Podcasts about franklin delano roosevelt

Share on
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit
Copy link to clipboard

32nd president of the United States

  • 1,762PODCASTS
  • 3,333EPISODES
  • 53mAVG DURATION
  • 1DAILY NEW EPISODE
  • Oct 22, 2021LATEST
franklin delano roosevelt

POPULARITY

20112012201320142015201620172018201920202021


Best podcasts about franklin delano roosevelt

Show all podcasts related to franklin delano roosevelt

Latest podcast episodes about franklin delano roosevelt

Ready For Takeoff - Turn Your Aviation Passion Into A Career

The aircraft, a DC-9-32, registered N904VJ, was the 496th DC-9 assembled at the Long Beach plant, was 27 years old at the time and had been previously flown by Delta Air Lines. Its first flight was April 18, 1969. Delivered to Delta on May 27, 1969, as N1281L, the airframe flew for Delta until the end of 1992, when it was retired and sold back to McDonnell Douglas. McDonnell Douglas then sold the plane to ValuJet in 1993. The aircraft was powered by two Pratt & Whitney JT8D-9A turbofan engines. The aircraft had suffered a series of incidents in the two years before the crash, including two aborted takeoffs and eight emergency landings. Engine and pressurization errors were the primary issues in several of the incidents. In May 1995, the FAA issued a re-wiring directive for all DC-9 cockpits because the wire bundles in the switch panel could cause "fire and uncontrolled smoke throughout the cockpit as a result of chafing and shorting." In the flight deck were two experienced pilots: Captain Candi Kubeck (35) and First Officer Richard Hazen (52). Captain Kubeck had accumulated 8,928 total flight hours throughout her career (including 2,116 hours on the DC-9) and First Officer Hazen had more than 11,800 total flight hours throughout his career, with 2,148 of them on the DC-9. On the afternoon of May 11, 1996, Flight 592 pushed back from gate G2 in Miami after a delay of 1 hour and 4 minutes due to mechanical problems. There were 105 passengers, mainly from Florida and Georgia, as well as a crew of two pilots and three flight attendants, bringing the total number of people on board to 110. At 2:04 PM EDT, 10 minutes before the disaster, the DC-9 took off from runway 9L (now runway 8R) and began a normal climb. The NTSB quickly determined that just before takeoff, 144 expired chemical oxygen generators, each slightly larger than the size of a tennis ball can, had been placed in the cargo compartment in five boxes marked COMAT (company material) by ValuJet's maintenance contractor, SabreTech, in violation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in passenger aircraft cargo holds. Failure to cover the generators' firing pins with the prescribed plastic caps made an accidental activation much more likely. The investigation revealed that rather than covering them, the cords attached to the firing pins were simply cut or duct-taped around the cans, and Scotch tape was also used to stick the ends down. SabreTech employees indicated on the cargo manifest that the "oxy canisters", which were loosely packed in the boxes that were each sealed with tape and bubble wrap, were "empty". ValuJet workers then loaded the boxes in the cargo hold in the mistaken belief that the devices that they contained were just empty canisters, thus being certified as supposedly "safe" to transport on a passenger aircraft, when in fact they were neither simple oxygen canisters, nor empty. Chemical oxygen generators, when activated, produce oxygen for passengers if the plane suffers a decompression. However, they also produce a great quantity of heat due to the exothermic nature of the chemical reaction involved. Therefore, not only could the heat and generated oxygen start a fire, but the oxygen could also keep the fire burning. The fire was worsened by the presence of two main aircraft tires (one of them mounted on a main wheel) and a nose tire and wheel that were also included in the list of materials shipped as COMAT. Investigators determined that one of the oxygen generators was likely triggered when the plane experienced a slight jolt while taxiing. As the aircraft taxied and took off, the activated generator got hotter and hotter. Soon, the boxes and surrounding packaging ignited, starting a fire. At 2:10 PM, the passengers started to smell smoke. At the same time, the pilots heard a loud bang in their headphones and noticed the plane was losing electrical power. The sag in electrical power and the bang were eventually determined to be the result of a tire in the cargo hold exploding. Seconds later, a flight attendant entered the cockpit and informed the flight crew of a fire in the passenger cabin. Passengers' shouts of "fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) when the cockpit door was opened. Though ValuJet's flight attendant training manual stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other harmful gases might be present in the cabin, the intercom was not functional and informing the pilots of what was happening was difficult. The flight data recorder (FDR) indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control systems due to the spreading fire. Kubeck and Hazen immediately asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to the increasing smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and were given instructions for a return to the airport. One minute later, Hazen requested the nearest available airport. Kubeck began to turn the plane left in preparation for the return to Miami. Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 PM, the exact time that it crashed. Eyewitnesses nearby watched as the plane banked sharply, rolled onto its side and nosedived into the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h). Kubeck lost control of the plane less than 10 seconds before impact. Examination of debris suggested that the fire had burned through the floorboards in the cabin, resulting in structural failure and damage to cables underneath the instrument panels. The NTSB report on the accident stated, "the Safety Board cannot rule out the possibility that the flightcrew was incapacitated by smoke or heat in the cockpit during the last 7 seconds of the flight."  Interruptions in the cockpit voice recorder occurred on two occasions, one as long as 1 minute 12 seconds.  The aircraft hit the water at 2:13:42 PM EDT, about 10 minutes after takeoff. The impact site was on the western edge of Florida Water Conservation Area 3B, between two levees, in an area known as the L-67 Pocket. None of the 110 passengers or crew on board survived the accident. Additionally, recovery of the aircraft and victims was made extremely difficult by the location of the crash. The nearest road of any kind was more than a quarter mile (400 m) away from the crash scene, and the location of the crash itself was a deep-water swamp with a floor of solid limestone. The aircraft was destroyed on impact, with no large pieces of the fuselage remaining. Sawgrass, alligators, and risk of bacterial infection from cuts plagued searchers involved in the recovery effort. According to the NTSB's report, two witnesses fishing nearby testified that "they saw a low-flying airplane in a steep right bank. According to these witnesses, as the right bank angle increased, the nose of the airplane dropped and continued downward. The airplane struck the ground in a nearly vertical attitude." They reported seeing no external damage or any sign of fire or smoke other than the engine exhaust. A group of sightseers in a small private plane also witnessed the crash and provided a nearly identical account, stating that Flight 592 seemed to "disappear" after hitting the swamp and they could see nothing but scattered small debris, part of an engine, and a large pool of jet fuel near the crash site.

The Tim Ferriss Show
#540: Noah Feldman on Hyper-Productivity, Learning 10+ Languages, DAOs, Using History to Become a Futurist, Crypto Constitutions, State Building, and The Supreme Court of Facebook

The Tim Ferriss Show

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2021 167:40


Noah Feldman on Hyper-Productivity, Learning 10+ Languages, DAOs, Using History to Become a Futurist, Crypto Constitutions, State Building, and The Supreme Court of Facebook | Brought to you by Eight Sleep's Pod Pro Cover sleeping solution for dynamic cooling and heating, Athletic Greens all-in-one nutritional supplement, and Headspace easy-to-use app with guided meditations. More on all three below.Noah Feldman (@NoahRFeldman) is a Harvard professor, ethical philosopher and advisor, public intellectual, religious scholar and historian, and author of 10 books, including his latest, The Broken Constitution: Lincoln, Slavery, and the Refounding of America.Noah is the founder of Ethical Compass, which helps clients like Facebook and eBay improve ethical decision-making by creating and implementing new governance solutions. Noah conceived and designed the Facebook Oversight Board and continues to advise Facebook on ethics and governance issues.Feldman is host of the Deep Background podcast, a policy and public affairs columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, and a former contributing writer for The New York Times. He served as senior constitutional advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and subsequently advised members of the Iraqi Governing Council on the drafting of Iraq's interim constitution.He earned his AB summa cum laude from Harvard, finishing first in his class. Selected as a Rhodes Scholar, he earned a DPhil from Oxford University, writing his dissertation on Aristotle's Ethics. He received his JD from Yale Law School and clerked for Justice David Souter of the US Supreme Court.He is the author of 10 books, including Divided by God: America's Church-State Problem — and What We Should Do About It, What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building, Cool War: The United States, China, and the Future of Global Competition, Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, and The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.Please enjoy!This episode is brought to you by Eight Sleep! Eight Sleep's Pod Pro Cover is the easiest and fastest way to sleep at the perfect temperature. It pairs dynamic cooling and heating with biometric tracking to offer the most advanced (and user-friendly) solution on the market. Simply add the Pod Pro Cover to your current mattress and start sleeping as cool as 55°F or as hot as 110°F. It also splits your bed in half, so your partner can choose a totally different temperature.And now, my dear listeners—that's you—can get $250 off the Pod Pro Cover. Simply go to EightSleep.com/Tim or use code TIM. *This episode is also brought to you by Athletic Greens. I get asked all the time, “If you could only use one supplement, what would it be?” My answer is usually Athletic Greens, my all-in-one nutritional insurance. I recommended it in The 4-Hour Body in 2010 and did not get paid to do so. I do my best with nutrient-dense meals, of course, but AG further covers my bases with vitamins, minerals, and whole-food-sourced micronutrients that support gut health and the immune system. Right now, Athletic Greens is offering you their Vitamin D Liquid Formula free with your first subscription purchase—a vital nutrient for a strong immune system and strong bones. Visit AthleticGreens.com/Tim to claim this special offer today and receive the free Vitamin D Liquid Formula (and five free travel packs) with your first subscription purchase! That's up to a one-year supply of Vitamin D as added value when you try their delicious and comprehensive all-in-one daily greens product.*This episode is also brought to you by Headspace! Headspace is your daily dose of mindfulness in the form of guided meditations in an easy-to-use app. Whatever the situation, Headspace can help you feel better. Overwhelmed? Headspace has a 3-minute SOS meditation for you. Need some help falling asleep? Headspace has wind-down sessions their members swear by. And for parents, Headspace even has morning meditations you can do with your kids. Headspace's approach to mindfulness can reduce stress, improve sleep, boost focus, and increase your overall sense of well-being.Go to Headspace.com/Tim for a FREE one-month trial with access to Headspace's full library of meditations for every situation.*If you enjoy the podcast, would you please consider leaving a short review on Apple Podcasts? It takes less than 60 seconds, and it really makes a difference in helping to convince hard-to-get guests. I also love reading the reviews!For show notes and past guests, please visit tim.blog/podcast.Sign up for Tim's email newsletter (“5-Bullet Friday”) at tim.blog/friday.For transcripts of episodes, go to tim.blog/transcripts.Discover Tim's books: tim.blog/books.Follow Tim:Twitter: twitter.com/tferriss Instagram: instagram.com/timferrissFacebook: facebook.com/timferriss YouTube: youtube.com/timferrissPast guests on The Tim Ferriss Show include Jerry Seinfeld, Hugh Jackman, Dr. Jane Goodall, LeBron James, Kevin Hart, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Jamie Foxx, Matthew McConaughey, Esther Perel, Elizabeth Gilbert, Terry Crews, Sia, Yuval Noah Harari, Malcolm Gladwell, Madeleine Albright, Cheryl Strayed, Jim Collins, Mary Karr, Maria Popova, Sam Harris, Michael Phelps, Bob Iger, Edward Norton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Neil Strauss, Ken Burns, Maria Sharapova, Marc Andreessen, Neil Gaiman, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Jocko Willink, Daniel Ek, Kelly Slater, Dr. Peter Attia, Seth Godin, Howard Marks, Dr. Brené Brown, Eric Schmidt, Michael Lewis, Joe Gebbia, Michael Pollan, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Vince Vaughn, Brian Koppelman, Ramit Sethi, Dax Shepard, Tony Robbins, Jim Dethmer, Dan Harris, Ray Dalio, Naval Ravikant, Vitalik Buterin, Elizabeth Lesser, Amanda Palmer, Katie Haun, Sir Richard Branson, Chuck Palahniuk, Arianna Huffington, Reid Hoffman, Bill Burr, Whitney Cummings, Rick Rubin, Dr. Vivek Murthy, Darren Aronofsky, and many more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

jim collins learning china america seth godin future tim ferriss new york times history slavery president focus ab iraq matthew mcconaughey hugh jackman hyper constitution darren aronofsky entrepreneurship vince vaughn terry crews neil gaiman ebay michael pollan lebron james harvard productivity languages jd startups bob iger crypto chuck palahniuk franklin delano roosevelt divided arianna huffington rhodes scholar oxford university ethics sia ken burns jordan peterson aristotle futurist malcolm gladwell supreme court feldman ramit sethi nation building jane goodall elizabeth gilbert arnold schwarzenegger timothy ferriss us supreme court yale law school overwhelmed kevin hart bill burr selected jamie foxx vitamin d sam harris doris kearns goodwin dan harris tony robbins headspace jerry seinfeld edward norton partisan bren brown michael lewis jocko willink yuval noah harari esther perel mary karr michael phelps dphil kelly slater elizabeth lesser vitalik buterin cheryl strayed jim dethmer whitney cummings rick rubin sos eric schmidt amanda palmer triumphs dax shepard neil strauss maria popova madeleine albright naval ravikant brian koppelman daniel ek lifestyle design sir richard branson ray dalio reid hoffman bloomberg opinion marc andreessen hour body joe gebbia howard marks tim ferriss show maria sharapova tools of titans daos global competition vivek murthy athletic greens grasse tyson katie haun peter attia noah feldman state building deep background learning languages discover tim timferrissfacebook longform interviews
Ideas Untrapped
RULE OF LAW AND THE REAL WORLD

Ideas Untrapped

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2021 64:14


''Rule of law'' is the generally accepted description for how well a political system conforms to formal rules - rather than functioning through the whims of the most powerful social or political agents. For a society to be described as one functioning under rule of law - there must be rules and those rules must be equally applied to everyone in the society. Let us call this Letter of the Law. These rules are usually expressed through the constitution of a country and enforced through the courts. But simply having rules and enforcing them does not suffice in the making of the rule of law - and it is an incomplete (however accurate) conception of it. Some rules can be drafted in bad faith or with the express purpose of protecting the interest of the political elites responsible for governance. This is why many scholars have argued that the rule of law can only be said to exist in a state that functions under rules designed to protect the civil liberties (individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.) of the people living within its territory. Let us call this the Character or Spirit of the Law. The character of the law understood as the fulfilment of constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties is the most common standard by which governance is judged to conform or deviate from the rule of law. For example, countries that routinely violate the rights of citizens in whatever form cannot be said to be governed by the rule of law, even if it has a written constitution. Consideration of the character of the law is the context to understanding the work of my guest on this episode, Paul Gowder.He is a professor of law at NorthWestern university with a broad research interest and expertise. Paul departs from this common derivation of the character of the law as rooted in liberty - and argued that for the rule of law to be broadly applicable in different societies (not dependent on the political institutions and ethical ideals of any specific society) with varying cultures and traditions of governance, it must be rooted in Equality. To understand Paul's argument, I will briefly state two important aspects that set the tone for our conversation - this should not be taken as an exhaustive summary of his work and I encourage you to check out his website and book. The first is that the rule of law as a principle regulates the actions of the state (government), and it is not to be conflated with other rules that regulate the actions of citizens. This is such an important point because one of the most egregious expressions of the law is when a government uses it to oppress citizens. Secondly, Paul outlines three components of the rule of law based on equality as 1) regularity - the government can only use coercion when it is acting in ''good faith'' and under ''reasonable interpretation'' of rules that already exist and are specific to the circumstances. 2) publicity - the law has to be accessible to everyone without barriers (''officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, ...failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public"). 3) generality - the law must be equally applicable to all. Putting all these elements together gives us a rule of law regime where everyone is equal before the law, and the state does not wantonly abuse citizens or single out particular groups for systematic abuse.I enjoyed this conversation very much, and I want to thank Paul for talking to me. Thank you guys too for always listening, and for the other ways you support this project.TRANSCRIPTTobi; I greatly enjoyed your work on the rule of law. I've read your papers, I've read your book, and I like it very much. I think it's a great public service if I can say that because for a lot of time, I am interested in economic development and that is mostly the issue that this podcast talks about. And what you see in that particular conversation is there hasn't really been that much compatibility between the question of the rule of law or the laws that should regulate the actions of the state, and its strategy for economic development. Most of the time, you often see even some justification, I should say, to trample on rights in as much as you get development, you get high-income growth for it. And what I found in your work is, this does not have to be so. So what was your eureka moment in coming up with your concept, we are going to unpack a lot of the details very soon, but what motivated you to write this work or to embark on this project?Paul; Yeah, I think for me, part of the issue that really drives a lot of how I think about the rule of law and you know, reasons behind some of this work is really a difference between the way that those of us who think about human freedom and human equality, right? I think of it as philosophers, right. So they're philosophers and philosophers think about the ability of people to live autonomous lives, to sort of stand tall against their government, to live lives of respect, and freedom and equality. And that's one conversation. And so we see people, like, you know, Ronald Dworkin, thinking about what the rule of law can deliver to human beings in that sense. And then, you know, there's this entire development community, you know, the World Bank, lots of the US foreign policy, all of the rest of those groups of people and groups of ideas, talk about the rule of law a lot and work to measure the rule of law and invest immense amounts of money in promoting what they call the rule of law across the world. But mostly, it seems to be protecting property rights for multinational investment. And I mean, that makes some kind of sense, if you think that what the rule of law is for is economic development, is increasing the GDP of a country and integrating it into favourable international networks of trade. But if you think that it's about human flourishing, then you get a completely different idea of what the rule of law can be, and should be. And so this sort of really striking disjuncture between the two conversations has driven a lot of my work, especially recently, and especially reflecting even on the United States, I think that we can see how domestic rule of law struggles - which we absolutely have, I mean, look at the Trump administration, frankly, as revolving around this conflict between focusing on economics and focusing on human rights and human wellbeing.Tobi; It's interesting the polarization you're talking about. And one way that I also see it play out is [that] analyst or other stakeholders who participate in the process of nation-building in Africa, in Nigeria… a lot of us that care about development and would like to see our countries grow and develop and become rich, are often at opposite ends with other people in the civil society who are advocating for human rights, who are advocating for gender equality, who are advocating for so many other social justice issues. And it always seems like there's no meeting ground, you know, between those set of views, and I believe it does not have to be so. So one thing I'm going to draw you into quite early is one of the distinctions you made in so many of your papers and even your book is the difference between the conception of the rule of law that you are proposing versus the generally accepted notion of the rule of law based on individual liberty in the classical liberal tradition. I also think that's part of the problem, because talking about individual liberty comes with this heavy ideological connotation, and giving so many things that have happened in Africa with colonialism and so many other things, nobody wants any of that, you know. So you are proposing a conception of the rule of law that is based on equality. Tell me, how does that contrast with this popularly accepted notion of the rule of law [which is] based on individual liberty?Paul; So I think the way to think about it is to start with the notion of the long term stability of a rule of law system. And so here is one thing that I propose as a fact about legal orders. Ultimately, any kind of stable legal order that can control the powerful, that is, that can say to a top-level political leader, or a powerful multinational corporation, or whomever, no, you can't do this, this violates the law and make that statement stick depends on widespread collective mobilization, if only as a threat, right. And so it's kind of an analytic proposition about the nature of power, right? If you've got a top-level political leader who's in command of an army, and they want to do something illegal, it's going to require very broad-based opposition, and hence very broad-based commitment to the idea of leaders that follow the law in order to prevent the person in charge of an army from just casually violating it whenever they want. Okay, accept that as true, what follows from that? Well, what follows from that is that the legal system has to actually be compatible with the basic interests of all. And what that tends to mean and I think this is true, both historically, and theoretically, is leaving aside the philosophical conceptual difference between liberty and equality, which I'm not sure is really all that important. Like I think, ultimately, liberty and equality as moral ideas tend to blur together when you really unpack them. But practically speaking, any stable legal order that can control the powerful has to be compatible with the interests of a broad-based group of the human beings who participate in that legal order. And what that entails is favouring a way of thinking about the rule of law that focuses on being able to recruit the interests of even the worst off. In other words, one that's focused on equality, one that's focused on protecting the interests of the less powerful rather than a laissez-faire libertarian conception of the rule of law that tends to be historically speaking, compatible with substantial amounts of economic inequality, hyper-focus on ideas - like property rights, that support the long-standing interests of those who happen to be at the top of the economy, often against the interests of those that happened to be at the bottom of the economy, right. That's simply not a legal order that is sustainable in the long run. Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the way that this has played out in [the] United States history, in particular. I might have a book that's coming out in December that focuses on a historical account of the development of the rule of law, particularly in the United States. I mean, it's my own country. And so at some point, I had to get talked into writing that book. And we can see that in our history right at the get-go, you know, in the United States, at the very beginning, the rule of law dialogue tended to be focused on protecting the interests of wealthy elite property holders. And this actually played a major part, for example, in the United States' most grievous struggle, namely the struggle over slavery, because slaveholders really relied on this conception of the Rule of Law focusing on individual freedom and property rights to insist on a right to keep holding slaves against the more egalitarian idea that “hey, wait a minute, the enslaved have a right to be participants in the legal system as well.” And so we can see these two different conceptions of legality breaking the United States and breaking the idea of legal order in the United States right at the get-go. And we see this in country after country after country. You know, another example is Pinochet's Chile, which was the victim of [the] United States' economics focused rule of law promotion efforts that favoured the interests of property holders under this libertarian conception over the interests of ordinary citizens, democracy and mass interests. In other words, over the egalitarian conception, and again, you know, devolved into authoritarianism and chaos.Tobi; Yeah, nice bit of history there, but dialling all the way, if you'll indulge me... dialling all the way to the present, or maybe the recent past, of course; where I see another relevance and tension is development, and its geopolitical significance and the modernization projects that a lot of developed countries have done in so many poor and violent nations, you know, around the world. I mean, at the time when Africa decolonized, you know, a lot of the countries gravitated towards the communist bloc, socialism [and] that process was shunted, failed, you know, there was a wave of military coups all over the continent, and it was a really dark period.But what you see is that a lot of these countries, Nigeria, for example, democratized in 1999, a lot of other countries either before then or after followed suit. And what you see is, almost all of them go for American-style federal system, and American-style constitutional democracy, you know. And how that tradition evolved... I mean, there's a lot you can explain and unpack here... how that tradition evolved, we are told is the law has a responsibility to treat people as individuals. But you also find that these are societies where group identities are very, very strong, you know, and what you get are constitutions that are weakly enforced, impractical, and a society that is perpetually in struggle. I mean, you have a constitution, you have rules, and you have a government that openly disregards them, because the constitutional tradition is so divorced from how a lot of our societies evolve. And what I see you doing in your work is that if we divorce the rule of law from the ideal society, you know [like] some societies that we look up to, then we can come up with a set of practical propositions that the rule of law should fulfil, so walk me through how you resolve these tensions and your propositions?Paul; Well, so it's exactly what you just said, right? I mean, we have to focus on actual existing societies and the actual way that people organize their lives, right. And so here's the issue is, just like I said a minute ago, the rule of law fundamentally depends on people. And when I say people, I don't just mean elites. I don't just mean the wealthy, I don't just mean the people in charge of armies, and the people in charge of courthouses, right? Like the rule of law depends, number one, on people acting collectively to hold the powerful to the law. And number two, on people using the institutions that we say are associated with the rule of law. And so just as you describe, one sort of really common failure condition for international rule of law development efforts - and I don't think that this is a matter of sort of recipient countries admiring countries like the US, I think this is a matter of international organizations and countries like the US having in their heads a model of what the law looks like and sort of pressing it on recipient countries.But you know, when you build institutions that don't really resemble how the people in a country actually organize their social, political and legal lives, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody uses them. You shouldn't be surprised when they're ineffective. But I mean, I think that it's been fairly compared to a kind of second-generation colonialism in that sense where countries like the US and like Germany, attempt to export their legal institutions to other countries, without attending to the ways that the people in those countries already have social and legal resources to run their lives. And so I'll give you an example that's interesting from Afghanistan. So in Afghanistan, sort of post the 2000s invasion, and so forth, some researchers, mostly affiliated with the Carnegie Institution, found that the really effective rule of law innovations, the really effective interventions were ones that relied on existing social groups and existing structures of traditional authority. And so, you know, you could build a courthouse and like, ask a formal centralized state to do something, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't. But if you took local community leaders, local religious leaders, gave them training, and how to use the social capital they already have to help do things like adjudicate disputes, well, those would actually be effective, because they fit into the existing social organization that already exists. So I'll give you another example. I have a student who... I had… I just graduated an S.J.D student from Uganda who wrote a dissertation on corruption in Uganda. And one of the things that he advocated for I think, really sensibly was, “ okay, we've got this centralized government, but we've also got all of these traditional kingdoms, and the traditional kingdoms, they're actually a lot more legitimate in the sociological sense than the centralized government.People trust the traditional kingdoms, people rely on the traditional kingdoms for services, for integrating themselves into their society. And so one useful way of thinking about anti-corruption reforms is to try and empower the traditional kingdoms that already have legitimacy so that they can check the centralized government. And so that kind of work, I think, is where we have real potential to do global rule of law development without just creating carbon copies of the United States. Tobi; The process you describe, I will say, as promising as it may sound, what I want to ask you is how then do you ensure that a lot of these traditional institutions that can be empowered to provide reasonable checks to the power of the central government also fulfil the conditions of equality in their relation to the general public? Because even historically, a lot of these institutions are quite hierarchical...Paul; Oh, yeah... and I think in particular, women's rights are a big problem.Tobi; Yeah, yeah and there's a lot of abuses that go on locally, even within those communities, you know. We have traditional monarchies who exercise blanket rights over land ownership, over people's wives, over so many things, you know, so how then does this condition of equality transmit across the system?Paul; Yeah, no, I think that's the really hard question. I tell you right now that part of the answer is that those are not end-state processes. By this I mean that any realistic conception of how we can actually build effective rule of law institutions, but also genuinely incorporate everyone's interests in a society is going to accept that there's going to be a kind of dynamic tension between institutions.You know, sometimes we're going to have to use the centralized state to check traditional institutions. Sometimes we're going to have to use traditional institutions to check the centralized state. Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize-winning political scientist and her sort of the Bloomington School of Political Economy, emphasized for many years this idea that they called Polycentrism. That is the idea that multiple, overlapping governance organizations that are sort of forced to negotiate with one another, and forced to learn from one another, and really integrate with one another in this sort of complex tension-filled kind of way, actually turns out to be a really effective method of achieving what we might call good governance. And part of the reason is because they give a lot of different people, in different levels of [the] organization, ways to challenge one another, ways to demand inclusion in this decision, and let somebody else handle that decision, and participate jointly in this other decision. And so I think that neither the centralized state alone, nor traditional institutions alone is going to be able to achieve these goals. But I think efforts to integrate them have some promise. And India has done a lot of work, you know, sort of mixed record of success, perhaps, but has done a lot of work in these lines. I think, for example, of many of the ways that India has tried to promote the growth of Panchayats, of local councils in decision making, including in law enforcement, but at the same time, has tried to do things like promote an even mandate, the inclusion of women, the inclusion of Scheduled Castes, you know, the inclusion of the traditionally subordinated in these decision making processes. And as I said, they haven't had complete success. But it's an example of a way that the centralized state can both support traditional institutions while pushing those institutions to be more egalitarian.Tobi; Let's delve into the three conditions that you identified in your work, which any rule of law state should fulfil. And that is regularity, publicity, and generality. Kindly unpack those three for me.Paul; Absolutely. So regularity is...we can think of it as just the basic rule of law idea, right? Like the government obeys the law. And so if you think about this notion of regularity, it's... do we have a situation where the powerful are actually bound by legal rules? Or do we have a situation where, you know, they just do whatever they want? And so I'd say that, you know, there's no state that even counts as a rule of law state in the basic level without satisfying that condition, at least to some reasonable degree. The idea of publicity really draws on a lot of what I've already been saying about the recruitment of broad participation in the law. That is, when I say publicity, what I mean is that in addition to just officials being bound by the law, ordinary people have to be able to make use of the law in at least two senses. One, they have to be able to make use of the law to defend themselves. I call this the individualistic side of publicity, right? Like if some police officer wants to lock you up, the decision on whether or not you violated the law has to respond to your advocacy, and your ability to defend yourself in some sense. And then there's also the collective side of this idea of publicity, which is that the community as a whole has to be able to collectively enforce the boundaries of the legal system. And you know, we'd talk a lot more about that, I think that's really the most important idea. And then the third idea of generality is really the heart of the egalitarian idea that we've been talking about, which is that the law has to actually treat people as equals. And one thing that I think is really important about the way that I think about these three principles is that they're actually really tightly integrated. By tightly integrated, I mean you're only going to get in real-world states, regularity (that is, officials bound by the law) if you have publicity (that is, if you have people who aren't officials who actually can participate in the legal system and can hold officials to the law). We need the people to hold the officials in line. You're only going to get publicity if you have generality. That is, the people are only going to be motivated to use the legal system and to defend the legal system if the legal system actually treats them as equals. And so you really need publicity to have stable regularity, you really need generality to have stable publicity.Tobi; Speaking of regularity, when you say what constrains the coercive power of the state is when it is authorised by good faith and reasonable interpretation of pre-existing reasonably specific rules. That sounds very specific. And it's also Scalonian in a way, but a lot of people might quibble a bit about what is reasonable, you know, it sounds vague, right? So how would you condition or define reasonable in this sense, and I know you talked about hubris when you were talking about publicity. But is there a minimum level of responsibility for reasonability on the part of the citizen in relation to a state?Paul; That's, in a lot of ways, the really hard philosophical question, because one of the things that we know about law is that it is inherently filled with disagreement, right? Like our experience of the legal system and of every state that actually has something like the rule of law is that people radically disagree about the legal propriety of actions of the government. And so in some sense, this idea of reasonableness is kind of a cop-out. But it's a cop-out that is absolutely necessary, because there's no, you know, what [Thomas] Nagel called a view from nowhere. There's no view from nowhere from which we can evaluate whether or not on a day to day basis, officials are actually complying with the law in some kind of correct sense. But again, I think, you know, as you said, to some extent, that implies that some of the responsibility for evaluating this reasonableness criterion falls down to day to day politics, falls down to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Like, my conception of the rule of law is kind of sneakily a deeply democratic conception, because it recognizes given the existence of uncertainty as to what the law actually requires of officials both on a case by case basis. And, broadly speaking, the only way that we're ever going to be able to say, Well, you know, officials are more or less operating within a reasonable conception of what their legal responsibilities are, is if we empower the public at large to make these judgments. If we have institutions like here in the US, our jury trials, if we have an underlying backstop of civil society and politics, that is actively scrutinizing and questioning official action.Tobi; So speaking of publicity, which is my favorite...I have to say...Paul; Mine too. You could probably tell. Tobi; Because I think that therein lies the power of the state to get away with abusive use of its legitimacy, or its power, so to speak. When you say that officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, and a failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public. So those two situations - hubris and terror, can you explain those to me a bit?Paul; Yeah. So these are really, sort of, moral philosophy ideas at heart, particularly hubris. The idea is there's a big difference, even if I have authority over you, between my exercising that authority in the form of commands and my exercising that authority in the form of a conversation that appeals to your reasoning capacity, right. So these days, I'm thinking about it in part with reference to... I'm going to go very philosophical with you here... but in reference to Kant's humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, sorry. But that is a sense in which if I'm making decisions about your conduct, and your life and, you know, affecting your fundamental interests, that when I express the reasons to you for those decisions, and when I genuinely listen to the reasons that you offer, and genuinely take those into account in my decision making process, I'm showing a kind of respect for you, which is consistent with the idea of a society of equals.As opposed to just hi, I'm wiser than you, and so my decision is, you know, you go this way, you violated the law, right? Are we a military commander? Or are we a judge? Both the military commander and the judge exercise authority, but they do so in very different ways. One is hierarchical, the other I would contend is not.Tobi; Still talking about publicity here, and why I love it so much is one important, should I say… a distinction you made quite early in your book is that the rule of law regulates the action of the state, in relation to its citizens.Paul; Yes.Tobi; Often and I would count myself among people who have been confused by that point as saying that the rule of law regulates the action of the society in general. I have never thought to make that distinction. And it's important because often you see that maybe when dealing with civil disobedience, or some kind of action that the government finds disruptive to its interests, or its preferences, the rule of law is often invoked as a way for governments to use sometimes without discretion, its enforcement powers, you know.So please explain further this distinction between the rule of law regulating the state-citizen relation versus the general law and order in the society. I mean, you get this from Trump, you get this from so many other people who say, Oh, we are a law and order society, I'm a rule of law candidate.Paul; Oh, yeah.Tobi; You cannot do this, you cannot do that. We cannot encourage the breakdown of law and order in the society. So, explain this difference to me.Paul; Absolutely, then this is probably the most controversial part of my account of the rule of law. I think everybody disagrees with this. I sort of want to start by talking about how I got to this view. And I think I really got to this view by reflecting on the civil rights movement in the United States in particular, right. Because, you know, what we would so often see, just as you say about all of these other contexts, is we would see officials, we would see judges - I mean, there are, you know, Supreme Court cases where supreme court justices that are normally relatively liberal and sympathetic, like, you know, Justice Hugo Black scolding Martin Luther King for engaging in civil disobedience on the idea that it threatens the rule of law. It turns out, and this is something that I go into in the book that's coming out in December... it turns out that King actually had a sophisticated theory of when it was appropriate to engage in civil disobedience and when it wasn't. But for me, reflecting on that conflict in particular, and reflecting on the fact that the same people who were scolding peaceful lunch-counter-sit-ins for threatening the rule of law and, you know, causing society to descend into chaos and undermining property rights and all the rest of that nonsense, were also standing by and watching as southern governors sent police in to beat and gas and fire hose and set dogs on peaceful protests in this sort of completely new set of like, totally unbounded explosions of state violence. And so it seems to me sort of intuitively, like these can't be the same problem, right, like ordinary citizens, doing sit-ins, even if they're illegal, even if we might have some reason to criticize them, it can't be the same reason that we have to criticize Bull Connor for having the cops beat people. And part of the reason that that's the case, and this is what I call the Hobbesian property in the introduction to the rule of law in the real world...part of the reason is just the reality of what states are, right? Like, protesters don't have tanks and police dogs, and fire hoses, right? Protesters typically don't have armies. If they do, then we're in a civil war situation, not a rule of law situation, the state does have all of those things. And so one of the features of the state that makes it the most appropriate site for this talk about the rule of law is this the state has, I mean, most modern states have, at least on a case by case basis, overwhelming power. And so we have distinct moral reasons to control overwhelming power than we do to control a little bit of legal disobedience, right, like overwhelming power is overwhelming. It's something that has a different moral importance for its control. Then the second idea is at the same time what I call the [...] property... is the state makes claims about its use of power, right? Like ordinary people, when they obey the law or violate the law, they don't necessarily do so with reference to a set of ideas that they're propagating about their relationship to other people. Whereas when modern states send troops in to beat people up, in a way what they're doing is they're saying that they're doing so in all of our names, right, particularly, but not exclusively in democratic governments. There's a way in which the state represents itself as acting on behalf of the political community at large. And so it makes sense to have a distinctive normative principle to regulate that kind of power.Tobi; I know you sort of sidestepped this in the book, and maybe it doesn't really fit with your overall argument. But I'm going to push you on that topic a bit. So how does the rule of law state as a matter of institutional design then handles... I know you said that there are separate principles that can be developed for guiding citizen actions, you know...Paul; Yes. Tobi; I mean, let's be clear that you are not saying that people are free to act however they want.Paul; I'm not advocating anarchy.Tobi; Exactly. So how does the rule of law state then handle citizens disagreements or conflicting interests around issues of social order? And I'll give you an example. I mentioned right at the beginning of our conversation what happened in Nigeria in October 2020. There's a unit of the police force that was created to handle violent crimes. Needless to say that they went way beyond their remit and became a very notoriously abusive unit of the police force. Picking up people randomly, lock them up, extort them for money. And there was a situation where a young man was murdered, and his car stolen by this same unit of the police force and young people all over the country, from Lagos to Port Harcourt to Abuja, everywhere, felt we've had enough, right, and everybody came out in protest. It was very, very peaceful, I'd say, until other interests, you know, infiltrated that action. Paul; Right. Tobi; But what I noticed quite early in that process was that even within the spirits of that protests, there were disagreements between citizens - protesters blocking roads, you know, versus people who feel well, your protest should not stop me from going to work, you know, and so many other actions by the protesters that other people with, maybe not conflicting interests, but who have other opinions about strategy or process feel well, this is not right. This is not how to do this. This is not how you do this, you know, and I see that that sort of provided the loophole, I should say, for the government to then move in and take a ruthlessly violent action. You know, there was a popular tollgate in Lagos in the richest neighbourhood in Lagos that was blocked for 10 days by the protesters. And I mean, after this, the army basically moved in and shot people to death. Today, you still see people who would say, Oh, well, that's tragic. But should these people have been blocking other people from going about their daily business? So how does the rule of law regulate issues of social order vis-a-vis conflict of interest?Paul; So I think this is actually a point in favour of my stark distinction between state action and social action as appropriate for thinking about the rule of law. Because when you say that the state used...what I still fundamentally think of as like minor civil disobedience...so, like blocking some roads, big deal! Protesters block roads all the time, right, like protesters have blocked roads throughout human history, you know, like, sometimes it goes big, right? Like they love blocking roads in the French Revolution. But oftentimes, it's just blocking... so I blocked roads.I participated in, you know, some protests in the early 2000s. I participated in blocking roads in DC, right, like, fundamentally "big deal!" is the answer that the state ought to give. And so by saying to each other and to the government, when we talk about the rule of law, we mean, the state's power has to be controlled by the law, I think that gives us a language to say... even though people are engaging in illegal things, the state still has to follow legal process in dealing with it, right.The state still has to use only the level of force allowed by the law to arrest people. The state can't just send in the army to shoot people. And the principle that we appeal to is this principle of the rule of law. Yeah, maintaining the distinction between lawbreaking by ordinary people and law-breaking by the state helps us understand why the state shouldn't be allowed to just send in troops whenever people engage in a little bit of minor lawbreaking and protests.Tobi; So how does the law... I mean, we are entering a bit of a different territory, how does the law in your conception handles what... well, maybe these are fancy definitions, but what some people will call extraordinary circumstances. Like protests with political interests? Maybe protesters that are funded and motivated to unseat an incumbent government? Or in terrorism, you know, where you often have situations where there are no laws on paper to deal with these sort of extraordinary situations, you know, and they can be extremely violent, they can be extremely strange, they're usually things that so many societies are not equipped to handle. So how should the rule of law regulate the action of the state in such extraordinary circumstances?Paul; Yeah, so this is the deep problem of the rule of law, you know, this is why people still read Carl Schmitt, right, because Carl Schmitt's whole account of executive power basically is, hey, wait a minute emergencies happen, and when emergencies happen, liberal legal ideas like the rule of law dropout, and so fundamentally, you just have like raw sovereignty. And that means that the state just kind of does what it must. Right. So here's what I feel about Schmitt. One is, maybe sometimes that's true, right? And again, I think about the US context, because I'm an American and you know, I have my own history, right? And so in the US context, I think, again, about, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, right.Like Abraham Lincoln broke all kinds of laws in the Civil War. Like today, we'd call some of the things that he did basically assuming dictatorial power in some respects. I mean, he did that in the greatest emergency that the country had ever faced and has ever faced since then. And he did it in a civil war. And sometimes that happens, and I think practically speaking, legal institutions have a habit of not standing in the way in truly dire situations like that. But, and here's why I want to push back against Carl Schmitt... but what a legal order can then do is after the emergency has passed...number one, the legal order can be a source of pressure for demanding and accounting of when the emergency has passed, right. And so again, I think of the United States War on Terror, you know, we still have people in United States' custody imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.September 11 2001, was almost 20 years ago. It's actually 20 years ago and a month, and we still have people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. That's insane. That's completely unjustifiable. And one of the jobs of the legal system is to pressure the executive to say, okay, buddy, is the emergency over yet? No, really, we think that the emergency is over yet. I want reasons, right, publicity again, I want an explanation from you of why you think the emergency is still ongoing. And the legal system can force the executive to be accountable for the claim that the emergency is still ongoing. That's number one. Number two is that law tends to be really good at retroactively, sort of, retrofitting things into legal order, right. And so again, I think about the Civil War. You know, after the US Civil War, lots of civil wars, sorry. American-centric person trying to fight against it. But after the US Civil War, you know, the courts took a pause. And then we have a lot of cases where they took a lot of the things that Lincoln did, they said, okay, some of them at least were illegal, some of them were legal, but only under very specific circumstances. And so they actually built legal doctrine that took into account the emergency that Lincoln faced, and then later wars, such as in the Second World War, the courts took the lessons from the experience in the American Civil War, and used that to impose more constraints. So to bring it about that the emergency actions that Franklin Roosevelt took in the Second World War weren't completely sui generis, sort of like right acts of sovereignty, but were regulated by legal rules created during the Civil War, and after the Civil War. And again, they weren't perfect, right? You know, during the Second World War, the United States interned Japanese Americans, you know, again, sort of completely lawless, completely unjustifiable, but you know, it's an ongoing process. The point is that the legal system is always... the law is always reactive in emergencies. But the reactive character of the law can nonetheless be used as a way to control and channel sovereign power, even in these sort of Schmittian emergency situations.Tobi; So two related questions, your work is interdisciplinary, because you try to blend a lot of social science into legal philosophy. But speaking of legal order and your primary profession, I mean.. for the sake of the audience parties into a lot of other cool stuff, I'm going to be putting up his website in the show notes. But speaking of legal order, and the legal profession, why is so much of the legal profession fascinated with what I would say the rule by law, as opposed to the rule of law. A lot of what you get from lawyers, even some law professors in some situations is [that] the law is the law, and you have to obey it. And even if you are going to question it, however unjustified it may seem, you still have to follow some processes that maybe for ordinary citizens are not so accessible or extremely costly, you know, which I think violate regularity, right, the way you talk about it retrospective legislation, and so many other things. So why is the legal profession so fascinated with the law, as opposed to justification for the law?Paul; Yeah, I think that question kind of answers itself, right. It's unfortunate... I mean, it's sort of natural but it's unfortunate that the people who most influence our dialogue about the way that we, you know, live in [the] society together with a state, namely by organizing ourselves with law happen to be people who are the specialists who find it easiest, right? And so I think the simple answer is right on this one, at least in countries like the United States, I'm not sure how true this is in other countries. But in the United States, the domination of legal discourse by lawyers necessarily means that the sort of real practical, real-world ways in which ordinary people find interacting with anything legal to be difficult, oppressive, or both just aren't in view, right? This is hard for them to understand.But I think in the US, one of the distortions that we've had is that we have an extremely hierarchical legal profession, right. So we have very elite law schools, and those very elite law schools - one of which I teach at - tend to predominantly produce lawyers who primarily work for wealthy corporations and sort of secondarily work for the government. Those lawyers tend to be the ones that end up at the top of the judiciary, that end up in influential positions in academia, that end up, you know, in Congress. The lawyers that, you know, see poor people, see people of subordinated minority groups and see the very different kinds of interactions with the legal system that people who are worse off have, that see the way that the law presents itself, not as a thing that you can use autonomously to structure your own life. But as a kind of external imposition, that sort of shows up and occasionally inflicts harm on you. Those lawyers aren't the ones who end up in our corridors of power. And it's very unfortunate, it's a consequence of the hierarchical nature of, at least in the US, our legal profession. And I suspect it's similar in these other countries as well.Tobi; In your opinion, what's the... dare I say the sacrosanct and objective - those are rigid conditions sorry - expression of the rule of law? The current general conception of the rule accedes to the primacy of the Constitution, right. I've often found that problematic because in some countries you find constitutional provisions that are egregious, and in other cases, you find lawyers going into court to challenge certain actions that they deem unjust, or that are truly unjust on the basis of the same constitution. Right. So what do you think is the most practical expression of the rule of law? Is it written laws? Is it the opinion of the judges? Is it how officials hold themselves accountable? What's the answer?Paul; So I think I'm gonna like sort of twist this a little bit and interpret that question is like, how do you know the extent to which the rule of law exists in a particular place? And my answer is, can ordinary people look officials in the eye, right, you know... if you're walking down the street, and you see a police officer, you know, are you afraid? Or can you walk past them and confidently know you're doing nothing wrong so there's nothing really effectively but they can do to you, right? If you're called in to deal with some kind of bureaucratic problem, like the tax office, can you trust that you exist in a relationship of respect? You know, can you trust that when you show them, actually here are my receipts, I really did have that expense, that that's going to be taken seriously? You know, if people, everybody, feels like they can stand tall, and look government officials in the eye, then to that extent, I think that the rule of law exists in a society.Tobi; Final question, what's the coolest idea you're working on right now?Paul; Oh, gosh. So like I said, I've got two books under contract right now. The first book is a history/theoretical constitutional law account of the development and existing state of the rule of law in the United States. The second book, which I'm more excited about, because it's the one that I plan to write this year, but it's also a lot harder, is I'm trying to take some of the governance design ideas that we see from the notion of rule of law development, and others such as governance development things and apply them to Private Internet platforms, right? Like, basically to Facebook. Um, I was actually involved in some of the work, not at a super high level, but I was involved in some of the work in designing or doing the research for designing Facebook's oversight board. And I'm kind of trying to expand on some of those ideas and think about, you know, if we really believe that private companies, especially in these internet platforms are doing governance right now, can we take lessons from how the rest of the world and how actual governments and actual states have developed techniques of governing behaviour in highly networked, large scale super-diverse environments and use those lessons in the private context? Maybe we can maybe we can't I'm not sure yet. Hopefully, by the time I finish the book, I'll know.Tobi; That's interesting. And I'll ask you this, a similar, I'll say a related situation is currently happening in Nigeria right now, where the President's Twitter handle or username, tweeted something that sounded like a thinly veiled threat to a particular ethnic group. And lots of people who disagreed with that tweet reported the tweet, and Twitter ended up deleting the tweet in question, which high-level officials in Nigeria found extremely offensive, and going as far as to assert their sovereign rights over Twitter and say, well, it may be your platform, but it is our country and we are banning you. How would you adjudicate such a situation? I mean, there's the question of banning Donald Trump from the platform and so many other things that have come up.Paul; Yeah, I mean, it's hard, right? So there are no easy answers to these kinds of problems. I think, ultimately, what we have to do is we have to build more legitimate ways to make these decisions. I mean, here are two things that we cannot do, right?Number one is we can't just let government officials, especially when, you know, as with the Donald Trump example, and so many others, the government officials are the ones who are engaging in the terrible conduct make these decisions. Number two is we also just can't let a bunch of people sitting in the Bay Area in California make those decisions. Like, ultimately, this is on, you know, property in some abstracted sense of like the shareholders of these companies. But we cannot simply allow a bunch of people in San Francisco, in Menlo Park, and you know, Cupertino and Mountain View, and all of those other little tech industry cities that have no understanding of local context to make the final decisions here. And so what we need to do is we need to build more robust institutions to include both global and local and affected countries, grassroots participation, in making these decisions. And I'm trying to sort of sketch out what the design for those might look like. But, you know, talk to me in about a year. And hopefully, I'll have a book for you that will actually have a sketch.Tobi; You bet I'm going to hold you to that. So, a year from now. So still on the question of ideas, because the show is about ideas. What's the one idea you'd like to see spread everywhere?Paul; Oh, gosh, you should have warned me in advance... that... I'm going to go back to what I said at the very beginning about the rule of law. Like I think that the rule of law depends on people, right? Like there is no such thing as the rule of law without a society and a legal system that genuinely is equal and advantageous to ordinary people enough to be the kind of thing that people actually support. Like ordinary people... if you cannot recruit the support of ordinary people for your legal political and social system, you cannot have the rule of law. That's true whether you're a developing country, that's true whether you're the United States, right. Like I think, you know, part of the reason that we got Donald Trump in the United States, I think, is because our legal system and with it our economy, and all the rest are so unequal in this country, that ordinary voters in the United States didn't see any reason to preserve it. Right and so when this lunatic and I mean, I'm just going to be quite frank here and say Donald Trump is a complete lunatic, right... when this lunatic is running for office who shows total disregard for existing institutions, like complete willingness to casually break the law. An electorate that actually was full of people who felt (themselves) treated respectfully and protected and supported by our legal and political institutions would have sent that guy packing in a heartbeat. But because the American people don't have that experience right now, I think that's what made us vulnerable to somebody like Donald Trump.Tobi; Thank you so much, Paul. It's been so fascinating talking to you.Paul; Thank you. This has been a lot of fun. Yeah, I'm happy to come back in a year when I've got the platform thing done.Tobi; Yeah, I'm so looking forward to that. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Ranking U.S. Presidents
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Part 1: Early Life

Ranking U.S. Presidents

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 43:31


We are finally tackling one of the most influential presidents of the 20th century: FDR. For this four term president, we are going to take our time. For the first episode, we will be looking at his early life and political career. What made this man tick? And how did he rise to become America's leader during both the Great Depression and WW2?

The Crime Story Podcast with Kary Antholis
Series: Nuremberg - Part 7

The Crime Story Podcast with Kary Antholis

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 15, 2021 20:38


In Part 7 of our Crime Story Series Nuremberg, we examine the U.K. prosecutors' tightly-focused presentation of Count Two of the indictment, particularly as it played in contrast to the Americans' unapologetic power-grab.

Psychopath In Your Life
Was FDR a JEW AND a Psychopath?

Psychopath In Your Life

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2021 60:51


Get In Touch Website: https://psychopathinyourlife.com/ Contributions to the show are greatly appreciated. Support the Show – Psychopath In Your Life   The post Was FDR a JEW AND a Psychopath? appeared first on Psychopath In Your Life.

KPFA - Letters and Politics
Zachary D Carter on Keynes’ Open Letter to FDR and the Struggle to Pass The Build Back Better Plan

KPFA - Letters and Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2021 59:58


1001 Heroes, Legends, Histories & Mysteries Podcast

Part two-Led by Claire Chennault, the Flying Tigers were a group of American pilots who originally signed as mercenaries for China in 1941 to fight Japanese aggression in China and Burma. Chennault had worked to build China's air force since 1937 when the Japanese invaded China and seized Shanghai and Nanking, but finally received help from FDR in 1941 in the form of planes and pilots. Chennault had the answer for the fast Japanese Zero plane- but it would take training and discipline to make sure his men learned it. When they did, it provided the first good news since the invasion of Pearl Harbor and listed American and Chinese morale. Voices AVG Cols Tex Hikk, Ed Rector, Dick Rossi. East Asia Media. YOUR REVIEWS AT APPLE/ITUNES ARE NEEDED AND APPRECIATED!   Copy and Paste the highlighted links to your Apple or Android Devices for free listening:  APPLE USERS   Catch 1001 RADIO DAYS now at Apple iTunes!  https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-radio-days/id1405045413?mt=2 Catch 1001 HEROES now at Apple iTunesPodcast App: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-heroes-legends-histories-mysteries-podcast/id956154836?mt=2 Catch 1001 CLASSIC SHORT STORIES at iTunes/apple Podcast App Now: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-classic-short-stories-tales/id1078098622?mt=2 Catch 1001 Stories for the Road at iTunes/Apple Podcast now: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-stories-for-the-road/id1227478901?mt=2 ANDROID USERS- 1001 Radio Days right here at Player.fm FREE: https://player.fm/series/1001-radio-days 1001 Classic Short Stories & Tales: https://castbox.fm/channel/1001-Classic-Short-Stories-%26-Tales-id381734?country=us 1001 Heroes, Legends, Histories & Mysteries: https://castbox.fm/channel/1001-Heroes%2C-Legends%2C-Histories-%26-Mysteries-Podcast-id1114843?country=us 1001 Stories for the Road: https://castbox.fm/channel/1001-Stories-For-The-Road-id1324757?country=us Catch ALL of our shows at one place by going to www.1001storiesnetwork.com- our home website with Megaphone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Power Line
E282. The Three Whisky Happy Hour: What's In the News Today, Oh Boy!

Power Line

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2021 67:03


This week’s episode is sans-guests and sans-metaphysics, as Lucretia and Steve kick around the news of the week, which is a mix of the usual ominous portents from Washington, along with some evidence that Democrats are in free-fall with the public. First up is a look at the egregious Department of Justice letter identifying parents protesting at local school board meetings as a threat to the regime (in an ironic way, the DoJ is right!), wondering just what the federal question under the law is, and noting how this step certifies the open contempt Washington has for local self-government (thank you for your candor Terry McAuliffe!). Then we look at the Ezra Klein NY Times article about Democratic data-maven David Shor, who is trying to warn Democrats that the public is swifty turning against them. Steve offers some historical perspective to show how insane Democrats are in thinking they can govern the country as though they had the same kind of huge and durable majorities that FDR and LBJ had once upon a time. And this leads into another of our friendly arguments about how to judge Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who Steve thinks has performed brilliantly in dividing House Democrats and showing that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are actually terrible political strategists, while Lucretia is naturally less enamored of this thesis. And finally, a Lucretia shout out to Andrew Klavan’s new article in City Journal on what lies at the heart of our political divisions of the moment, and what is necessary to fix it. Exit music this week is “What’s In the News” by MacMillan, Bell, and Alexander.

Bloggingheads.tv: The Glenn Show
The Case against "The Case for Reparations" (Glenn Loury & David Kaiser)

Bloggingheads.tv: The Glenn Show

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2021 60:00


The post-Vietnam reevaluation of the Cold War ... David: Academic historians largely have abandoned the idea of objective truth ... Were black people really excluded from the New Deal? ... The fortunes of black veterans after WWII ... Why redlining doesn't tell the whole story about the racial wealth gap ... Why the Chicago Defender endorsed FDR in 1940 ...

Bloggingheads.tv
The Case against "The Case for Reparations" (Glenn Loury & David Kaiser)

Bloggingheads.tv

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2021 60:00


The post-Vietnam reevaluation of the Cold War ... David: Academic historians largely have abandoned the idea of objective truth ... Were black people really excluded from the New Deal? ... The fortunes of black veterans after WWII ... Why redlining doesn't tell the whole story about the racial wealth gap ... Why the Chicago Defender endorsed FDR in 1940 ...

The Joe Scarborough Podcast
8: Why Democrats Need to Fight Like Hell

The Joe Scarborough Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2021 31:53


Joe explains the difference between how Democrats and Republicans fight, and why it's time for the Party of FDR to fight nihilism with nihilism. Derek Trucks also drops by to talk about what's next for the legendary Tedeschi Trucks Band. 

My History Can Beat Up Your Politics
Joe Manchins of History, Clinton's 50-50 Senate, and Harold Wilson's 1970's Virtual School

My History Can Beat Up Your Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 4, 2021 54:05


We take a look at a few topics, the "Joe Manchins" of History, Senators who have disagreed with their own parties Presidents, while also helping in some ways. FDR, Clinton and Lyndon Johnson dealt with their own versions of the dynamic in politics today. We are also reminded in telling this story that Clinton had a 50-50 Senate, in a form. And a bit about British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his idea for a University of The Air, long before today's online learning. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

1001 Heroes, Legends, Histories & Mysteries Podcast
THE FLYING TIGERS OF WWII (PT 1)

1001 Heroes, Legends, Histories & Mysteries Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2021 53:51


Led by Claire Chennault, the Flying Tigers were a group of American pilots who originally signed as mercenaries for China in 1941 to fight Japanese aggression in China and Burma. Chennault had worked to build China's air force since 1937 when the Japanese invaded China and seized Shanghai and Nanking, but finally received help from FDR in 1941 in the form of planes and pilots. Chennault had the answer for the fast Japanese Zero plane- but it would take training and discipline to make sure his men learned it. When they did, it provided the first good news since the invasion of Pearl Harbor and listed American and Chinese morale. Voices AVG Cols Tex Hikk, Ed Rector, Dick Rossi. East Asia Media. YOUR REVIEWS AT APPLE/ITUNES ARE NEEDED AND APPRECIATED!   Copy and Paste the highlighted links to your Apple or Android Devices for free listening:  APPLE USERS   Catch 1001 RADIO DAYS now at Apple iTunes!  https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-radio-days/id1405045413?mt=2 Catch 1001 HEROES now at Apple iTunesPodcast App: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-heroes-legends-histories-mysteries-podcast/id956154836?mt=2 Catch 1001 CLASSIC SHORT STORIES at iTunes/apple Podcast App Now: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-classic-short-stories-tales/id1078098622?mt=2 Catch 1001 Stories for the Road at iTunes/Apple Podcast now: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/1001-stories-for-the-road/id1227478901?mt=2 ANDROID USERS- 1001 Radio Days right here at Player.fm FREE: https://player.fm/series/1001-radio-days 1001 Classic Short Stories & Tales: https://castbox.fm/channel/1001-Classic-Short-Stories-%26-Tales-id381734?country=us 1001 Heroes, Legends, Histories & Mysteries: https://castbox.fm/channel/1001-Heroes%2C-Legends%2C-Histories-%26-Mysteries-Podcast-id1114843?country=us 1001 Stories for the Road: https://castbox.fm/channel/1001-Stories-For-The-Road-id1324757?country=us Catch ALL of our shows at one place by going to www.1001storiesnetwork.com- our home website with Megaphone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Mic Podcast
Martin Dugard -228

On Mic Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2021 15:17


Meet Martin Dugard, co-author of the mega-hit series of “Killing” history book thrillers with Bill O'Reilly.  Today Martin joins us to talk about a solo project entitled, “Taking Paris: The Epic Battle for the City of Lights.” It's a fascinating inside look at the Nazi capture of Paris and the efforts of Charles De Gaulle, FDR, Churchill, General Patton and Eisenhower to recapture it from Rommel and Hitler. And shift momentum in Europe during WWII. On Air: My Fifty Year Love Affair with Radio,” now available at Amazon. Jordan Rich is Boston's busiest podcaster, appearing on over 400 podcast episodes and currently hosting 16 shows. To connect with him, visit www.chartproductions.com.

Addressing Gettysburg Podcast
"Twilight of the Blue and Gray" with Christopher Gwinn

Addressing Gettysburg Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 27, 2021 84:42


We hope you enjoy this FREE full episode from our Patreon catalogue and consider becoming a patron today, in order to help keep the show going and growing. This episode originally aired on December 11, 2019. Patrons get to hear these episodes, recorded especially for them, long before the public.    75 years after the Battle of Gettysburg, just under 2000 Civil War veterans, who wore both blue and gray, gathered together on Gettysburg's hallowed fields one last time before passing on into history. This was also the year that 450,000 Americans descended on the place to see President Franklin Delano Roosevelt dedicate the Eternal Peace Light Memorial on the third day of the reunion. As you will hear, it was quite the undertaking to put on and, in typical American fashion, it was not without its controversies, especially over that Rebel Battle Flag, but perhaps not for the reasons you would assume.    Gettysburg National Military Park's Chief of Interpretation and Education Christopher Gwinn joins us to talk about his 2019 Winter Lecture Series lecture entitled "Twilight of the Blue and Gray"

Life on Planet Earth
MARTIN DUGARD: Author TAKING PARIS & co-author with BILL O'REILLY on Killing series, unpacks the details on his new page turning historical non-fiction on liberation of Paris in 1944

Life on Planet Earth

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 25, 2021 43:57


France, 1940. In a stunning move, the armies of Nazi Germany annihilate the French military and capture Paris, the crown jewel of Europe, in a matter of a few weeks. As Adolf Hitler tightens his grip on the fabled “City of Lights,” the shocked Allies regroup and begin planning for a daring counterattack into Fortress Europe. The longer the Nazis hold the city, the greater danger its citizens face. By 1944, over 120,000 Parisians have died, and countless more tortured in the city's Gestapo prisons and sent to death camps. The exiled general Charles de Gaulle, headquartered in the bar of London's Connaught Hotel, convinces General Dwight Eisenhower to put Paris before Berlin. Unless Paris is taken immediately, he tells Ike, the City of Lights will be leveled. The race for Paris begins. TAKING PARIS: The Epic Battle for the City of Lights (Dutton Caliber), is the riveting story of the people who set that beautiful city free. Vigorously researched, Martin Dugard's historical narrative takes readers behind-the-scenes in an epic, page-turning account of the battle for the heart and soul of Paris in one of the twentieth century's darkest moments. Dugard, one of the most widely read writers today, has co-authored one of the most successful nonfiction series in publishing history with the Killing books. Now, with TAKING PARIS, Dugard showcases his unique ability to pair fascinating historical research with compelling, page-turning storytelling. The players holding the fate of Paris in their hands are some of the biggest historical figures of the era: Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, General George S. Patton, and the exiled French general Charles de Gaulle. From the fall of Paris in 1940 to the race for Paris in 1944, this enthralling drama unfolds through their decisions—for better and worse. TAKING PARIS is history told at a breathtaking pace, a sprawling yet intimate saga of heroism, desire, and personal sacrifice for all that is right. Martin Dugard is a #1 New York Times bestselling author and historian who has written on topics ranging from presidents to Egyptian pharaohs. He is coauthor of the popular Killing series along with other acclaimed works including Into Africa, The Explorers, The Murder of King Tut, and To Be a Runner. Known for his fondness for adventure, he is also a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and has flown around the world at twice the speed of sound. He lives in California with his family Website: www.martindugard.com Source: Shirley & McVicker Public Affairs --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-aidan-byrne0/support

Media Monarchy
#MorningMonarchy: September 23, 2021

Media Monarchy

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 23, 2021 62:19


Blow-darting black people, AJ chills and well he's dead + this day in history w/FDR defends his dog and our song of the day by The Felicity Kendals on your #MorningMonarchy for September 23, 2021.

This Day in History Class
FDR defends his dog in a speech- September 23rd, 1944

This Day in History Class

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 23, 2021 9:51


On this day in 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt defended the reputation of his dog, who had recently been the subject of a political attack. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

The Hartmann Report
TRICKLE-DOWN AUTHORITARIANISM MUST STOP

The Hartmann Report

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 22, 2021 57:35


Trickle-Down Authoritarianism Must Stop. The Health Insurance Biz Claims Another Victim. Blue States Show Listening to Scientists Works.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

99% Invisible
459- Yankee Pyramids

99% Invisible

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 21, 2021 64:26


Presidential libraries are tributes to greatness, "[a] self-congratulatory, almost fictional account of someone's achievements, where all the blemishes are hidden," explains one New York architect.  But they're also a "weird mix of a historical repository of records and things that have a lot of meaning." Studying their origins and evolution, one can begin to see how presidential libraries have always involved tensions and contradictions.Yankee PyramidsThe premise of using the extreme example of Trump to heighten the contradictions of executive branch norms is what we do on Roman's other podcast What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law. It's good! And it's not really about Trump, so don't worry. It's essentially a current events based Constitutional Law class taught by an incredible professor, Elizabeth Joh. We included the latest episode here for you to check out.  

Anecdotally Speaking
125 – Lending a hose to neighbours on fire

Anecdotally Speaking

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 20, 2021 22:45


Great leaders communicate in ways that change minds and inspire action. Listen to hear how Franklin Roosevelt used an analogy to shift the events of World War II. The post 125 – Lending a hose to neighbours on fire appeared first on Anecdote.

An Even Bigger Fly On The Wall
1236. Tech Talk. Ethereum Blockchain. (A. I.) (I.o.T.) (09/17/21)

An Even Bigger Fly On The Wall

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2021 61:21


For Educational Purposes only. The Creators own their content and music/songs. Warning!!! Discretion is advised. May "Not" be suitable for some audiences. "Scary**** Demonology and Possession.***Plus more hard to believe, to hear and to understand concepts. Sci-Fi, Science, Religion, Preternatural, and Futuristic Discussions. Transhumanism, Artificial Intelligence, (A.I.) Ethereum, Blockchain Transactional Systems and The Internet of Things. (I.o.T.). ***Do not rely on other peoples' opinions alone. Your opinions are as good as theirs. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself, " Franklin Delano Roosevelt, aka FDR, was an American Lawyer and Politician who served as the 32nd U. S. President from 1933-1945.

The John Batchelor Show
1689: Ex-Im Bank for Stalin, William Bullitt, Cordell Hull, FDR: April, 1934 HFN

The John Batchelor Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2021 11:25


Photo: No known restrictions on publication.1949 Chinese communists celebrate Joseph Stalin's seventieth birthday. CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor CBS Audio Network @Batchelorshow Ex-Im Bank for Stalin, William Bullitt, Cordell Hull, FDR: April, 1934 HFN Union Guy Gets a Seat on Ex-Im Board | National Review https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/belated-happy-labor-day-union-guy-gets-a-seat-on-ex-im-board/

Sojourner Truth Radio
News Headlines: September 17, 2021

Sojourner Truth Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2021 5:13


Today on Sojourner Truth, our weekly roundtable. Our guests are Laura Carlsen, Jackie Goldberg, and Dr. Gerald Horne. The fight for the future of U.S. domestic policy. The Build Back Better Act. Bernie Sanders is not backing down from his push for spending $3.5 trillion. President Biden says the U.S. is at an inflection point and this investment is needed now. But Senator Manchin is in the way. So is the filibuster. Senator Manchin wants to cut the proposed Build Back Better Act figure in half. But that doesn't fly with Senator Sanders and other progressives. Democrats need a big win given the midterm elections in 2022. Some are saying that President Biden's Build Back Better Act is the largest social program proposed since FDR's New Deal. Is the Build Back Better Act a U.S. version of Democratic Socialism? As we mark the 10th anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, will conservatives on both sides of the aisle insist that the U.S. continue on the path of unfettered prioritization of the market over the care of people and the environment? Meanwhile, conservatives are complaining that jobs are not getting filled post-COVID. This, as some workers are refusing work that doesn't pay a living wage and is destructive to their bodies. Conservatives blame Biden's COVID relief subsidies that people are not taking jobs they don't want blame corporate greed. Lessons learned from the California Governor Recall Election. What do California Democrats prioritize now? What are the implications on the national scene? On U.S. foreign policy, is the influence of Washington waning? Recently alienating the EU, including France, and the U.S. seems to bypass traditional allies to cut a military deal with Australia and the U.K. against China. Europe, meanwhile, is trying to carve its own path in a post Angela Merkel era.

Sojourner Truth Radio
Sojourner Truth Radio: September 17, 2021 - Roundtable Discussion

Sojourner Truth Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2021 57:54


Today on Sojourner Truth, our weekly roundtable. Our guests are Laura Carlsen, Jackie Goldberg, and Dr. Gerald Horne. The fight for the future of U.S. domestic policy. The Build Back Better Act. Bernie Sanders is not backing down from his push for spending $3.5 trillion. President Biden says the U.S. is at an inflection point and this investment is needed now. But Senator Manchin is in the way. So is the filibuster. Senator Manchin wants to cut the proposed Build Back Better Act figure in half. But that doesn't fly with Senator Sanders and other progressives. Democrats need a big win given the midterm elections in 2022. Some are saying that President Biden's Build Back Better Act is the largest social program proposed since FDR's New Deal. Is the Build Back Better Act a U.S. version of Democratic Socialism? As we mark the 10th anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, will conservatives on both sides of the aisle insist that the U.S. continue on the path of unfettered prioritization of the market over the care of people and the environment? Meanwhile, conservatives are complaining that jobs are not getting filled post-COVID. This, as some workers are refusing work that doesn't pay a living wage and is destructive to their bodies. Conservatives blame Biden's COVID relief subsidies that people are not taking jobs they don't want blame corporate greed. Lessons learned from the California Governor Recall Election. What do California Democrats prioritize now? What are the implications on the national scene? On U.S. foreign policy, is the influence of Washington waning? Recently alienating the EU, including France, and the U.S. seems to bypass traditional allies to cut a military deal with Australia and the U.K. against China. Europe, meanwhile, is trying to carve its own path in a post Angela Merkel era.

Forgotten Darkness
91 - The Kelayres Massacre

Forgotten Darkness

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2021 31:34


The election of 1934 saw Democrats gain headway nationally in the wake of the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  But Republicans in Kelayres, Pennsylvania, dominated by the Bruno family, weren't going to go down without a fight. Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodcastDarkness Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/agable_fd/ Part of the Straight Up Strange Network: https://www.straightupstrange.com/ Opening music from https://filmmusic.io. "Dark Child" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com). License: CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Closing music by Soma. SOURCES “2 Commissioners Arrested for Plot in Bruno's Escape.” Reading Times, December 24, 1936. “14 Year Old Girl of Kelayres Has Flag Recognized.” Hazelton Standard-Speaker, January 15, 1935. “50 Republican Votes Gained in Kline Twp.” Pottsville Republican-Herald, November 13, 1933. “A Proclamation.” Hazleton Standard-Speaker, November 8, 1934. “Bruno Trial to Reach Jury By Next Friday.” Pottsville Republican and Herald, September 17, 1935. “Contest Kline Twp. Election.” Pottsville Republican, December 6, 1933. “Dramatic Scene as Woman Shouts Answer to Bruno.” Hazelton Standard-Speaker, January 29, 1935. “Eye-Witnesses in Kelayres Case Ready to Testify.” Hazelton Standard-Speaker, January 14, 1935. “Four Bruno Men Hear Murder Writ in County Prison.” Hazleton Standard-Speaker, November 8, 1934. “Joseph Bruno Found Guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter; Carries Six to Twelve Years.” Shenandoah Evening Herald, February 7, 1935. “Kline Township Recount Stands.” Hazleton Plain Speaker, November 14, 1933. “News of the South Side.” Hazleton Plain Speaker, December 30, 1933. “Mandamus Action in Kline Township.” Hazleton Plain Speaker, August 31, 1933. “Three Are Dead in Voting Feud.” New Castle News, November 6, 1934. “Unspeakable Outrage, Declares Gov. Pinchot of Hazleton Slayings.” New Castle News, November 6, 1934. “Voice in Broken English Vividly Outlined Rat-Tat-Tat of Gunfire.” Hazelton Standard-Speaker, January 18, 1935. “Witnesses Back in Kelayres Homes.” Hazleton Standard-Speaker, November 8, 1934. Cerullo, John and Gennaro Delena. “The Kelayres Massacre.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 107:3 (July 1983). Hoover, Stephanie. The Kelayres Massacre: Politics & Murder in Pennsylvania's Anthracite Coal Country. Xxx Newsreel Report about the Massacre - (1) 1934 Kelayres Massacre - YouTube The woman interviewed towards the end is, I think, either Irene Condor or Sarah Fiorilla. The scruffy man shown lying in a hospital bed is most likely Edward Vespucci.

Jim Hightower's Radio Lowdown
Hey Washington: Follow The People

Jim Hightower's Radio Lowdown

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2021 2:10


“Those in the know,” say that We the People should forget any progressive fantasy that – at long last – Washington might finally produce the kind of bold FDR-style agenda that America needs. They smugly lecture us that recalcitrant Republicans in Congress, not to mention a swarm of corporate lobbyists, are opposed to progressive change, so who could get it passed? Here's an idea: Try the people themselves. Those in the know don't seem to know it (or don't want us to know it), but big majorities across grassroots America are strongly in favor of the fundamental changes that Washington elites are rejecting. For example: Two-thirds of America (including a majority of moderate Republicans) say “Yes!” to doubling the minimum wage. 72 percent of the people, including 46 percent of professed Republicans, shout their approval for Medicare for all. Eight out of 10 Americans, including strong majorities of Republicans, support a paid family leave program like every other developed nation provides for their people. What about increasing taxes on the rich, expanding Medicaid for poor families, raising teacher pay, spending more for early childhood education? Yes, yes, yes, yes say majorities, not just in blue states, but also in GOP strongholds like Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah. These are not just poll numbers, but solid ideas embraced last year by a broad cross-section of voters in ballot elections across the country. For example, Florida voters enacted a constitutional initiative to up the state's minimum pay to $15, with “yeas” topping “nays” by a whopping margin of more than 20 points – making it more popular than either Trump or Biden. Instead of fearing the people, Democratic leaders need to get out of Washington and join them. Let's rally and organize the power of outsiders to produce transformative policies of, by, and for the people.

Secure Freedom Radio Podcast
With Chris Fanell

Secure Freedom Radio Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2021 52:55


CHRIS FARRELL, Director, Investigations and Research, Judicial Watch, Author, "Exiled Emissary: George H. Earle III, Soldier, Sailor, Diplomat, Governor, Spy," @JudicialWatch How did an independently wealthy businessman from Philadelphia become a leading figure in the Democratic Party, governor, diplomat (don't need to be capitalized) and spy? George H. Earle III takes his uncles yacht, offers it as a Naval Reserve vessel at the onset of World War I, and patrols the Atlantic coast for submarines, later winning the Navy cross During the inner-War period, Earle becomes an internationally ranked polo player, eventually backing Franklin DelanoRoosevelt for President in 1932, who later appointed him as U.S. ambassador to Austria from 1933-35 Chris Farrell: A remarkable governor who fought for civil rights and loathed communism What if George Earle had run and won the Democratic nomination in 1940? Earle arrived in North Africa at the onset of Operation Torch and bumped into his old Polo friend, George Patton In January 1943, when FDR meets with Churchill in Casablanca, Morocco, the President declares that the U.S. will only accept Germany's unconditional surrender - Which resonates within the officer core throughout the Nazi Reich The German military's top intelligence officer comes to Earle in Istanbul with a proposition: In exchange for Hitler and his inner circle, the allies would sign an armistice with Germany and declare war on the Soviet Union - FDR does not respond In March 1945, Earle returned to Washington D.C. to meet with the President, after-which it became evident that the whole White House had “gone pink” [Communist] Earle threatens to go public about Soviet war crimes, at which point FDR banishes him to the Samoan islands Farrell: Where is General Milley's head in all this?

Hemp Barons
Morgan Elliott | IND HEMP

Hemp Barons

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2021 47:53


“The Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.” (Franklin Roosevelt, 1937)         IND HEMP believes that in addition to its nutritious grain, healthy oils, versatile fiber and hurd; the hemp plant can be used to help repair the world and make it a better place for everyone. Co-Founder and CEO,  Morgan Elliott  joins  Joy Beckerman to explain how they are bringing real and lasting change to our communities and planet by providing innovative agricultural products and services to help American farmers connect with hemp pioneers and businesses. Produced by PodConX Hemp Barons - https://podconx.com/podcasts/hemp-baronsJoy Beckerman - https://podconx.com/guests/joy-beckermanHemp Ace International - http://www.hempace.com/Morgan Elliott - https://podconx.com/guests/morgan-elliottIND HEMP - https://www.indhemp.com/

Kerusso Daily Devotional

Do you sometimes feel your job is just too much for one person to handle?   Then let me introduce you to Franklin Roosevelt.   “FDR” was the 32nd president of the United States. By a quirk of history, he found himself leading the free world during a crippling economic meltdown…and a world war! His story is important, as we explore faith in God and country this week.   No one understood more than Roosevelt the sacrifice needed to defeat evil on the battlefield. He said, “Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget, in time, that men have died to win them.”   He had to send young men and women into harm's way, all over the world.   John 15:13 says, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends."   More than 400,000 Americans died in World War 2. From the South Pacific to Europe, soldiers looked after each other, and in many cases died so that others could live.   We should never forget that.   Let's pray. Lord, we thank you for those who protect us. We will never forget them. Amen.

AEA Research Highlights
Ep. 36: Demagoguery on the airwaves

AEA Research Highlights

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2021 22:55


Right-wing radio has served as a megaphone for populist outrage in America. Talk-show hosts like Alex Jones and the late Rush Limbaugh have railed against cultural elites, promoted baseless claims of election fraud, stoked a backlash against immigrants, and questioned the effectiveness of masks and vaccinations amid the Covid-19 pandemic. How and to what extent do these charismatic radio personalities influence public opinion? In the American Economic Review, author Tianyi Wang goes back to the 1930s to help answer this question by examining the impact of the religious firebrand Father Charles Coughlin. Known as the “Father of Hate Radio,” Father Coughlin had a devoted following of tens of millions of listeners across the United States, who tuned in to hear him thunder against the evils of Communism, Wall Street bankers, and America's involvement in World War II. Wang found that Coughlin's program resonated profoundly with listeners, persuading more than a quarter of them to vote against Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential election.  Wang spoke with Chris Fleisher about Coughlin's history as a populist media figure during the Great Depression, his influence over US public opinion, and the insights for today's fragmented media. *Theme music in the podcast is from Podington Bear and the Father Charles Coughlin clip is from OldTimeRadioDownloads.com.

America's Democrats
Who does our essential ‘dirty work', and at what price?

America's Democrats

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 13, 2021 45:03


Who does our essential ‘dirty work', and at what price?  Why prison gerrymandering has to end.  Plus, Bill Press on why California Governor Gavin Newsom is likely to survive the effort to recall him.   Eyal Press, author of Dirty Work: Essential Jobs and the Hidden Toll of Inequality in America. Alec Kajstura on how the prison system distorts legislative redistricting. Plus, Bill Press looks ahead to California's recall election with Carla Marinucci, Senior Writer for POLITICO's California Playbook. Eyal Press In his new book, Eyal Press talks about the overlooked jobs that are dangerous or morally compromising, but essential to our lives. He says it's time to come to terms with the consequences of this work  we pay other people to do. Alecs Kajstura As states begin the process of redistricting, our attention is drawn to the debate over where prisoners are counted as residents.  Alecs Kajstura explains how making the wrong decision can undermine democracy for all of us.  Carla Marinucci Bill Press talks with Carla Marinucci, Senior Writer for POLITICO's California Playbook about California's gubernatorial recall election and the issue that will decide its outcome. If you'd like to hear the entire episode, visit BillPressPods.com. Jim Hightower   Hey Washington: Follow The People   “Those in the know,” say that We the People should forget any progressive fantasy that – at long last – Washington might finally produce the kind of bold FDR-style agenda that America needs. They smugly lecture us that recalcitrant Republicans in Congress, not to mention a swarm of corporate lobbyists, are opposed to progressive change, so who could get it passed?   Here's an idea: Try the people themselves. Those in the know don't seem to know it (or don't want us to know it), but big majorities across grassroots America are strongly in favor of the fundamental changes that Washington elites are rejecting.

David Feldman Show
Slavoj Žižek In Conversation, Episode 1272

David Feldman Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 10, 2021 458:55


Slavoj Žižek is a philosopher, author of more than fifty books, the most recent of which are Volumes 1 and 2 of Pandemic!--COVID-19 Shakes the World (volume 1) and Chronicles of a Time Lost (volume 2). Joined in conversation by Professors Russell Sbriglia, Adnan Husain, Ben Burgis and Ann Li. Topics: Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer thrown out of our military; The airline passenger who growled; Biden let's the hammer down on Anti-vaxers; Incontrovertible evidence Ayn Rand was a monster; A heart worming story about Joe Rogan Guests With Time Stamps: (1:08) David does the News (1:44:02) Slavoj Žižek joined in conversation by Professors Russell Sbriglia, Adnan Husain, Ben Burgis and Ann Li. (3:13:15) The Herschenfelds: Dr. Philip Herschenfeld, Freudian psychoanalyst, and Ethan Herschenfeld whose new comedy special "Thug, Thug Jew" is streaming on YouTube (4:00:33) Emil Guillermo, host of the PETA Podcast, and columnist for The Asian American Legal Defense And Education Fund (4:34:41) The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (5:20:11) The Professors And Mary Anne: Professor Jonathan Bick, Professor Adnan Husain, and Professor Mary Anne Cummings (6:35:15) Professor Harvey J. Kaye, "FDR on Democracy" and Alan Minsky, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America

Garbage Day
GDP EP 138: FDR: American Badass

Garbage Day

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 10, 2021 76:00


We're watching a truly inspiring movie about one of our greatest presidents and we're not ashamed of it either. He couldn't stand tall, but he held us up when we needed him and was a true badass. We watched FDR: American Badass and we hope you enjoy this, for real.   Join our Patreon: www.patreon.com/garbagedaypodcast   

The Majority Report with Sam Seder
2670 - The Struggle To Define Citizens' Role In American Government w/ Paul Sabin

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 8, 2021 69:47


Sam hosts Paul Sabin, professor of history at Yale University and director of the Yale Environmental Humanities Program, to discuss his recent book Public Citizens: The Attack On Big Government and the Remaking of American Liberalism, on how the US went from eras defined by government action under FDR through LBJ, to Reagan and Clinton coming together across the aisle to end the “era of big government.” Professor Sabin starts us off in the Fifties and early Sixties with the government's managerial role in brokering between businesses and the labor industries, and the rise of liberals speaking out against the unaccounted power in politics; they walk through the roles of folks like Ralph Nader, Jane Jacobs, and Rachel Carson and how they turned on government planning, taking on their efficiency particularly when it comes to their relationships with sectors such as the auto industry. After a little background on Nader's libertarian, albeit, progressive, roots, and how they gave birth to all sorts of NGOs, such as the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which attempted to keep public interest behind the wheel of government. Next, they look into the jumpstart on the turn against government with the Nixon administration and how it was bolstered by liberal attempts to get the government to buckle down, with procedural interventions such as FOIA, unfortunately, undermining the trust in government, particularly as Nader and co. pushed back against the supposedly successful liberal regime under Carter. Lastly, Paul and Sam turn towards the Reagan and Clinton years, and they debate the role of Clinton in marking the end of big government, as he promised the end of said era, before they wrap up the interview by discussing the rhetorical failures by liberals in attempting to have the government-run “efficiently” rather than run with “good platforms.” Sam concludes the fun half with some updates on Texas' take on Roe v. Wade, alongside Greg Abbott's new and improved plan to eliminate rapists. And in the Fun Half: Sam discusses his internal issues and the problematic nature of procedural hindrances to digestion (he got food poisoning), the MR crew discusses NYC education COVID policy, as well as the fight AND flight conflict of COVID deniers. They also discuss Fox's Brian Kilmeade objections to giving a horse drug a bad name, Lauren Windsor's continued brilliance in duping Republican officials into spilling party tea, and expand both on Gov. Abbott's turn against sexual assault, and Elon Musk's response to his proclaimed support for Texan social policy. They wrap up the fun half with a conversation on how culture war dominates discourse over material benefit, particularly in the context of discussing Texan abortion law, plus, your IMs! Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here. Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ (Merch issues and concerns can be addressed here: majorityreportstore@mirrorimage.com) You can now watch the livestream on Twitch Check out today's sponsors: quip: quip mouthwash kills bad breath germs, helps prevent cavities, and leaves you feeling fresh thanks to a formula that gives your mouth everything it needs. Their 4X concentrate has fluoride, xylitol, and CPC, but they left out the artificial colors and stinging alcohol you'll find in a lot of other rinses.That's $5 off a Mouthwash Starter Kit, which includes a Refillable Dispenser and a 90-dose supply of quip's 4x concentrated formula, at getquip.com/majority5. Support the St. Vincent Nurses today as they continue to strike for a fair contract! https://action.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Subscribe to AM Quickie writer Corey Pein's podcast News from Nowhere, at https://www.patreon.com/newsfromnowhere Check out The Letterhack's upcoming Kickstarter project for his new graphic novel! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/milagrocomic/milagro-heroe-de-las-calles Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel! Check out The Nomiki Show live at 3 pm ET on YouTube at patreon.com/thenomikishow Check out Matt's podcast, Literary Hangover, at Patreon.com/LiteraryHangover, or on iTunes. Check out Jamie's podcast, The Antifada, at patreon.com/theantifada, on iTunes, or at twitch.tv/theantifada (streaming every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at 7pm ET!) Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Donate to the Sun's Out Guns Out fundraiser to help resettle Afghan refugees here!  

Steel Magnolias - Holding on to the good of The South

Judy Blume once said "Librarians save lives: by handing the right book, at the right time, to a kid in need."    Librarians play an important role in the lives of those who love to read. But what if you had no access to a library nor books? Today we are discussing some heroic librarians that filled a gap in a time of great need in the South.    Under President Roosevlet, The Pack Horse Library initiative provided women jobs as  librarians sent deep into Appalachia on horseback to deliver books. The project was implemented by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and today we are honoring these steel magnolias that saved lives in Kentucky through books.  Additional resources mentioned:  "That Book Woman" by Heather Henson  "Along a Storied Trail" by Ann H. Gabhart "The Book Woman of Troublesome Creek" by Kim Michele Richardson "The Giver of Stars" by Jojo Moyes "Down Cut Shin Creek" by Kathi Appelt and Jeanee Cannella Schmitzer   If you'd like to join our Patreon Community to support us monthly for perks and exclusive content check out https://www.patreon.com/steelmagnolias   Other Places to Connect: Sign up for mailing list HERE  Instagram @SteelMagnoliasPodcast Private Facebook Group https://bit.ly/32Kna4T      

National Day Calendar
September 7, 2021 – National Salami Day | National Beer Lover’s Day

National Day Calendar

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 7, 2021 2:30


Today We Get To Kick Back and Crack Open A Brew, While We Learn How The Salami Is Made. Welcome to September 7th, 2021 on the National Day Calendar. Today we celebrate learning how the sausage is made and a top down love for beer. While American cuisine boasts an array of international flavors, today we celebrate an Italian favorite.  The Latin word “salumen” means a mixture of salted meats. Salami is a generic term used to describe any encased meat product, but in Italy this typically means pork.  In the same way that cheeses are named for the place in which they're made, salami is more specifically identified by its native region.  This could be Salami di Felino from Parma or Soppressata from Calabria.  The sausages vary by spice and curing process, but most are tied and aged in cool dark cellars for days or months.  On National Salami Day, try something truly special as you find out how the sausage is made.   Americans have loved beer from the beginning. George Washington was a huge fan of porters. Thomas Jefferson kept his home well stocked with beer. James Madison wanted to establish a national brewery and appoint a Secretary of Beer. Sadly, that idea did not come to fruition. Franklin Roosevelt continued this presidential tradition. When he came into office, FDR promised to have Prohibition repealed. And before the ban was lifted on any other alcohol, Roosevelt signed an executive order to legalize the sale of—you guessed it—beer. During National Beer Lover's Day, crack open a cold one and enjoy the drink that's a favorite of world leaders and regular Joes alike. I'm Anna Devere and I'm Marlo Anderson.  Thanks for joining us as we Celebrate Every Day.

The Majority Report with Sam Seder
2668 - Labor Day 2021

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 6, 2021 45:19


Today our annual repeat of a compilation of labor speeches from FDR, Mario Savio, John Lewis, & more. Also, Bernie reading from the speech that sent Debs to jail.

American Conservative University
The Battle of Midway. WW2. From the Book- God‘s Hand on America: Divine Providence in the Modern Era

American Conservative University

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 6, 2021 73:52


Book- God's Hand on America: Divine Providence in the Modern Era by Michael Medved. Narrated by: Michael Medved Publisher's Summary The national radio host and best-selling author of The American Miracle reveals the happy accidents, outrageous coincidences, and flat-out miracles that continue to shape America's destiny. "The book isn't just inspiring; it reignites faith in God and the country upon which He has so richly dispensed his blessings." (Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire) Has God withdrawn his special blessing from the United States? Americans ponder that painful question in troubled times, as we did during the devastation of the Civil War and after the assassinations of the '60s, and as we do in our present polarization. Yet, somehow - on battlefields, across western wilderness, and in raucous convention halls - astounding events have reliably advanced America, restoring faith in the Republic's providential protection. In this provocative historical narrative, Michael Medved brings to life 10 haunting tales that reveal this purposeful pattern, including: A near-fatal carriage accident forces Lincoln's secretary of state into a canvas-and-steel neck brace that protects him from a would-be assassin's knife thrusts, allowing him two years later to acquire Alaska for the United States. A sudden tidal wave of Russian Jewish immigration, beginning in 1881, coincides with America's rise to world leadership, fulfilling a biblical promise that those blessing Abraham's children will themselves be blessed. Campaigning for president, Theodore Roosevelt takes a bullet in the chest, but a folded speech in his jacket pocket slows its progress and saves his life. At the Battle of Midway, US planes get lost over empty ocean and then miraculously reconnect for five minutes of dive-bombing that wrecks Japan's fleet, convincing even enemy commanders that higher powers intervened against them. A behind-the-scenes "conspiracy of the pure of heart" by Democratic leaders forces a gravely ill FDR to replace his sitting vice president - an unstable Stalinist - with future White House great Harry Truman. These and other little-known stories build on themes of The American Miracle, Medved's best seller about America's remarkable rise. The confident heroes and stubborn misfits in these stories shared a common faith in a master plan, which continues to unfold in our time. God's Hand on America confirms that the founders were right about America's destiny to lead and enlighten the world.   Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU. 

Blunt Force Truth
The Lack of Confidence in Our Government is Beyond Believable

Blunt Force Truth

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 6, 2021 71:51


Today's show rundown: Today's Theme is lack confidence in our Government. From the FBI, to the CDC, to the FDA, these organizations are SHOWING us to NOT trust them. The Government has a long history of lying to us. Most of the time it is for their benefit, and NOT ours. FDR and the media lied to us about his polio for crying out loud. The MSM is their main accomplice, and it is proving exhausting to the American People. Chuck talks a little about Chris Wallace. How that this guy was supporting Biden, no matter what. When it comes to news at Fox, he is considered to be the lead, and he is just failing to press President Biden on anything and support the ridiculous decisions that have been taking place in that administration. Can you be, or can there be a true Moderate now days? Chuck is not sure that it is even possible. He is registered as a republican just so he can vote in the primaries. Mark agrees there are very few people in politics that are trying to tell the truth. The bravest person in Media right now is Tucker Carlson, he throws it out there and takes more risks than anybody on Fox. Neither one of us here at BFT will lie to you. That is not to say that we won't make a mistake, but we will come back on and ADMIT it, and apologize for said mistake. It is never going to happen to be deliberate, we want to serve you and serve this great Country. We do this show because it is civic responsibility for both of us. We know how frustrated you folks are, we feel the same way. Give H2Max a try and let us know what you think: buyh2max.com Help us bring you the best content possible. Due to the left's boycotts of those who advertise with Conservatives, we have had a number of advertisers back-out to avoid possible backlash. Support the show and gain access to even more content at https://www.patreon.com/bftpodcast Don't forget to leave us a voicemail for the chance to have it played on a future episode. You can do so by clicking the link. https://bluntforcetruth.com/voicemail/ Also, check out the store on our website to get your own Blunt Force Truth gear. https://store.bluntforcetruth.com/

American Conservative University
The Battle of Midway. WW2. From the Book- God‘s Hand on America: Divine Providence in the Modern Era

American Conservative University

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 6, 2021 73:52


Book- God's Hand on America: Divine Providence in the Modern Era by Michael Medved. Narrated by: Michael Medved Publisher's Summary The national radio host and best-selling author of The American Miracle reveals the happy accidents, outrageous coincidences, and flat-out miracles that continue to shape America's destiny. "The book isn't just inspiring; it reignites faith in God and the country upon which He has so richly dispensed his blessings." (Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire) Has God withdrawn his special blessing from the United States? Americans ponder that painful question in troubled times, as we did during the devastation of the Civil War and after the assassinations of the '60s, and as we do in our present polarization. Yet, somehow - on battlefields, across western wilderness, and in raucous convention halls - astounding events have reliably advanced America, restoring faith in the Republic's providential protection. In this provocative historical narrative, Michael Medved brings to life 10 haunting tales that reveal this purposeful pattern, including: A near-fatal carriage accident forces Lincoln's secretary of state into a canvas-and-steel neck brace that protects him from a would-be assassin's knife thrusts, allowing him two years later to acquire Alaska for the United States. A sudden tidal wave of Russian Jewish immigration, beginning in 1881, coincides with America's rise to world leadership, fulfilling a biblical promise that those blessing Abraham's children will themselves be blessed. Campaigning for president, Theodore Roosevelt takes a bullet in the chest, but a folded speech in his jacket pocket slows its progress and saves his life. At the Battle of Midway, US planes get lost over empty ocean and then miraculously reconnect for five minutes of dive-bombing that wrecks Japan's fleet, convincing even enemy commanders that higher powers intervened against them. A behind-the-scenes "conspiracy of the pure of heart" by Democratic leaders forces a gravely ill FDR to replace his sitting vice president - an unstable Stalinist - with future White House great Harry Truman. These and other little-known stories build on themes of The American Miracle, Medved's best seller about America's remarkable rise. The confident heroes and stubborn misfits in these stories shared a common faith in a master plan, which continues to unfold in our time. God's Hand on America confirms that the founders were right about America's destiny to lead and enlighten the world.   Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU. 

David Feldman Show
Texas Aborts Roe v. Wade, Episode 1270

David Feldman Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 3, 2021 398:13


Somewhat surprised Judge Kavanaugh upheld the Texas abortion ban considering it allows for no exceptions in the case of rape. Topics: Ida; Afghanistan; Biden; Texas? Y'all may secede now Guests With Time Stamps: (1:17) David does The News (1:32:00) Professor Ben Burgis whose new book is "Cancelling Comedians While The World Burns" (2:03:09) The Herschenfelds: Dr. Philip Herschenfeld, Freudian psychoanalyst, and Ethan Herschenfeld whose new comedy special "Thug, Thug Jew" is streaming on YouTube (2:35:23) Emil Guillermo, host of the PETA Podcast, and columnist for The Asian American Legal Defense And Education Fund (3:08:00) The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (6:39:00) The Professors And Mary Anne: Professor Jonathan Bick, Professor Ian Faloona, Professor Adnan Husain, and Professor Mary Anne Cummings (5:08:04) Professor Harvey J. Kaye, "FDR on Democracy" and Alan Minsky, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America We livestream here on YouTube every Monday and Thursday starting at 5:00 PM Eastern and go until 11:00 PM. Please join us!

The Muck Podcast
Episode 87: Hit Pause | Battle for Blair Mountain and Gary Dodds

The Muck Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2021 67:22


Hillary and Tina cover the Battle for Blair Mountain and former US Congressional Candidate from New Hampshire, Gary Dodds. For show notes and links to our sources, please click here (https://themuckpodcast.fireside.fm/articles/ep87notes).

Progressive Faith Sermons - Dr. Roger Ray
The Threat of Fascism is Real

Progressive Faith Sermons - Dr. Roger Ray

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2021 21:08


Though most public school history classes are silent about it, there was a serious insurrection attempt made in 1932 to overthrow the administration of Franklin Roosevelt and install a fascist leader who would reverse the New Deal legislation in favor of a wealthy ruling class. Although the coups was stopped, none of the finances and planners of the coups were charged or tried…. familiar names like DuPont, J. P. Morgan, William Randolph Hurst, and the father of George H. W. Bush, Prescott Bush, were among those fans of Hitler and Mussolini who wanted to see Roosevelt removed. Do you hear echoes of today?

David Feldman Show
Never Admit Defeat: America Waves White Flag of Victory Episode 1268

David Feldman Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 27, 2021 384:19


Topics: Rudy caught shaving inside restaurant; Marco Rubio talks tough; Eric Trump talks tough; Kevin McCarthy talks tough; Lindsey Graham already planning our next war; America doesn't negotiate with terrorists except when it does (03:14) Dan Frankenberger and David try to save the show from completely going off the rails (05:30) David does The News (1:30:21) Mike Rowe, Emmy award winning author of "It's A Funny Thing" (1:56:00) The Herschenfelds: Dr. Philip Herschenfeld, Freudian psychoanalyst, and Ethan Herschenfeld whose new comedy special "Thug, Thug Jew" is streaming on YouTube (2:31:33) Emil Guillermo, host of the PETA Podcast, and columnist for The Asian American Legal Defense And Education Fund (3:01:18) "I'm Traveling Light" written and performed by Professor Mike Steinel (3:05:36) The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (4:13:50) Dan Frankenberger's Community Billboard (4:24:30) The Professors And Mary Anne: Professor Jonathan Bick and others PHDs TBD (5:02:14) Professor Harvey J. Kaye, "FDR on Democracy" and Alan Minsky, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America We livestream here on YouTube every Monday and Thursday starting at 5:00 PM Eastern and go until 11:00 PM. Please join us! Take us wherever you go by subscribing to this show as a podcast!

The Lawfare Podcast
Lawfare Archive: Joseph Nye on "Do Morals Matter?: Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump"

The Lawfare Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 22, 2021 43:22


From March 7, 2020: We ask a lot of questions about foreign policy on this podcast. Why do certain countries make certain decisions? What are the interests of the players in question? What are the consequences and, of course, the legality of foreign policy choices. In a new book, Joseph Nye, professor emeritus and former dean of the Harvard Kennedy School, asks another question about foreign policy. Do morals matter? Jack Goldsmith sat down with Nye to discuss his new book, 'Do Morals Matter?: Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump.' They discussed the ethical and theoretical factors by which Nye judged each president before going through many of the cases he focuses on in the book.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Peter Schiff Show Podcast
Less Loose Is Not Tight – Ep 726

The Peter Schiff Show Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 21, 2021 60:20


Fed will talk about tapering until it can use Delta as an excuse not to. Bitcoin is irrelevant to monetary policy. Accepting Bitcoin for mortgage payments is a publicity stunt, not a use case. Fed uses owner's equivalent rent data to hide the scarier actual rent data. FDR may have killed the dollar, but Nixon helped bury it. Thanks FEALS. Become a member at https://feals.com/gold and you'll get 50% off your first order with free shipping. Thanks https://truebill.com/gold. It could save you hundreds a year. INVEST LIKE ME: https://schiffradio.com/invest RATE AND REVIEW on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PeterSchiff/reviews/ SIGN UP FOR MY FREE NEWSLETTER: https://www.europac.com/ Schiff Gold News: http://www.SchiffGold.com/news Buy my newest book at http://www.tinyurl.com/RealCrash Follow me on Facebook: http://www.Facebook.com/PeterSchiff Follow me on Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/PeterSchiff Follow me on Instagram: https://Instagram.com/PeterSchiff

The Peter Schiff Show Podcast
Less Loose Is Not Tight – Ep 726

The Peter Schiff Show Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 21, 2021


Fed will talk about tapering until it can use Delta as an excuse not to. Bitcoin is irrelevant to monetary policy. Accepting Bitcoin for mortgage payments is a publicity stunt, not a use case. Fed uses owner's equivalent rent data to hide the scarier actual rent data. FDR may have killed the dollar, but Nixon helped bury it. Thanks FEALS. Become a member at https://feals.com/gold and you'll get 50% off your first order with free shipping. Thanks https://truebill.com/gold. It could save you hundreds a year. INVEST LIKE ME: https://schiffradio.com/invest RATE AND REVIEW on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PeterSchiff/reviews/ SIGN UP FOR MY FREE NEWSLETTER: https://www.europac.com/ Schiff Gold News: http://www.SchiffGold.com/news Buy my newest book at http://www.tinyurl.com/RealCrash Follow me on Facebook: http://www.Facebook.com/PeterSchiff Follow me on Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/PeterSchiff Follow me on Instagram: https://Instagram.com/PeterSchiff

The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg
Meet the History Ninjas

The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 4, 2021 80:29


Chris Stirewalt is back on The Remnant to discuss how we can make politics boring again. As Chris observes, we've entered a “wilderness of grifts,” where opportunistic nationalism and Lincoln Project-style chicanery are all the rage. Meanwhile, a new group is trying to turn Joe Biden into FDR, factions on the right are embracing the progressive vision of government, and rage clicks are poisoning the political well. What can we learn from Lincoln in this bizarre moment? How do Americans really feel about abortion? And will Chris finally make a pious man out of Jonah?   Show Notes: -The Morning Dispatch breaks down the infrastructure negotiations -The Jane Mayer piece that made Jonah's morning -Jonah explores Trump's grip on the GOP -Ave, true to Trump -Trump's endorsement goes awry in Texas -The Remnant with Dan McLaughlin -Biden's team of rivals -The Great Debate, by Yuval Levin -Jonah's decadent dysfunction -Jonah on the implications of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health -The real great debate -A musical mystery -Chris' Instagram, where the magic happens -Kevin Williamson on the big white ghetto See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.