with the information that crosses their electronic devices day in and day out. Americans need to be aware of how they can be manipulated, and they need to understand and know where they can go to find reliable information. Again, given the political polarization in our country today, this is a very real challenge and difficult one. But I think if we think long term about this problem, the key really is educating the American public. An educated American public is going to be the best defense against foreign countries, other hostile forces trying to use social media to undermine our national unity and exacerbate the politics of our country. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Eoin Wilson-Manion, who's raised his hand. Q: Hello. Can you hear me now? GRAHAM: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Awesome. Well, thank you. I just wanted to ask if you could touch a little bit more on Russia's presence in Syria and what that means for U.S. interests in Syria and I guess the larger Middle East. I'm Eoin from Carnegie Mellon University. Thanks very much. GRAHAM: Well, you know, the Russians entered Syria in 2015 militarily largely to save Assad from what they thought was imminent overthrow by what they considered a radical Islamic force, a group of terrorists that they thought would challenge Russian interests not only in Syria but would fuel extremist forces inside Russia itself, particularly in the North Caucasus but farther afield than that—even into Moscow, into areas that were Muslim-dominated inside Russia itself. So they had very good national security reasons for going in. Those ran—I mean, the Russian presence in Syria clearly has run counter to what the United States was trying to do at that point since we clearly aligned against Assad in favor of what we considered moderate reformist forces that were seeking a more sort of democratic future for Syria as part of this broader Arab Spring at that time. So there was a clear conflict at that point. You know, subsequently and in parallel with its continued presence in Syria, the Russians have extended their diplomatic—their diplomatic effort to other countries in the region. Russia enjoys a fairly robust diplomatic relationship with Israel, for example, that has been grounded in counterterrorism cooperation, for example. They have a sort of strange relationship, largely positive, with Turkey that they have pursued over the past several years. We know of the ties that they've had in Tehran, in Iran for some time. They have reached out to the Saudis and the Saudis have bought some military equipment from them. We see them in Egypt and Libya, for example. So they're a growing presence, a growing diplomatic presence in the Middle East, and this does pose some problems for the United States. From the middle of the 1970s onward, one of the basic thrusts of American foreign policy was to limit the role the Russians played in the Middle East. We sidelined them in the negotiations between the Arabs and the Israelis in the 1970s and in the 1980s. We limited their diplomatic contacts to countries that we considered critical partners and allies in that part of the world. Now I think the geopolitical situation has changed. Our own interest in the Middle East has diminished over time, in part because of the fracking revolution here in the United States. Gas and oil, we've got close to being independent in that area. We're not as dependent on the Middle East as we once were for energy sources. And also, as, you know, the Biden administration has been clear, we do want to pivot away from the Middle East and Europe to focus more of our energies on what we see as the rising and continuing strategic challenge posed by China. So I think that means that going forward the United States is going to have to deal with Russia in a different fashion in the Middle East than in the past. We're going to have to recognize them as a continuing presence. We're not going to be able to push them out, in part because we're not prepared to devote the resources to it. We have countries that are still important to us—Saudi Arabia, Israel for example—that do want a Russian presence in the Middle East. And so what we ought to do, it seems to me, is to begin that discussion about how we're going to manage the rivalry in the Middle East. Now, it's not all simply competition. There are areas for cooperation. We can cooperate in dealing with Iran, for example, the Iran nuclear dossier, as we have had in the past. Neither country has an interest in Iran developing nuclear weapons. Second, I think the two countries also would like to see a Middle East that's not dominated by a single regional power. So despite the fact that the Russians have worked together quite closely with the Iranians in Syria, they don't share Iranian ambitions elsewhere in the Middle East. And if you look at the diplomatic ties that the Russians have nurtured over the past with Turkey, with Israel, Saudi Arabia for example, none of these are friends of Iran, to put it mildly. So we can talk, I think, to the Russians of how our—you know, we can conduct ourselves so as to foster the development of a regional equilibrium in the Middle East that tends to stabilize that region, makes it less of a threat to either country, less of a threat to America's European allies, and use this as a basis for, again, sort of not escalating the tension in the region but moderating it in some ways that works to the long-term advantage of the United States. FASKIANOS: Next question from Michael Strmiska, who's a professor at Orange County Community College in New York state. Do you see any hope of persuading Russia to abandon its occupation of Crimea in the near term? Or do you think this is like the occupation of the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia after World War II, where a very long timespan was needed before any liberation was realistically possible? GRAHAM: Well, I guess my answer to those two questions would be yes and no, or no and yes. On Crimea, you know, I see no sort of near-term scenario that would lead to the Russians agreeing to the return of Crimea to Ukraine. Quite the contrary, Russia has taken steps since 2014 they continue at this point to further integrate Crimea into the Russian Federation politically, economically, socially, and so forth. The Russians have also built up their military presence in Crimea as a way of enhancing their domination or their influence in the greater Black Sea region. So I see no set of circumstances that would change that, certainly not in the—in the near term. And I think, you know, the Ukrainian effort to focus attention on Crimea is not going to, in fact, gain a great deal of traction with Europe nor with the United States going forward, though we will maintain the principled position of not recognizing Russia's incorporation or annexation of Crimea. You know, I don't think that the Crimean and Baltic situations are necessarily analogous. You know, in the Baltic states there was a significant indigenous element, governments in exile, that supported the independence of those countries. There was a fulcrum that the United States or a lever that the United States could use over time to continue pressure on the Soviets that eventually led to the independence of those countries as the Soviet Union broke down and ultimately collapsed at the end of the 1980s into 1991. I don't see any significant indigenous element in Crimea nor a movement of inhabitants of Crimea outside Crimea that wants Crimea to be returned to Ukraine. I think we need to remember that a significant part of the population in Ukraine is Russian military, retired Russian military, that feels quite comfortable in—within the Russian Federation at this point. So if I were being quite frank about this, although I think the United States should maintain its principled position and not recognize annexation of Crimea, I don't see anything over the long term, barring the collapse of Russia itself, that will change that situation and see Ukraine (sic; Crimea) reincorporated into the Ukrainian state. FASKIANOS: So there are a couple questions in the chat about Russia's economy: What is their economy like today? And what are the effects of the sanctions? And from Steve Shinkel at the Naval War College: How do you assess the tie between Russia's economy and being able to continue to modernize its military and ensure a stable economy? And will economic factors and Russia's demographic challenges be a future constraining factor? So if you could— GRAHAM: Yeah. No, no, just take the economy. Obviously, a big issue, and it will be a constraining factor. I mean, the Russian economy is stagnating and it has for some—for some time. They enjoyed—the Russian economy enjoyed a very rapid period of growth during President Putin's first presidential—two presidential terms in the 2000s, but since the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 Russia has run into very difficult economic times. In fact, it's never really recovered from that crisis. If you look at the past ten years, barely any growth in the Russian economy at all. If you look at the impact that that has had on Russians themselves, there's basically been no growth in real disposable income; rather, a decline over the past six or seven years. I think the Russians recognize that. The question is whether they can come up with a set of policies that actually will reverse that and that lead to a more robustly growing economy. Now, what the Kremlin has tried to do is not so much reform the economy—which I think is necessary if they're going to enjoy robust economic growth—as much as professionalize the economy; that is—that is, bring in a younger sort of cadre who are well educated, many of them educated in the West, who understand how modern economies function and can keep the economy stable at least at the macro level. And this is one of the reasons that Western sanctions have not had nearly the impact on Russian behavior that many had hoped for or anticipated back in 2014 when we began to turn repeatedly to this tool in response to Russian activities and operations against Ukraine. You know, it has had some impact. I think the IMF would say that it's probably taken a percentage point off—or, not a percentage point, but a tenth of a percentage point off of Russia's GDP growth over the past several years. That certainly hasn't been enough to change Russian behavior. But it hasn't been more, in fact, because the governors of the—of the central bank have dealt quite adeptly with that, and maintain said Russian macroeconomic stability and some sort of foundation for the economy to grow going forward. I imagine that's going to continue into the—into the future as well. So it is a constraining factor. Then I would end with what I—with a point that I made in my introduction. Russia does have a tremendous ability to mobilize its resources for state purposes, to extract what it needs from society at large to modernize the military, to maintain certainly Russia's defenses and also some capability to project power abroad. So I wouldn't write them off because of that. I think it's going—still going to be a serious power, but not nearly as great a challenge to the United States as if it, in fact, solved its demographic problems, its economic problems, and had a robustly growing economy, greater resources that it could devote to a whole range of things that would improve its standing on the global stage vis-à-vis the United States and vis-à-vis China. FASKIANOS: Well, with that we are at the end of our time. And I apologize to everybody. We had over twenty written questions still pending and raised hands. I'm sorry we couldn't get to all of you, but we do try to end on time. So, Thomas Graham, thank you very much for sharing your insights and analysis with us today. We appreciate it. And to all of you for your terrific questions and comments, we appreciate it. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, October 6, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. And we will focus on the Indo-Pacific with Dhruva Jaishankar, who is the executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America and nonresident fellow at the Lowy Institute. And in the meantime, I encourage you to follow CFR at @CFR_Academic and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for new research and analysis on global issues. So, Tom, thank you very much. GRAHAM: Thank you. Good luck to all of you. (END)
Licensed professional counselors Johanna Dwinells and Sarah Bryski-Hamrick are slowly demystifying and destigmatizing therapy, one episode at a time. Recording and living in the Philadelphia area, Johanna and Sarah work to make therapy feel more accessible, with quirky, sometimes intrusive questions that reveal the human side of healthcare professionals, all while they overcome their own anxieties and internalized stigmas. TW: mistreatment of pregnant women, new mothersEpisode summary: Johanna talks about hitting the road again. Sarah talks about 30 Rock. They both read a history lesson about the history of perinatal and postnatal mental illness. Licensed Professional Counselor, Yuliya Golubev talk about being a therapist in New York City during the pandemic and helping clients on their journeys into parenthood. Guest Bio:Yuliya Golubev is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in the state of New York. She is a seasoned bilingual-bicultural psychotherapist who has been seeing clients for over 14 years. She has been running her private practice since 2017. Prior to starting her private practice, Yuliya worked with a diverse set of clients in a variety of clinical settings: college counseling, outpatient substance abuse program, crisis call center, and hospitals. Yuliya also provided a spectrum of clinical services: individual, group, family therapies, crisis intervention, and supervision. Yuliya is passionate about professional advocacy and teaching. She served one term as the Professional Development Chair and Vice President for the NYC Chapter of the New York Mental Health Counseling Association. Yuliya is a part-time adjunct Professor at St. Francis College. She teaches undergraduate classes of General Psychology and Child and Adolescent Developmental.Yuliya also enjoys volunteering to decrease the stigma of mental health. Yuliya lives with her family in Brooklyn. When not in the office, she enjoys discovering new hiking trails, strolling NYC neighborhoods, going to the theater, and trying new recipes.Sources for today's History Lesson: “Perinatal mental illness: Definition, description and aetiology” by Michael W. O'Hara, PhD, Katherine L. Wisner, MD, MS, Norman and Helen Asher Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Obstetrics and Gynecology; “Sadness and Support: A Short History of Postpartum Depression” by Robert Sparks; wikipedia.org;Resources: Postpartum Support International www.postpartum.net; La Leche League https://www.llli.org/; “The Worry Cure: Seven Steps To Stop Worry From Stopping You” by Robert L. Leahy; “When Panic Attacks: The New, Drug-Free Anxiety Therapy That Can Change Your Life” by David D. Burns Questions/comments/concerns? Want to share your thera-story? Email us at therapistsnextdoor@gmail.com.Follow us: IG: @tndpodTwitter: @therapistsndpodDo you want bonus features, including episodes, the ability to vote on what questions we ask our guests and ad-free episodes (fingers crossed)? Do you want to help support us as we demystify and destigmatize mental health? Visit our Patreon: patreon.com/tndpodcastOr visit our website: tndpodcast.com
JoAnn Stonier loves her role. After all, when you're the Chief Data Officer for Mastercard, the opportunities to create real change are plentiful. But Stonier knows her work is about more than just data privacy and governance, it's about aligning the company's data strategy to business goals and impacting the organization in a positive way. And of course, making sure that all 725 million of Mastercard's credit card holders are protected.With a career rooted in privacy, a degree in law, and a background in interior design, Stonier is not just a well-rounded CDO, she's a visionary. On this episode of The Data Chief, JoAnn joins Cindi for an inside look at data's impact on people, data ethics, and the importance of building trustworthy models.Main TakeawaysThe CDO is an enabler of the business: In Joann's own words, “the role of the CDO is to engage the business in tomorrow's business.” This means CDOs must consistently be aligned with the company's goals, and develop capabilities that lay track for future innovation. Great data governance, data management, and data quality are table stakes. The CDO must also have a sense for where the market is going and how the business can carve out new space for itself to deliver value to customers.Data is about people: As a data leader, it's easy to get caught up in the novelty and opportunity of innovation. But data is more than an anonymized collection of 0s and 1s, it's about people and the tremendous impact it can have on their lives. As products and services are developed, it's important to apply individually-centric design principles and evaluate how you might be affecting someone, for better or worse, on the other side.Responsible AI starts with trustworthy data: Simply put, data is food for AI. In order to build ethical or responsible AI and machine learning algorithms, there must be improvement in data trust and quality. Oftentimes these algorithms are missing integral data points that neglect particular demographics. This creates a level of bias in the numbers that will only continue to be amplified over time.About JoAnnJoAnn Stonier is the Chief Data Officer for Mastercard, where she is responsible for the enterprise data strategy and management, including identifying and mitigating data risks across the company, as well as influencing data-driven products, overseeing data policy and governance. She advises executive management on a broad range of complex data policy and regulatory issues. Prior to her current position, Ms. Stonier established the first Privacy Office for Mastercard in 2008, and developed the organization's Information Governance program beginning in 2013. Prior to joining Mastercard, Ms. Stonier was the Chief Privacy Officer for American Express Company. JoAnn is a recognized data and privacy expert and is sought after for her innovative and practical approach to solving problems in the digital age. In 2018 she assisted in the creation and launch of Trūata, an Irish data trust enterprise, formed to ensure anonymization compliance with the EU-General Data Protection Regulation. She currently serves on their board. In addition to the Trūata board of directors, she currently advises a broad range of industry and policy groups regarding data innovation and privacy including: the United Nations Global Privacy Advisory Group; the World Economic Forum's Data Driven Development Steering Committee; and the Board of Directors of the Information Accountability Foundation. She is also a Board Advisor for Hope for the Warriors, a non-for-profit organization that assists U.S. military personnel and their families. She has served on the Board of Directors for the International Association of Privacy Professionals from (2013-2018) and served on the Executive Committee in multiple roles including Chairman in 2017. For her data thought leadership, Ms. Stonier has been recognized by the Information Governance Initiative as the Chief Information Governance Officer of 2015 and in 2011 she was named as an Aspen Institute First Mover Fellow. Ms. Stonier received her Juris Doctorate from St. John's University in Queens, and her Bachelor of Science degree from St. Francis College. Ms. Stonier is a lawyer and holds memberships in the Bar of the State of New York and the Bar of the State of New Jersey. --The Data Chief is presented by our friends at ThoughtSpot. Searching through your company's data for insights doesn't have to be complicated. With ThoughtSpot, anyone in your organization can easily answer their own data questions, find the facts, and make better, faster decisions. Learn more at thoughtspot.com.
In this episode, you'll hear about: The four pillars of a quality job.How job quality affects worker equality.How bad jobs can dramatically negatively affect a business that provides them.Magazine Luiza's Black-only training program.Related Video: Sustainable companies treat employees as assetsUnited Nations SDG #10 InformationMagazine LuizaGINI Index as calculated by the World BankThe World Inequality DatabaseGood Jobs InstituteSchrodersGuest Bios:Sarah Bratton Hughes is Schroders' head of sustainability North America (NA). She has been at Schroders for over nine years and is responsible for leading strategy and ESG integration for Schroders' NA investments. Prior to her current role, Sarah has held several roles at the firm, including investment director for U.S. Equities & Sustainability/ESG Americas, product and associate product manager, and product executive of U.S. equities.Prior to joining Schroders, Sarah was a senior analyst investment performance at JP Morgan Asset Management. Sarah received her B.A. in Economics as well as her B.S. in Business Management from St. Francis College. Sarah was also a four-year member of the school's NCAA Division 1 basketball team and served as team captain her senior year.Ana Luisa Herzog is the corporate reputation and sustainability manager at Magazine Luiza (Magalu)
One sure way to lose a popularity contest is to fight for the rights of convicted sex offenders. But The National Sex Offender Registry, which was established during an era of panic over crime and child danger, has come with a host of unintended consequences. Sociologist Emily Horowitz is one of a handful of academics and researchers who speaking out against the registry, showing how it's yet another blunt instrument of "tough on crime" 1990s legislation and ultimately does more to ruins lives than to protect kids. Emily spoke with Meghan about what led her to this work and why our assumptions about sexual predators are often wrong. She also explained some of the reasons why sexual abuse against children, and sexual violence in general, has declined over the last 30 years-for reasons having nothing to do with the registry. Relevant links: New York Times: At 18, He Had Consensual Gay Sex. Montana Wants Him to Stay a Registered Sex Offender New York Times: Did The Supreme Court Base a Ruling on a Myth? The New Yorker: The List Guest bio: Emily Horowitz is a professor of Sociology & Criminal Justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New York. She is the author of a number of articles about the harms of sex offense registries, including the book Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us. At St. Francis College she co-directs a program that helps those with criminal justice involvement earn college degrees and she is currently conducting research on the experiences of veterans with sex offense convictions.
Welcome to episode 78 of Activist #MMT. Today I talk with first-year MMT activist Katrina Pilver, about how she discovered the importance of economics and then MMT, and her unusually-intensive and -ambitious journey to learn MMT more deeply. Katrina and her partner own a soul food restaurant and ice cream truck in Connecticut, the former which they opened with her father-in-law in 2014. Here's a link to __PART_TWO__ After the Supreme Court made George Bush junior president in 2000, Katrina became disillusioned by politics. That changed upon the shock of witnessing Donald Trump become elected president in 2016. In June 2020, she watched a debate and discussion including T.I., Killer Mike, and Candace Owens (see screenshot at the bottom). it was there she got her first exposure to economics as a tool of politics – in other words, a tool to manipulate others out of power, in order to increase your own. At the suggestion of Killer Mike, the first economist she looked into was . Sowell is an alumnus of the Chicago School of Economics and two of his primary influences are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. (Katrina and I spend several minutes gushing about Killer Mike, who I had the privilege to at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. I was a state delegate for the Bernie Sanders campaign and he was a surrogate.) Katrina eventually entered the term "economics" into a search engine for Podcasts. The first result that struck her was with Nick Hanauer. While working long shifts at her restaurant (and no customers to disturb thanks to the health crisis), she binged on the podcast with a speaker in her apron pocket. The first economist that appealed to Katrina was Paul Krugman. She felt he was different because he offered hope that nice things are indeed possible. (Nice things like healthcare, education, clean water, and a livable planet.) What she didn't understand, however, was how these things were possible, and so she purchased Krugman's book in order to figure it out. She was unsuccessful. A later episode of Pitchfork Economics featured economist Stephanie Kelton. For the first time, Katrina felt not only hope, but actually understood herself exactly how it was possible to have nice things. She immediately of ordered Kelton's book, The Deficit Math, and while waiting for it to arrive, listened to every Kelton lecture she could find, all from her apron pocket. Stephanie Kelton's lectures and books served as the major turning point in Katrina's understanding. She has since consumed an extraordinary amount of content in the past several months, which is the major topic of today's episode. You'll find links to several of the sources from Katrina's journey in the show notes. Finally, Katrina and I met in a Facebook group called . It was created in early 2021, in response to its sister group, , becoming extremely active (now with more than 6000 members) and perhaps less of an introductory group than it once was. (I've been a moderator of the Intro group since September 2020.) Both groups are excellent and if you're on Facebook, I highly recommend you join both. MMT for Newbies is specifically for questions, and only approved, experienced, and patient MMTers are assigned to answer those questions. Links to both groups can be found in the show notes. And now, onto my conversation with Katrina Pilver. This is part one of a two-part episode. Resources Podcasts Videos by PEGS Institute (YouTube channel: Stonybrook University) (YouTube channel: OXI - Wirtschaft anders denken) (YouTube channel: Deficit Owls) (YouTube channel: Stonybrook University) (YouTube channel: St. Francis College) with T.I., Killer Mike, and Candace Owens (see Twitter screenshot below) Milton Friedman's Free to Choose ( of 10). Books , by Stephanie Kelton (2020) , by Pavlina Tcherneva (2020) , by Nancy MacLean (2017) , by Christopher Leonard (2019) , by John Harvey (2009) , by John Harvey (2020)
Customers are always paying attention -- you can't miss a beat. There's nowhere that's more true than with an institution of higher learning, where students are both customers and residents. So setting a standard for student experience is paramount for leadership. Just ask Miguel Martinez-Saenz, President of St. Francis College in Brooklyn NY (of which Liliana Petrova happens to also be an alumna). Miguel shares with Liliana: why, as a leader, Miguel has a zero-tolerance policy for disrespect of front line employees, and believes in setting the right standard for how others interact with each other in the communities he creates; understanding because not all students are the same, a hybrid model of in-person and online services is necessary; the importance of service to others, and what it really means to being lucky; and, how Miguel and his team have led the college through the pandemic without missing beat of attention to customer experience See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Welcome back to America's leading higher education podcast! This is The EdUp Experience President Series Episode #65. In this episode, sponsored by MDT Marketing, we welcome Dr. Miguel Martinez-Saenz, President at St. Francis College Brooklyn! Miguel says it like it is - the media has done a disservice to the value of higher education. However, the students also can't move aimlessly to the next step of higher education without a path. Miguel cautions labeling the student as a consumer - higher ed is the only industry where the "consumer" demands less than what they pay for; students need to take an active role in their learning. Finally, Miguel discusses why "fit" is creating the conditions for someone to believe they belong! Dr. Miguel Martinez-Saenz became the 19th president of St. Francis College in September of 2017. Before coming to St. Francis College, Dr. Martinez-Saenz served as Provost at Otterbein University. In that position, he led a number of efforts especially in the context of internationalization that included a three-year global arts initiative funded, in part, by the National Endowment of the Arts. He also helped lay the foundation and developed partnerships with universities in South Africa, Costa Rica, Brazil, and Malaysia. Of significance, Dr. Martinez-Saenz was an administrative Fulbright Scholar (March 2016) through the Fulbright-Nehru International Education Administrators Program. Another episode sponsored by our great friends at MDT Marketing! Get your free marketing consultation today! mdtmarketing.com/edup. Thanks so much for tuning in. Join us again next time for another episode! Contact Us! Connect with the hosts - Elvin Freytes, Elizabeth Leiba, and Dr. Joe Sallustio ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow us on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening! We make education your business!
Inform & Connect: An American Foundation for the Blind Podcast
In this episode of Inform & Connect, Melody Goodspeed chats with Gabby Mendonca, blindness advocate and student. Gabby is a senior at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, studying communications in digital media. Growing up, she didn't have anyone in the blind community to look up too for guidance. With this in mind, she started her own YouTube channel to connect with others like her—blind individuals needing to know they are not alone. Gabby thrives on sharing her journey as a college student, navigating her passion alongside her sighted peers. Transcript
We continue the discussion with NYU President Emeritus John Sexton who shares how it took an intervention from his close friends to get him to give up his career as a professor of theology at St. Francis College and champion high school debate to go to law school and how it took a special recommendation from his friend and Constitutional Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to get Harvard Law to reconsider his initial rejection. He would go on to become one of the most successful law school deans in American history, lifting NYU into the upper echelon of legal education by systematically recruiting stars from the leading schools to join its faculty. It took several years for his close friend and eventual NYU Board chair to overcome his initial reluctance to become NYU President. David Finegold is the president of Chatham University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to the fourth episode of Wild Connection The Podcast. In this episode I share a little about how I came to even study animal behavior, some of my early experiences with great apes, and talk with literary scholar Gregory Tague about what he calls an ape ethic. I got my start as a volunteer for the Center for Great Apes (https://www.centerforgreatapes.org), a sanctuary dedicated to providing a safe haven of life long care for chimpanzees and orangutans in need of a home. They are always in need of donations, so please consider giving. You can also support them by buying some of the wonderful artwork created by the apes, some of whom love to paint for enrichment. I have shared a piece I own as the cover art for this episode My guest for this episode is Gregory F. Tague, Ph.D. (1998), New York University, who is a Professor in the departments of Literature, Writing and Publishing / Interdisciplinary Studies and founder and senior developer of The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative at St. Francis College, N.Y. He is also the founder and organizer of a number of Darwin-inspired Moral Sense Colloquia and other multidisciplinary events. Recent, relevant books include An Ape Ethic and the Question of Personhood (Lexington Books, 2020), Art and Adaptability: Consciousness and Cognitive Culture (Brill, 2018), Evolution and Human Culture (Brill, 2016), and Making Mind: Moral Sense and Consciousness (Rodopi, 2014). Tague has written or edited a number of other academic books, such as Character and Consciousness (2005) and Origins of English Dramatic Modernism (2010). He is the founding editor of the peer-reviewed ASEBL Journal (ethics/arts/evolution) and general editor of the Bibliotekos literary website as well as Literary Veganism: An Online Journal. Tague has also edited five literary anthologies, notably, Being Human (2012) and Puzzles of Faith and Patterns of Doubt (2013). Tague is currently working on a book about veganism and evolution. We first discuss his book An Ape Ethic and his perspective on why we can look to other species for developing a better ethical relationship with nature. We spend that last part of the interview talking about his latest work on the evolution of veganism. You can find out more about Gregory, his books, and other works at his website https://sites.google.com/site/gftague/an-ape-ethic He also co-authors an online journal called Literary Veganism which you can check out here www.litvegan.net and another journal of ethics/art/evolution, ASEBL www.asebl.net If you are digging the show subscribe and share it so others can enjoy it too. You can follow the show on Itunes, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Also follow the show on Twitter: @WildConnectPod You can also follow me on Twitter: @realdrjen Instagram: @readrjen Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RealDrJen There is also a YouTube Channel where you can find a range of videos, some of them tied to podcast episodes. More are on the way so subscribe to Wild Connection TV
Carlo Acquista, a New York Red Bulls scout and former head coach at Adelphi University and St. Francis College, was named the fifth head coach of the Fordham men's soccer program on January 30, 2019 by Fordham director of athletics Dave Roach, and begins his second year at Fordham in 2020. “We are thrilled to bring on Carlo Acquista to lead the men's soccer program,” said Roach. “Carlo has extensive background in finding outstanding talent and bringing it to New York, whether it was for the Red Bulls, Adelphi, or St. Francis, and then develop that talent into winning programs. We hope he will continue that trend at Fordham and keep our program at the top of the Atlantic 10 Conference.” “I am humbled and honored for this fantastic opportunity that has been presented to me here at Fordham University. My family and I could not be more thrilled to become part of the Rams family. I want to thank David Roach, Charlie Elwood, and the committee for their belief and trust I will continue with men's soccer traditions,” said Acquista. “As a native New Yorker, I understand the history of Fordham University and the men's soccer program. I am looking forward to continue instilling the core values of integrating academic and athletic experiences successfully in the Jesuit tradition. I will work diligently to recruit the talented student-athlete who will compete in the ultra-competitive Atlantic 10, as well as meeting and engaging our proud alumni, campus community, and fans.” In his first season at Rose Hill, Acquista guided the Rams to the Atlantic 10 Championship semifinals, Fordham's fourth in a six-year span. The year saw Joergen Oland receive his second A-10 Defensive Player of the Year award, as well as First Team All-Atlantic 10 honors. He also garnered All-Region accolades from United Soccer Coaches and ECAC All-Star status. Additionally, Johnannes Pieles was selected as a CoSIDA Third Team Academic All-American, while Konstantin Weis earned a spot on the Atlantic 10 All-Championship team.
In this episode we bring you a little different twist then usual, there is some b roll footage in the beginning and a workout out the end ! Hope you enjoy this episode with Gianni Ford who was a D1 basketball player at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. He eventually bounced back Juco, found his way back to D1 and is still chasing his dreams of playing pro. In the midst of all this, him and his brother have opened up a basketball training facility called The Cube located in Hauppauge, NY. Please follow them on IG and go get some work in !! IG - @TheCubeBasketball --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/zachary-cummings6/message
Associate Head Coach at St.Francis College, Brooklyn and Head Coach of Great Britain under 16's girls Jen Leedham speaks to coach Tony Garbelotto, catching up with one of the rising stars of British basketball coaching.
Fordham University former Head Coach, and current Associate Head Coach, Bill Harris enter his 17th season as part of the Rams' water polo program. During his time at Fordham he has compiled five trips to the CWPA Championship (2009-10, 2013-15) and four to the Mid-Atlantic Water Polo (MAWPC) Championship (2016-19). Under Harris' leadership, the Rams have seen sustained recent success, posting three straight winning seasons (2015-17), six straight seasons of at least 16 wins (2014-19), and a Top 20 national ranking in multiple seasons for the first time since the 1980s. The team has also been recognized by the NCAA for its Academic Progress Rate (APR) score six times. Since 2004, Harris has brought respect back to Fordham as he helped 13 Rams earn All-CWPA Northern Division honors from 2005-14. The former girls' varsity coach at Greenwich High School (Conn.), he served as the travel team coach for Greenwich Youth Water Polo from 2000-03, while also serving as an Age Group coach for the New York Athletic Club from 1995-2003. Harris was also the head coach for the NYAC Men's Team from 1982-87. A 1997 U.S. Water Polo Hall of Fame inductee, Harris had a prolific playing career at St. Francis College, where he was a 1966 NCAA All-America selection and a four-time Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC) All-Star Team selection, while helping St. Francis to four ECAC Championships and an undefeated conference record in those four seasons. He later was selected to the St. Francis College Athletic Hall of Fame in 1990. Following his collegiate career, Harris represented the New York Athletic Club from 1967-92, where he was a member of eight National Championship teams. He was selected First Team All-America eight times as a member of the NYAC, and was 1973 and 1977 MVP for the National Championship Tournaments. Harris was also named MVP of the NYAC Paul Wacker Tournament on three separate occasions (1975, 1978, and 1980), and earned MVP honors of the North American Cup in 1977. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/cwpa/support
In the seventh episode of The Ring Fanatics Podcast, the hosts (Nick & Joel) were joined by Anthony Cerulli, who is a Freshman at St. Francis College and the host of "Meme Review" on TerrierTV. We all gave our predictions for the Hell in a Cell PPV, which takes place this Sunday October 25th at 7pm/EST. They also answered last week's question, which revolved around creating their own faction in the independent scene as well as in the WWE. Tune in to see what they had to say.
The Rev. Dr. Marlowe Washington is a graduate of St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with a minor concentration in history. He attended Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ and in 1997 graduated with a Master of Divinity from The New York Theological Seminary in Manhattan, NY. He graduated from Northeastern Seminary at Roberts Wesleyan College attaining the Doctor of Ministry in transformational leadership. He successfully completed his second doctoral degree at St. John Fisher College in May 2019 earning a Doctor of Education (EdD) in Executive Leadership with a concentration in diversity and inclusion in higher education administration.Currently, the Senior Minister at Seneca United Methodist and known to all as Pastor Marlowe, in this episode of The Helping Conversation, he discusses how his work both within his congregation as well as across his community is guided by the concept of being a Servant Leader. This model of leadership focuses on empowering and uplifting those who work with the leader, serving instead of commanding and showing humility instead of brandishing authority. With this as his foundational perspective on helping others, Pastor Marlowe is dedicated to social and political activism and entrepreneurship. His ministry and community engagement reflect a diverse range of causes and strategies within the goal of working to create justice and equality for all people.
Knight Vision for June 2020 - Focus on Vocations (2020 Episode 4) Bob Zielinski interviews with Fr. Eric Zimmer about his transition to St. Francis College. Scott Schutte with part two of his discussion on Vocations with Fr. Mike Keucher. Walt Peycha and Fr. Mick Kopil on challenges of Social distancing on the church and mass.
Get INTUIT with Gila- a podcast about Intuitive Eating and Personal Growth.
In today's Episode, I spoke with Gabby Barreto of Nutrition with Gabby. I loved our conversation. We really discussed the harmful effects of dieting and diet culture, Gabby's own story to Intuitive Eating, and how she helps women today. She is a wealth of knowledge on this topic and her skill set is extremely vast given that she is a registered dietitian and also a personal trainer. She is also extremely honest, vulnerable and caring of others. Gabby is a Registered Dietitian and Personal Trainer specializing in helping active women and female athletes nourish and fuel themselves to optimize their health and performance. She focuses on improving your relationship with food to stop the harmful effect of dieting. She obtained her Master's in Nutrition and Exercise Physiology from Columbia University, where she conducted research on nutrition knowledge and sports nutrition education interventions on Division I female athletes. She is also Certified Functional Strength Coach, Kettlebell Specialist, and Mobility specialist, helping people find joyful movement. She has worked with Division I college athletes at St. Francis College and Long Island University, helping student-athletes fuel their athletic and academic career. She has implemented sports nutrition plans for USTA Pros, endurance cyclists, marathon athletes, martial artists, and soccer players. Additionally, she currently the Sports Nutritionist for the Hofstra University Dance Team. You can find Gabby on Instagram @nutritionbygabby and her website at https://nutritionbygabby.com/ If you have gained any value from my content please subscribe to my podcast and youtube channel, leave a comment and a rating! This will help increase the amount of people who see this awesome content. Share it with the women you love! To sign up to work with me, Gila Glassberg, please visit my website @ www.gilaglassberg.com and on instagram @dietitian.gilaglassberg. Have a beautiful day! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/gila-glassberg/support
Welcome to our encore presentation of The Couples Expert podcast with your host Stuart Fensterheim. This episode originally aired in March of 2017. This is episode 176 of our show. Stuart's guest on the show is Marisa Cohen, A professor at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY and the Director of the Self-awareness and Bonding Lab. Marisa is an expert in gender differences and science of relationships. Stuart and Marisa will be discussing how online dating impacts couples and what is the possibility that online dating can lead to marriage? Thanks for tuning into The Couples Expert Podcast! What you'll learn from today's podcast: Why Marisa changed her focus to relationships in school [3:49] Attachment theory IS science- based [5:27] How online dating impacts relationships and marriage [6:43] What men and women lie about on online dating sites [11:45] Online dating sites gives socially awkward people a chance to meet people [14:09] People can feel free to be more authentic when communicating online [19:38] Marisa's book and work in the lab on the science of relationships [21:40] Understanding yourself is crucial to finding a partner you're compatible with. Opposites don't really attract, so who does? Marisa's app covers the questions you need to be asking a potential partner when you're in the “getting to know you“ phase of the relationship. These are questions about money, pets, religion, etc. The deep stuff that is going to tell you if this is truly someone you want to pursue a relationship with. Getting to forever is about how you communicate with each other. We want to thank Marisa Cohen for being on the show and for the work she's doing in New York. We'd also like to thank you for taking part of your day to spend with The Couples Expert. Giveaway: Chapter of the book From First Kiss to Forever giveaway from Marisa Cohen for all the listeners. Stay tuned next week for another encore performance of the podcast while Stuart enjoys his much-needed and well-deserved vacation. Until then, stay connected The Couples Expert Podcast is sponsored by: Stuart's Daily Notes: Subscribe and change your relationship in 5 minutes a day with a video sent to your email inbox. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Stuart's Daily Notes can help you too! https://www.thecouplesexpertscottsdale.com/stuart-daily-notes/ Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-couples-expert/id951362894?mt=2 Email: Stuart would love to hear from you. If you have a comment, review, or suggestion for a topic Stuart can tackle in the future, please email him at podcast@thecouplesexperts.com
Welcome to episode 52 of Sexology Podcast. Today, I am delighted to welcome Dr. Nickie D. Phillips. Nickie is an associate professor of criminal justice at St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY where she teaches courses that include criminology, criminal justice, crime and media, and victimology. She is director of the Center for Crime and Popular Culture serving scholars, students, and laypersons interested in issues pertaining to the intersection of crime, social control, and popular culture. The Center sponsors special events, lectures, and guest speakers on campus, each geared toward understanding how cultural artifacts shape and reflect public attitudes toward offenders, victims, and the operations of the criminal justice system. Nickie received her Ph.D. from City University of New York Graduate Center in 2006 and holds a M.A. in Forensic Psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Her research interests include media and crime, crime and popular culture, and sexual violence. She is author of Beyond Blurred Lines: Rape Culture in Popular Media (Rowman and Littlefield, 2017) and co-author of Comic Book Crime: Truth, Justice, and the American Way (NYU Press, 2013), the latter of which examined representations of crime and justice in contemporary American comics books through the lens of cultural criminology. In this episode, you will hear: The evolution of rape culture during the past decade. The concept of rape culture in television, gaming and comic books. The normalization of violence against women in media. How #Metoo movement breaks the silence of ongoing sexual harassments in our society. Potential backlash of #MeToo movement. Empowering the victims of sexual harassment. Methods for ending rape culture Resources http://www.sfc.edu/academics/institutescenters/popculture https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442246270/Beyond-Blurred-Lines-Rape-Culture-in-Popular-Media# https://www.amazon.com/Comic-Book-Crime-Alternative-Criminology/dp/0814767885 nphillips@sfc.edu
Audrey A. Thomas has been published several times in various legal periodicals and she was featured on the front cover of the New York State Criminal Justice Journal in 1999. She has written several winning legal briefs and has been a contributing columnist for the New York State Criminal Justice Journal case review section. Mrs. Thomas graduated from St. John's University School of Law in 2000 where she earned a Juris Doctor Degree; Brooklyn College in 1997 where she earned a Masters Degree in Public Administration; St. Francis College in 1995 where she earned her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science and an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice; Blake Business School in 1989 where she earned a Degree in Business and George W. Wingate High School in 1987 after acquiring the General Equivalency Diploma (G.E.D). Audrey acquired several certificates from New York City Technical College for successfully completing several self-betterment courses. She has also attended IS 391 Brooklyn, NY; PS 189 in Brooklyn, NY, Rennock Lodge primary school Kingston, Jamaica WI, and Holy Rosary primary school, Kingston Jamaica WI. US attorney Audrey Thomas has spoken out against Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte's for her comment on the hoisting of the gay flag at the US Embassy in Kingston. Thomas also stated that Forte's comment shows that the Government of Jamaica will not protect members of the gay community from harm.
Katja Schroeder (@schroek) is an Adjunct Professor at St.Francis College where she teaches International Marketing andSocial Media Marketing. She is the Managing Director of Bloom, atransmedia startup agency within the Ruder Finn globalnetwork that helps companies thrive with integrated marketingcommunications campaigns across social channels and digitalscreens. Katja has developedaward-winning integrated communications and marketing programs forcompanies of all sizes in North America, Europe and Asia.Katja holds a M.A. in Communications andBusiness Administration from the FU Berlin (Germany) and a M.A. inCommunications and Information Sciences from CELSA/Sorbonne, Paris(France). She is a published author and frequently blogsabout entrepreneurship, digital media and the way technologyinnovation enables sustainable development. She is on the Board ofthe St. Francis College's Center for Entrepreneurship.In this episode we discussedThe one thing organizations do wrong when it comes to theircontent and social media marketing and how you can avoid it.How to go from zero engagement to having an active and engagedsocial media following.How to grow a POWERFUL social media presence, no matter howsmall your organization.ResourcesSt. FrancisCollege Center for Entrepreneurship [Twitter]Bloom PRHootsuiteSmall Data: The Tiny Clues that Uncover HugeTrends by Martin LindstromBlue Ocean Strategy by W. Chan Kim and ReneéMauborgne
Summary of today's show: On a day without much news from the College of Cardinals, Scot Landry took the opportunity to take part of the Station Church tradition and visit the Basilica of Ss. Cosmas and Damian for Mass and then to interview Worcester seminarian Donato Infante, Fr. Norman Tanner, SJ, and Br. Mark McBride, TOR, in which he learned about the twin doctors to whom the church is dedicated and the fact that Masses have been celebrated there every day since 525AD. Then Scot spoke to Terry Donilon, Cardinal Seán's spokesman, about how the media is covering the interregnum and especially letting the world get to know Cardinal Seán. And finally, he talks to a group of pilgrims from St. John's Seminary's Master of Arts in Ministry program who are following in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II from Poland to Italy. Listen to the show: Watch the show via live video streaming or a recording later: Today's host(s): Scot Landry Today's guest(s): Donato Infante, Fr. Norman Tanner, Br. Mark McBride, Terry Donilon, Fr. Chris O'Connor, Mary Jo Kriz, Aldona Lingertat, Beth Joyce Links from today's show: Today's topics: LIVE from Rome: Station Church of Ss. Cosmas and Damian; Seminarian and Priest; Cardinal Seán's spokesman; Pilgrims from Boston 1st segment: Scot Landry welcomed everyone to the show. It's been a slow news day thus far in Rome as the cardinals are in a silent period. So instead Scot participated in the ancient Roman tradition during Lent of visiting the station churches. This practice dates to the fourth century and involves visiting 40 different churches in Rome during the 40 days of Lent. Each morning priests and seminarians from the North American College lead English-speaking pilgrims in Rome to the station church for Mass at 7am. George and Scot met with a group of about 50 seminarians at 6:15am at the bottom on the Janiculum hill and made the 35 minute walk to the basilica of Sts. Cosmas and Damian. It's next the Roman Forum. The journey along the streets is silent by rule of the seminary. It's moving to walk through the quiet streets of Rome at that hour and see most of the seminarians praying the Rosary. Today, there were about 40 concelebrating priests, 60 seminarians and 60 others in this small, but beautiful basilica, which was consecrated a church in the year 535. There has been a Mass there everyday since. Then played of the sounds of chant from the Mass. 2nd segment: Scot was joined by seminarian from the Diocese of Worcester, Donato Infante. Donato said the tradition of the station churches began in the early centuries of Christianity where the Bishop of Rome visited each of the churches of his diocese during Lent. Sometime in history the tradition stopped in the 1970s, the North American College revived tradition and other colleges in the city started doing the same. Scot noted that nobody spoke while walking from the NAC. Donato said the faculty explicitly encourages them to take the walk as a time to pray to make it a pilgrimage to the churches. Scot asked him what he likes about the station churches. Donato said many of the churches are beautiful and have the tombs of many of the saints in the Roman Canon of the Mass. To go to their tombs is a wonderful pilgrimage and a great way to celebrate Lent. Others who attend are priests on sabbatical at the Casa Santa Mariae and faculty and students at universities in Rome. Scot asked if he has a favorite church. Donato said San Clemente is his favorite because of the mosaic in the apse that is very old. He said a quarter of the seminarians go more than a couple of times per week, most go occasionally and they all go on Ash Wednesday to Santa Sabina as that's the required community Mass. More music and prayer from the Mass is now played. 3rd segment: Scot now welcomed Fr. Norman Tanner, a professor at the Gregorian University from Great Britain. Scot asked about the number of churches in Rome and their significance. Fr. Tanner said it's a very ancient custom and Rome has 40 ancient churches which are station churches. Fr. Tanner said the 7am Mass is a perfect time to get in before their first 8:30am Mass. Scot asked about Saints Cosmas and Damian. He said they were martyrs of the early church and are mentioned in the 1st Eucharistic Prayer. They were both medical doctors and surgeons. Scot asked about the Gregorian. Fr. Tanner said many of the NAC seminarians and newly ordained study there. It was founded in 1554, two years before the death of St. Ignatius and it's been a work of the Society of Jesus. There are about 2,500 students from almost all countries of the world. Fr. Tanner said as a church historian it's a unique privilege to be in Rome. The history of the Church helps in the study for the priesthood to understand the Christians of the past, like Cosmas and Damian. More prayer from the Mass. 4th segment: Scot welcomes Br. Mark McBride, who works at St. Cosmas and Damian Basilica. He asked him how today compared to the Sunday liturgies. Brother said it's not a parish church and so serve tourists and those with devotion to Cosmas and Damian. This day in Lent is special for the church. It has special Masses, including a special Mass in the evening with their titular cardinal. They have had English, German, and French groups come in for Mass and then their principal Mass would be in the evening at which the relics of the saints would be exposed for veneration. Scot said many people might not know much about those saints. Br. McBride said they were doctors in Syria and martyred in 313 AD. People who admired them had great devotion to them and built two major basilicas for them, one in Rome and one in Constantinople. When Constantinople fell, so did the church. So the one in Rome is the remaining sanctuary. The two were twin brothers and they received no money for their services. When questioned by the Romans why they didn't charge for their services, they said they did it for the Lord and so were martyred. In later centuries, people came to the basilica to pray for cures from their ailments. People from the East still come, many from Russia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the crypt. The church was a part of a former Roman library built in 77 AD. It was used that way until 525 when the library was given to Pope Felix who converted it to a church. Pope Gregory the Great in the 600s had a major devotion to the saints there and to the Madonna della Salute, Our Lady of Good Health, which is also in the church. Mass has been said in the church every day since 525. Only a few other churches can boast such longevity. Scot said the relics of Ss. Cosmas and Damian are in the lower church. Br. McBride noted that the lower church or Crypt Church was not the lower level at first, but was ground level in the 6th century. In the 1600s, the basilica was cut horizontally which made it two churches. The lower church contained the relics of the saints as brought back to Rome by Pope Gregory. Scot said Br. McBride is originally from the San Francisco area. He asked him what led him to become a Franciscan and how did he come to Rome. Br. McBride said as a child he had a great devotion to the Franciscans, especially after studying the life of St. Francis. The pastor of his parish spoke of the TOR, Third Order Regular, Franciscans and he sought them out. He is not a priest, but a consecrated religious. From there he worked in their high school in the Philadelphia archdiocese for 20 years, then worked as provincial treasurer in the United States. From there he became general treasurer of the whole order which is headquartered at Ss. Cosmas and Damian. Since coming to Rome, he has been made superior of the friary which has friars from around the world. He said many Americans will know the TORs because they sponsor Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio and St. Francis College in Loreto, Pennsylvania. They also have parishes in Florida and Texas. Living in Rome is at times it's an incredible feeling to the point it's not even believable. To live at the church where St. Francis must have once prayed is incredible. The feeling of being in a room where millions of prayers have been offered is sometimes hard to even believe. You almost sense in the air that this is ancient. This is hard for Americans to grasp. The doorknobs of the church were made in 1400, centuries before America was founded. The choir stalls are from the 1600s. But because it looks so nice, it's hard to imagine they're so old. It makes him feel Catholic, a religion that knows no nationality, no single background. Scot asked how being situated right by the Colosseum and Forum impact the number of visitors who come to the church or the experience of praying there. Fr. McBride said they are in the Ancient District of Rome, at the feet of the Palatine Hill. That's where Rome was founded and became the center of the world for hundreds of years. Because it's ancient and you can see the development of peoples from all the oldest periods of Rome, all blending together. To be there at the church, you are at the point of convergence of all those periods of time. In the church it's the same, kneeling and praying in a place that goes back to a time before Christianity. When it was a library, it was a place dedicated to medicine and there is a sense of continuity, a sense of ever-old, ever-young. Today, they're looking at making the basilica a center for bioethics to continue that idea. Scot asked Br. McBride's perspective on the papal transition today. He said the ancient basilica reminds us that this isn't the first conclave. He describes this moment as a time of grace. Christ has promised us a Church. We believe what the cardinals are doing is no accident. We believe whoever the cardinals choose will be the successor of Peter. The Church isn't a museum. It lives and renews itself, renews itself with a new leader. Br. McBride said they don't have favorites in the conclave, but they would of course love to see a Franciscan pope. They're waiting to see how the Holy Spirit works through the choice that is made. The new Pope is elected for a reason. He compared the interregnum to Lent and awaiting Easter. More prayer from the Mass. 5th segment: Scot Landry, reporting now from the Borgo Pio near the Vatican, welcomes Terry Donilon, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston, to the show. Scot asked Terry what Rome is like now in this anticipation. Terry said it feels like a celebration waiting to happen. There have been long lines waiting to get into St. Peter's, people milling about in the Square, attending the Holy Hour last night with the cardinals. He gets a sense that people are in an anticipatory state. Scot noted Cardinal Seán did a lot of media interviews earlier this week and the American cardinals gained praise from around the world for their transparency. But as of yesterday there won't be further press conferences as the cardinals decided not to speak. He asked Terry what the cardinal's key themes were. Terry said the cardinal felt it would be good to take the time in the Congregations to assess the other cardinals so when conclave began he knew who he would vote for. The cardinal was very aware of the immense decision he and the other cardinals would be about to make. The cardinal is in a deep prayerful state right now to prepare for that. Scot said more than 5,000 journalists have already been credentialed, including most from Boston. Why are they coming? Terry said Boston is a heavily Catholic community and the local news recognizes that this is important to the 1.8 million Catholics in the archdiocese. It's an opportunity to see this rare transition in the Church. All the major networks and affiliates and newspapers are present and have invaded Rome. Scot said many in the media were complimenting the American cardinals on how they were more open about process and other items they could talk about. That seems to be different from the culture of the Church in the rest of the world. Terry said the US Church believes in transparency. The cardinal finds an opportunity to talk to the people back in Boston. The rest of the world is slow to pick up on that. He also noted that the rest of the Church in the world hasn't reached the same level of the use of digital media and technology. There isn't a diocese in the world that brought the same level of expertise and assets to communicate back to the people in the archdiocese. The cardinal said before he left Boston that there is a responsibility to report back to the people what can be reported. It's unfortunate that the level of communication has changed but there were reports in the Italian press that made a lot of people take pause, although it wasn't anything that came from the American cardinals. Scot asked Terry his impression of the city, things you might not see elsewhere. Scot noted that the city rises late in the morning. He added that a lot of people come to visit St. Peter's and it's one of the best people-watching spots in the world. Terry said you see lots of priests and religious in great numbers walking the streets, seeing religious photos and items on display everywhere and clear signs that people are proud of their Catholic faith. He notes that many people speak English and he feels that more people speak English now than when he was in Rome in the late 90s. Terry said the story is building toward the conclave. The media is analyzing the top contenders for pope, although the college of cardinals has a way of surprising us. He said he's working to bring a Boston flair and focus top the coverage back home. It's a major story and recognition of the pope's influence on world affairs. Scot said the three main questions he gets from people when they know he's from Boston are: When's the conclave going to start? Who does he think the next pope will be? Does Cardinal Seán have a chance? What other questions are Terry getting? Terry said people want to know who Cardinal Seán really is. He's given the world a glimpse of who he really is. In Boston, he's well known, but the outside world is getting a glimpse of him and of the Archdiocese of Boston. Terry thinks the world is getting a chance to celebrate the hard work that has been done in Boston by the priests, religious, and laity of the archdiocese. People think Cardinal Seán is interesting because he stands out from the other cardinals and has had an influence through his work in the sexual abuse crisis but also his emphasis on the New Evangelization. Terry said no one realistically thinks Cardinal Seán will be elected despite his qualifications and when he returns home after being celebrated so much, it will be a little surreal. At the worst, it opens the eyes of the world that the cardinals and bishops in America are doing good work on behalf of the Church and may open the door for a future American cardinal being elected pope. 6th segment: Scot, reporting from outside St. Peter's Square, welcomed a pilgrimage group from the Master of Arts in Ministry program at St. John's Seminary, including Fr. Chris O'Connor, Mary Jo Kriz, and Beth Joyce. He asked Mary Jo about the first part of their trip in Poland and what people should see on a pilgrimage there. She said Our Lady of Czestochowa was great but everything there, especially the people whose faith shines through in their daily life. The Divine Mercy chapel was perhaps the best. Scot noted they are tracing the footsteps of Pope John Paul II. He asked Fr. Chris where else they have visited. Fr. Chris said they went to Auschwitz, where even there they saw a glimmer of hope in the tomb of St. Maximilian Kolbe. You feel John Paul's presence in the city of Krakow, where he was born. He said there are more than 6,000 public statues of John Paul throughout Poland. You can feel his presence in that country. Scot asked Beth about the great faith of the people of Poland under oppression. He asked her about these salt mines in which the people had carved cavernous churches underground complete with altars and statues. Beth said the common people went down deep in to the earth to carve these beautiful reminders of our Lord. She said it shows the faith that permeates Poland. Scot asked Aldona Lingertat about their itinerary in Rome for the days that they are there. She said today they were going on a walking tour of Rome, including Mass in St. Peter's. They walked throughout the basilica and in the afternoon for the Scavi tour. The next day they were to go to Assisi, ending with Vespers in the chapel of San Damiano. On Friday, they were to visit the basilicas and more of the city, plus Mass at the tomb of Pope John Paul II. She's been to Rome three times. Her favorite part is being steeped in the faith all around her in Rome. Scot noted that it's Beth's third trip to Rome, but the first time since her son started studying at the North American College. He asked her how it's different this time. She said came at Christmas to see her son and it's a great blessing that he's studying in Rome for the priesthood. Scot said Cardinal Seán says that vocations are everyone's business. He asked Beth what she did in her household that helped plant the seed for her son Kevin. When she realized her faith is a gift, she wanted to share it and wanted to communicate it to her child. She said the lives of the saints are great to share with them from a very early age because they were real people and they made it look possible to follow Jesus. Scot noted that originally the pilgrimage was to be at the General Audience, so he asked Aldona what it was like to be in Rome during the sede vacante. Aldona said the Vatican Post Office issues a special stamp during the sede vacante and she bought some for herself. These will be very rare. She was interviewed by Italian TV when she bought them. It's a unique moment in time and the Holy Spirit is at work. She said her hope is that the new pope will be holy, prayerful and humble like our two previous popes. Also someone who is strong and courageous. Scot asked Fr. Chris what he hopes people take away from these pilgrimages to Rome. He said the long tradition and history of preaching the Gospel and proclaiming Christ Jesus. There is a hopefulness in the sede vacante with the knowledge of the continuity of the Church.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
