Podcasts about George Mason University

0:00 - Dan & Amy react to Chicago's violent weekend including the juvenile MOB hit at Michigan Ave and Millennial Park. 12:32 - Dan & Amy look into Big Blue City violence 32:33 - Dan & Amy respond to OPRF's plan to ban winter sports 48:20 - Should the Oxford MI shooter's parents be charged under Michigan law? 01:04:14 - Vice President of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation and author of Brutal War: Jungle Fighting in Papua New Guinea, 1942, Lt Col James Carafano, critiques Biden's COVID response and policies. Follow Jim on twitter - @JJCarafano 01:18:59 - Dan & Amy take callers reaction to the possible gun regulations proposed after the Oxford MI school shooting 01:31:09 - American economist, author, professor, and co-director of the Program on the American Economy and Globalization at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Donald J Boudreaux, asks Is Free Trade Elitist? Check out Professor Boudreaux's latest -  cafehayek.com01:44:07 - Kris Kobach, former Kansas Secretary of State, currently General Counsel of the Alliance for Free Citizens and candidate for Kansas Attorney General, discusses his fight against the OSHA vaccine mandate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Healing wounds over and violence from years past can be an extremely difficult endeavor. South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission was the most famous attempt of its kind--but now, Maryland is the first U.S. state using the resolution model to reckon with its history of racial violence. Charles Chavis, assistant professor at George Mason University and the vice-chair of Maryland's truth and reconciliation commission, joins. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Facebook, Meta — whatever you want to call it, the tech titan has drawn a lot of ire, and not just from privacy advocates and people fighting misinformation. Antitrust regulators are sharpening their knives, too.Forty-eight attorneys general want to slice the Big Tech giant into less-powerful pieces. They've joined a parallel lawsuit with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to challenge what the agency alleges to be a monopoly engaging in illegal acquisitions. And overseas, Britain's competition regulator has already directed Meta to sell one of its companies, the gif-sharing platform Giphy.Meta reaches 3.6 billion monthly active users across platforms, including Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook itself. Amid a growing techlash, how to fix Meta is a big question.In today's episode, Jane Coaston explores two opposing views on whether breaking up the company might help. Sarah Miller, the director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argues Meta engaged in anticompetitive practices by buying its rivals. And Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, is a champion of big business who lauds Meta as an “antimonopoly” engine.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Mentioned in this episode:The case summary of Federal Trade Commission v. Facebook, Inc."Breaking Up Facebook Is Not the Answer" by Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president for global affairs and communicationsSway's episode with Lina Khan "She's Bursting Big Tech's Bubble"

Today on Midday, a variety of perspectives on Fires in the Mirror: Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Other Identities, the 1992 play about Black-Jewish relations in America that's getting a new production at Baltimore's Center Stage. Opening night is Thursday. Tom's first guest today is the playwright who created Fires in the Mirror: the writer, actor and educator, Anna Deavere Smith. In addition to the one-woman plays she has written and performed, her acting credits include dozens of well-known television and film roles. She has been awarded a MacArthur Fellowship, and in 2012, President Barack Obama awarded her the National Humanities Medal. Anna Deavere Smith has revolutionized theater with work based on intensive interviews with people around the subjects she explores. She transforms these interviews into powerful shows that capture the nuances and complexities of the issues she takes-up.Her work has examined, among other topics, health care, the school-to-prison pipeline, and racial tension in Los Angeles following the acquittal of white police officers who beat Rodney King in 1991. In 1992, she wrote and performed Fires in the Mirror: Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Other Identities, which explored the violence that broke out in a New York City neighborhood after a Hasidic Jew lost control of the car he was driving and killed an African American child. The play was a Pulitzer Prize finalist and a recipient of a 1993 Drama Desk Award. Anna Deavere Smithjoins us on Zoom from New York City. Baltimore Center Stage is presenting Fires in the Mirror in a live stage production that runs through December 19. A little later in this hour, Tom speaks with Center Stage's artistic director and with the director of the new production. But first, Tom is joined by two eminent scholars who help us explore the relationship between the African American and Jewish communities in America: Dr. Susannah Heschel is the Eli M. Black Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College.  Her father, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, was a close confidant and colleague of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. Heschel will be speaking in Baltimore a week from tonight about the current state of inter-religious dialogue in this year's Manekin-Clark Lecture, sponsored by the Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies. Her talk is entitled “Recapturing the Prophetic Tradition: A Challenge for Interreligious Dialogue.” The event begins at 7:00pm at Kraushaar Auditorium at Goucher College, and will also be streamed on YouTube. To register for the talk, click here. Prof. Susannah Heschel joins us today on Zoom from Hanover, New Hampshire. Dr. Charles Chavis is the Founding Director of the John Mitchell, Jr. Program for History, Justice, and Race at George Mason University's Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution. He's also an Assistant Professor of Conflict Analysis and Resolution and History at George Mason. His new book will be published next month. It's called The Silent Shore:  The Lynching of Matthew Williams and the Politics of Racism in the Free State.Dr. Charles Chavis, Jr. joins us on Zoom from Virginia. Tom's final guests today are two artists who are bringing Anna Deavere Smith's extraordinary play, Fires in the Mirror: Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Other Identitiesto life at Baltimore Center Stage.Stephanie Ybarra is the Artistic Director of Baltimore Center Stage. Nicole Breweris directing the production. They join us on Zoom with their perspectives on this groundbreaking drama. The one-woman play opens on Thursday night and runs through December 19.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

James E. Maddux is University Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology and Senior Scholar at the Center for the Advancement of Well-Being at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science.https://psychology.gmu.edu/people/jmadduxhttps://www.amazon.com/James-E.-Maddux/e/B073SB5WHZ%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_shareListen and subscribe to the Roscoe's Wetsuit Neuro Podcast:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/roscoes-wetsuit-neuro-podcast/id1478352736Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0E8Ui8JNpkjA9LDqbfXnb5Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/roscoes-wetsuitYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoDsVTNVrQztFeRMzIU72_wwww.roscoeswetsuitneuro.com"Disclaimer: This podcast is not intended to provide diagnosis, treatment, or medical advice. Content provided on this podcast is for informational purposes only. Please, consult with a healthcare professional regarding any individualized medical or health related diagnosis or treatment options."

Photo:    US unemployment rate, 1978–2004.  1990 is at the center, on the gray vertical.                When the Fed was established, it had one mandate: to maintain the dollar at a stable value.  Recently, an added mandate is to keep unemployment low.  Not since the 1990s inflation. Veronique deRugy  @veroderugy,  @GeorgeMasonU, @Mercatus https://www.ft.com/content/674ecf73-bfb1-43ea-a24e-391f87019b8e Veronique de Rugy, @veroderugy,  @GeorgeMasonU, @Mercatus Center, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University & NRO Online.

Today we travel to a future where militaries employ killer robots. Should a robot be allowed to take a human life? Is the speed of war increasing too quickly? What does a tech worker do when they find out their work is being used for war? Guests: Kelsey Atherton, a reporter who covers military technology. Ryan Calo, a professor of law at the University of Washington. Dr. Ryan Jenkins, an associate professor of philosophy at California Polytechnic State University. Liz O'Sullivan, the CEO of Parity. Dr. Lucy Suchman, a professor emerita of sociology at Lancaster University. Dr. Jesse Kirkpatrick, an assistant professor of philosophy at George Mason University. Dr. Carlotta Berry, chair of the electrical and computer engineering department at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. Kate Conger, a technology reporter at the New York Times. Voice Actors: Rachael Deckard: Richelle Claiborne Chad: Brett Tubbs Lina: Ashley Kellem Brad: Brent Rose Halimah: Zahra Noorbakhsh Malik: Henry Alexander Kelly Summer: Shara Kirby Ashoka: Anjali Kunapaneni Eliza: Chelsey B Coombs Dorothy Levitt: Tamara Krinsky John Dee: Keith Houston Seargent William Walter: Jarrett Sleeper → → → Further reading & resources here! ← ← ←  Flash Forward is hosted by, Rose Eveleth and produced by Julia Llinas Goodman. The intro music is by Asura and the outro music is by Hussalonia. The episode art is by Mattie Lubchansky. Get in touch:  Twitter // Facebook // Reddit // info@flashforwardpod.com Support the show: Patreon // Donorbox Subscribe: iTunes // Soundcloud // Spotify  Episode Sponsors:  The Long Time Academy: A new podcast about time, and how we think about time. Bird Note Daily: A short, 2-minute daily dose of bird -- from wacky facts, to hard science, and even poetry. Nature: The leading international journal of science. Get 50% off your yearly subscription when you subscribe at go.nature.com/flashforward. BetterHelp: Making professional therapy accessible, affordable, and convenient. Visit betterhelp.com/flashforward and get 10% off your first month. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Intelligence Matters, host Michael Morell speaks with the country's first National Cyber Director, Chris Inglis, about his office's mandate, its mission, and the top cyber threats facing the U.S. today. Inglis and Morell discuss the prevalence of ransomware and why countries like Russia and China might tolerate the presence of criminal hackers on their soil. Inglis also details why deterrence in cyberspace is difficult, and how the U.S. government is engaging the private sector to bolster cyber defenses. This episode was produced in partnership with the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may alleviate symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease Tel Aviv University (Israel) A new Tel Aviv University study reveals that hyperbaric oxygen treatments may ameliorate symptoms experienced by patients with Alzheimer's disease. "This revolutionary treatment for Alzheimer's disease uses a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, which has been shown in the past to be extremely effective in treating wounds that were slow to heal," says Prof. Uri Ashery of TAU's Sagol School of Neuroscience and the Faculty of Life Sciences, who led the research for the study. "We have now shown for the first time that hyperbaric oxygen therapy can actually improve the pathology of Alzheimer's disease and correct behavioral deficits associated with the disease. (NEXT) Scientists discover that CoQ10 can program cancer cells to self-destruct A promising study shows that this nutrient causes cancer cells to self-destruct before they can multiply – giving rise to hopes that it can be utilized as an important integrative therapy for cancer patients.  Let's take a closer look at this wonderful scientific work. CoQ10 “reminds” cancer cells to die Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) – which supports many indispensable biochemical reactions – is also called “ubiquinone.”  This is due to its ubiquitous nature – CoQ10 is found in nearly every human cell, with particularly high concentrations in the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell. Researchers report that the out-of-control replication characteristic of cancer cells is a result of the cells' lost capacity to respond to programmed cell death, or apoptosis.  (NEXT) Study suggests hot flashes could be precursor to diabetes Analysis of Women's Health Initiative data demonstrates effect of severity and duration of hot flashes on risk of developing diabetes The North American Menopause Society Hot flashes, undoubtedly the most common symptom of menopause, are not just uncomfortable and inconvenient, but numerous studies demonstrate they may increase the risk of serious health problems, including heart disease. A new study suggests that hot flashes (especially when accompanied by night sweats) also may increase the risk of developing diabetes. Results are being published online today in Menopause, the journal of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS). "This study showed that, after adjustment for obesity and race, women with more severe night sweats, with or without hot flashes, still had a higher risk of diabetes," says Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, NAMS executive director. "Menopause is a perfect time to encourage behavior changes that reduce menopause symptoms, as well as the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Suggestions include getting regular exercise and adequate sleep, avoiding excess alcohol, stopping smoking, and eating a heart- healthy diet. For symptomatic women, hormone therapy started near menopause improves menopause symptoms and reduces the risk of diabetes." (NEXT) Garlic extract may help obese adults combat inflammation University of Florida Aged garlic extract may help obese people ward off painful inflammation and lower cholesterol levels, a new University of Florida study shows. In the UF/IFAS study, scientists divided 51 obese people who were otherwise healthy into two groups ? those who took the aged garlic extract for six weeks and those who took a placebo. Researchers encouraged participants to continue their regular diet and exercise routine during the experiment. Research showed the garlic extract helped regulate immune-cell distribution and reduced blood LDL ? or "bad" ? cholesterol in the obese adults. Aged garlic extract modified the secretion of inflammatory proteins from immune cells, Percival said. (NEXT) Having children can make women's telomeres seem 11 years older George Mason University A recent study by George Mason University researchers in the Department of Global and Community Health found that women who have given birth have shorter telomeres compared to women who have not given birth. Telomeres are the end caps of DNA on our chromosomes, which help in DNA replication and get shorter over time. The length of telomeres has been associated with morbidity and mortality previously, but this is the first study to examine links with having children. (NEXT) Scientists uncover why sauna bathing is good for your health UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Over the past couple of years, scientists at the University of Eastern Finland have shown that sauna bathing is associated with a variety of health benefits. Using an experimental setting this time, the research group now investigated the physiological mechanisms through which the heat exposure of sauna may influence a person's health. Their latest study with 100 test subjects shows that taking a sauna bath of 30 minutes reduces blood pressure and increases vascular compliance, while also increasing heart rate similarly to medium-intensity exercise. (OTHER NEWS NEXT) Biden's Bounty on Your Life: Hospitals' Incentive Payments for COVID-19 By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. and Ali Shultz, J.D. – ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. November 17, 2021 Upon admission to a once-trusted hospital, American patients with COVID-19 become virtual prisoners, subjected to a rigid treatment protocol with roots in Ezekiel Emanuel's “Complete Lives System” for rationing medical care in those over age 50. They have a shockingly high mortality rate. How and why is this happening, and what can be done about it? As exposed in audio recordings, hospital executives in Arizona admitted meeting several times a week to lower standards of care, with coordinated restrictions on visitation rights. Most COVID-19 patients' families are deliberately kept in the dark about what is really being done to their loved ones. The combination that enables this tragic and avoidable loss of hundreds of thousands of lives includes (1) The CARES Act, which provides hospitals with bonus incentive payments for all things related to COVID-19 (testing, diagnosing, admitting to hospital, use of remdesivir and ventilators, reporting COVID-19 deaths, and vaccinations) and (2) waivers of customary and long-standing patient rights by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In 2020, the Texas Hospital Association submitted requests for waivers to  CMS. According to Texas attorney Jerri Ward, “CMS has granted ‘waivers' of federal law regarding patient rights. Specifically, CMS purports to allow hospitals to violate the rights of patients or their surrogates with regard to medical record access, to have patient visitation, and to be free from seclusion.” She notes that “rights do not come from the hospital or CMS and cannot be waived, as that is the antithesis of a ‘right.' The purported waivers are meant to isolate and gain total control over the patient and to deny patient and patient's decision-maker the ability to exercise informed consent.” Creating a “National Pandemic Emergency” provided justification for such sweeping actions that override individual physician medical decision-making and patients' rights. The CARES Act provides incentives for hospitals to use treatments dictated solely by the federal government under the auspices of the NIH. These “bounties” must paid back if not “earned” by making the COVID-19 diagnosis and following the COVID-19 protocol. The hospital payments include: A “free” required PCR test in the Emergency Room or upon admission for every patient, with government-paid fee to hospital. Added bonus payment for each positive COVID-19 diagnosis. Another bonus for a COVID-19 admission to the hospital. A 20 percent “boost” bonus payment from Medicare on the entire hospital bill for use of remdesivir instead of medicines such as Ivermectin. Another and larger bonus payment to the hospital if a COVID-19 patient is mechanically ventilated. More money to the hospital if cause of death is listed as COVID-19, even if patient did not die directly of COVID-19. A COVID-19 diagnosis also provides extra payments to coroners.

Frank Vogl, co-founder of the leading global organization fighting corruption, Transparency International, joins Jess and Zerlina to talk about his new book "THE ENABLERS: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption--Endangering Our Democracy," out now!Some of the Praise for THE ENABLERS“Frank Vogl's “The Enablers,” is a brilliant tour de force, taking its reader through the world of slime and sleaze that drips from the supposedly legitimate world where international commerce collides with the corrupt and the powerful. The Enablers gets right into the guts of how an army of facilitators have ensured that profiteering at the expense of people and planet is the  norm. Despite the brave efforts of many notable officials, the story Frank narrates shows that the  system in place is simply not good enough. To everyone who is concerned about the future of  our world - read this, and once armed with the facts, get out there and demand a credible  response from your government!” — Simon Taylor, Director, Co-founder, Global Witness.  “This eye-opening book reveals a world that is unknown to most—the key facilitators of  transnational crime and the looting of countries. The facilitators that Vogl brings to life cause irreparable harm through their complex financial and legal maneuvers often hard to detect until it is too late. The book presents a clarion call to focus more on these  pernicious enablers.” — Professor Louise Shelley, George Mason University, Director, Terrorism,  Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC).  “Enablers! This is us in the richer countries, facilitating corruption, hurting the lives of billions of people across the globe. Frank Vogl sounds a clarion call for change. He brings a lifetime of experience to his compelling stories  highlighting the role of private as well as public enablers corrupting the global financial system.” — Raymond W. Baker, Founding President, Global Financial Integrity.

John G. Turner, a professor of religious studies at George Mason University talks with Mason President Gregory Washington about the real history of Thanksgiving. Were the Pilgrims religious refugees who established democracy and the holiday in New England, or invaders who betrayed their native allies and even enslaved them? Turner also gets to the bottom of the age-old Thanksgiving question: light meat or dark? A fascinating discussion with lots to digest.

I am honored today to be chatting with my daughter, Brigitta Elsa White – an UNO Soul. She is a dancer, dance movement therapist and a children's yoga teacher. 

In this episode of .think Atlantic, IRI's Thibault Muzergues is joined by special guest Justin Gest to discuss “Europe's Path Back from the Fringe” written by Gest and co-authored by Jeremy Ferwerda and Tyler Reny. This publication, published on November 17, 2021, evaluates the motivations and future of fringe political parties across the transatlantic space. The findings of this report guide the discussion of this week's episode. Justin Gest is an Associate Professor of Policy and Government at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government. His teaching and research interests include comparative politics, immigration, and demographic change. His research has been published in numerous well-respected journals. Dr. Gest has also provided commentary, analysis, or reporting to several broadcast networks including ABC, BBC, CBC, CNN, and NPR, and news publications including The Atlantic, The Guardian, The New York Times, POLITICO, Reuters, The Washington Post, and many more. Find Justin on Twitter: @_JustinGest Find Thibault on Twitter: @tmuzergues Visit IRI's website at www.iri.org See the publication on IRI's website at: IRI and Partners Release New Study on Triggers to Fringe Party Voting in Europe | IRI

In this episode, Prakhar Misra (@PrakharMisra) is back on Puliyabaazi to discuss the political economy of the 1991 reforms. We discussed the dominant economic and political narratives since independence up to the 1991 reform. Prakhar is currently working on the Indian political economy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Prakhar is a part of The 1991 Project that documents essays, data visualizations, oral histories, podcasts, and policy papers demystifying the Indian economy and the 1991 reforms.For more:Puliyabaazi #101 with Shruti RajagopalanThe 1991 Project -- the project portal. Read Prakhar & Shreyas' essay here.The M document -- A paper for internal discussion in government prepared by Montek S Ahluwalia, Special Secretary to the Prime Minister, in May 1990IndiaBefore91.in -- Stories of Life under the License RajArvind Panagariya's book India: The Emerging GiantMontek Singh Ahluwalia's book Backstage: The Story behind India's High Growth YearsJairam Ramesh's book To the Brink and BackPuliyabaazi is on these platforms:Twitter: https://twitter.com/puliyabaaziInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/puliyabaazi/Subscribe & listen to the podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Castbox, AudioBoom, YouTube, Spotify or any other podcast app.

Jason Bordoff, cofounding dean, Columbia Climate School, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy, and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University, leads a conversation on energy policy and efforts to combat climate change.   FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I am Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. And the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have with us today Jason Bordoff to talk about energy policy and efforts to combat climate change. Jason Bordoff is cofounding dean of the Columbia Climate School, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy, and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University. He previously served as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for energy and climate change on the National Security Council, and he has held senior policy positions on the White House's National Economic Council and Council on Environmental Quality. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine and is often on TV and radio. So, we're really happy to have him with us today. So, Jason, thank you very much. We are just coming off the COP26 conference that took place in Glasgow that started on October 31, I believe, and concluded last Friday, November 12. Could you talk about what came out of the conference at a high level, if you think that the agreements that were reached went far enough or didn't go far enough, and what your policy recommendations are to really advance and fight the countdown that we have to the Earth warming? BORDOFF: Yeah. Thanks. Well, first, thanks to you, Irina, and thanks to CFR for the invitation to be with you all today. Really delighted to have the chance to talk about these important issues. I was there for much of the two-week period in Glasgow representing the Energy Center and the Climate School here at Columbia. I think it's kind of a glass half-full/glass half-empty outlook coming out of Glasgow. So I think the Glasgow conference was notable in several respects. We'll look back on it, I think, and some of the things we will remember are—some of the things we'll remember—(dog barking)—sorry—are the role of the private sector and private finance, I think, was much more prominent in Glasgow this year. I think there were commitments around some important things like methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, was much higher on the priority list in this U.N. climate meeting than in prior ones. You had pledges on deforestation and other things that are important. And then the final agreement did have some important elements to it, particularly around Article 6, how you design carbon markets around the world. But the glass half-empty outlook is still we are nowhere close to being on track for the kind of targets that countries and companies are committing to: net zero by 2050 or 1.5 degrees of warming. I think there were—there should be hope and optimism coming out of COP. The role of the youth—at Columbia, we were honored to organize a private roundtable for President Obama with youth climate activists. It's hard to spend time with young people in COP or on campus here at Columbia or anywhere else and not be inspired by how passionately they take these issues. So the activism you saw in the streets, the sense of urgency among everyone—activists, civil society, governments, the private sector—felt different, I think, at this COP than other COPs that I have attended or probably the ones I haven't attended. But there was also for some I saw kind of we're coming out of this and we're on track for below two degrees. Or, you know, Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, tweeted that when you add up all the pledges we're on track for 1.8 degrees Celsius warming. He's talking about all of the pledges meaning every country who's promised to be net zero by 2050, 2060, 2070, and at least from my standpoint there's a good reason to take those with a grain of salt. They're not often backed up by concrete plans or ideas about how you would get anywhere close to achieving those goals. So it's good that we have elevated ambition, which is kind of one of the core outcomes of the COP in Glasgow. But it is also the case that when you elevate ambition and the reality doesn't change as fast or maybe faster than the ambition is changing, what you have is a growing gap between ambition and reality. And I think that's where we are today. Oil use is rising each and every year. Gas use is rising. Coal use is going up this year. I don't know if it's going to keep going up, but at a minimum it's going to plateau. It's not falling off a cliff. So the reality of the energy world today—which is 75 percent of emissions are energy—is not anything close to net zero by 2050. It is the case that progress is possible. So if you go back to before the Paris agreement, we were on track for something like maybe 3.7 degrees Celsius of warming. If you look at a current outlook, it's maybe 2.7, 2.8 (degrees), so just below three degrees. So progress is possible. That's good. If you look at the nationally determined contribution pledges—so the commitments countries made that are more near term, more accountability for them; the commitments they made to reduce emissions by 2030, their NDCs—we would be on track for about 2.4 degrees Celsius warming, assuming all those pledges are fulfilled. But history would suggest a reason to be a little skeptical about that. The U.S. has a pledge to get to a 50 to 52 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, and look at how things are working or not working in Washington and make your own judgment about how likely it is that we'll put in place the set of policies that would be required to get to that ambitious level of decarbonization by 2030. And I think the same healthy dose of skepticism is warranted when you look elsewhere in the world. But even if we achieve all of those, we're still falling short of below two degrees, nevertheless 1.5 (degrees). And so, again, I think the outcome from COP for me was optimism that progress is possible—we have made a lot of progress in the last ten years—but acute concern that we're nowhere close to being on track to take targets like 1.5 degrees Celsius or net zero by 2050 seriously. And we just need to be honest as a climate and energy community—and I live in both of those worlds; there's a lot of overlap between them, obviously—about how hard it is to achieve the goals we are talking about. Renewables have grown incredibly quickly. Optimistic headlines every day about what is happening in solar and wind. Costs have come down more than 90 percent. Battery costs have come down more than 90 percent in the last decade. But solar and wind create electricity, and electricity is 20 percent of global final energy consumption. The outlook for electric vehicles is much more promising today. Lots of companies like Ford and others are committing to be all-electric by a certain date ten or twenty years from now. Cars are 20 percent of global oil demand. About half of the emission reductions—cumulative emission reductions between now and 2050 will need to come from technologies that are not yet available at commercial scale and sectors of the economy that are really hard to decarbonize like steel and cement and ships and airplanes. We're not—we don't have all the tools we need to do those yet. And then, in Glasgow, the focus of a lot of what we did at Columbia was on—we did a lot of different things, but one of the key areas of focus was the challenge of thinking about decarbonization in emerging and developing economies. I don't think we talk about that enough. The issue of historical responsibility of loss and damage was more on the agenda this year, and I think you'll hear even more about it in the year ahead. The next COP is in Africa. There was growing tension between rich and poor countries at this COP. I think a starting point was what we see in the pandemic alone and how inequitable around the world the impacts of the pandemic are. Many people couldn't even travel to Glasgow from the Global South because they couldn't get vaccinated. We need, between now and 2050, estimates are—a ballpark—$100 trillion of additional investment in clean energy if we're going to get on track for 1.5 (degrees)/net zero by 2050. So the question that should obsess all of us who work in this space: Where will that money come from? Most of it's going to be private sector, not public. Most of it is going to be in developing and emerging economies. That is where the growth in energy is going to come from. Eight hundred million people have no access to energy at all. Nevertheless, if you model what energy access means, it's often defined as, you have enough to turn on lights or charge your cellphone. But when you talk about even a fraction of the standard of living we take for granted—driving a car, having a refrigerator, having an air conditioner—the numbers are massive. They're just huge, and the population of Africa's going to double to 2.2 billion by the year 2050. So these are really big numbers and we need to recognize how hard this is. But we should also recognize that it is possible. We have a lot of the tools we need. We need innovation in technology and we need stronger policy, whether that's a carbon price or standards for different sectors. And then, of course, we need private-sector actors to step up as well, and all of us. And we have these great commitments to achieve these goals with a lot of capital being put to work, and now we need to hold people accountable to make sure that they do that. So, again, I look back on the last two weeks or before, two weeks of COP, the gap between ambition and reality got bigger. Not necessarily a bad thing—ambition is a good thing—but now it's time to turn the ambition into action. We need governments to follow through on their pledges. Good news is we have a wide menu of options for reducing emissions. The bad news is there's not a lot of time at our current rate of emissions. And emissions are still going up each and every year. They're not even falling yet. Remember, what matters is the cumulative total, not the annual flow. At our current rate of emissions, the budget—carbon budget for staying below 1.5 (degrees) is used up in, around a decade or so, so there's not much time to get to work. But I'm really excited about what we're building with the first climate school in the country here at Columbia. When it comes to pushing—turning ambition into action, that requires research, it requires education, and it requires engaging with partners in civil society and the public sector and the private sector to help turn that research into action. And the people we're working with here every day on campus are the ones who are going to be the leaders that are going to hopefully do a better job—(laughs)—than we've done over the last few decades. So whatever you're doing at your educational institution—be it teaching or research or learning—we all have a role to play in the implementation of responsible, forward-thinking energy policy. I'm really excited to have the chance to talk with you all today. Look forward to your questions and to the conversation. Thank you again. FASKIANOS: Jason, that's fantastic. Thank you very much for that informative and sobering view. So let's turn to all of you now for your questions. So I'm going to go first to—I have one raised hand from Stephen Kass. Q: OK. Thank you. Jason, thank you for the very useful and concise summary. What specific kinds of energy programs do you think developing countries should now be pursuing? Should they be giving up coal entirely? Should they be importing natural gas? Should they be investing in renewables or nuclear? What recipe would you advise developing countries to pursue for their own energy needs? BORDOFF: It's going to need to be a lot of different things, so there's no single answer to that, of course. And by the way, I'll just say it would be super helpful if people don't mind just introducing yourself when you ask a question. That would be helpful to me, at least. I appreciate it. I think they need to do a lot of different things. I think I would start with low-hanging fruit, and renewable electricity is not the entire answer. The sun and wind are intermittent. Electricity can't do certain things yet, like power ships and airplanes. But the low cost of solar and wind, I think, does mean it's a good place to start, and then we need to think about those other sectors as well. I think a key thing there comes back to finance, and that's why we're spending so much time on it with our research agenda here. Access to financing and cost of capital are really important. Clean energy tends to be more capital-intensive and then, like solar and wind, more CAPEX, less OPEX over time. But attaining financing in poor countries is really difficult and expensive. Lack of experience with renewable energy, local banks are often reluctant to lend to those kinds of projects. And then foreign investors, where most of that capital is going to come from, view projects often in emerging markets and developing economies particularly as more risky. Local utilities may not be creditworthy. There's currency inflation risk in many developing countries, people worry about recouping their upfront investment if bills are paid in local currency. There's political risk, maybe corruption, inconsistently enforced regulations. And it can be harder to build clean energy infrastructure if you don't have other kinds of infrastructure, like ports, and roads, and bridges and a good electrical grid. So I would start there. And I think there's a role for those countries to scale up their clean energy sectors, but also for policymakers and multilateral development banks and governments elsewhere—there was a lot of focus in Glasgow on whether the developed countries would make good on their promise made in Copenhagen to send $100 billion a year in climate finance to developing countries. And they fell short of that. But even that is kind of a rounding error, compared to the one to two trillion (dollars) a year that the International Energy Agency estimates is needed. So there are many other things besides just writing a check that government, like in the U.S. or elsewhere, can do. The Development Finance Corporation, for example, can lend to banks in local and affordable rates, finance projects in local currency, expand the availability of loan guarantees. I've written before about how I think even what often gets called industrial policy, let's think about some sectors—in the same way China did with solar or batteries fifteen years ago. Are there sectors where governments might help to grow domestic industries and, by doing that, scale—bring down the cost of technologies that are expensive now, the premium for low-carbon or zero-carbon cement or steel. It's just—it's not reasonable to ask a developing country to build new cities, and new highways, and all the new construction they're going to do with zero-carbon steel and cement because it's just way too expensive. So how do you bring those costs down? If we think about investments, we can make through U.S. infrastructure or other spending to do that, that not only may help to grow some domestic industries and jobs here, that can be its own form of global leadership if we're driving those costs of those technologies down to make it cheaper for others to pick up. So I think that's one of the places I'd start. But there are a lot of other things we need to do too. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question—and let me just go back. Stephen Kass is an adjunct professor at NYU. So the next question is a written question from Wei Liang, who is an assistant professor of international policy studies at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. And the question is: I wonder if you could briefly address the Green Climate Fund and individual countries' pledge on that. BORDOFF: Yeah, I mean, it touches a little bit on what I said a moment ago about the need for developed countries to provide climate finance to developing countries. And so I think that's—it's important that we take those obligations seriously, and that we, in advanced economies, step up and make those funds available. And but, again, we're talking—the amount we're still talking about is so small compared to the amounts that are needed to deal both with the impacts of climate change, and then also to curb climate change, to mitigate climate change. Because we know that developing countries are in the parts of the world that will often be most adversely impacted by climate impacts—droughts, and heat waves, and storms, and food security issues—from a standpoint of equity are the parts of the world that have done the least to cause this problem, responsible for very few emissions. If you look cumulatively at emissions since the start of the industrial age, about half—nearly half have come from the U.S. and EU combined. Two percent from the entire continent of Africa. So they are using very little energy today, haven't therefore contributed to the problems, and have the fewest resources, of course, to cope with the impacts, and also to develop in a cleaner way. Sometimes it's cheaper to develop in a cleaner way. Renewables are often today competitive with coal, even without subsidy. But there are many areas where that's not the case, and there is a cost. And we need to help make sure that, you know, we're thinking about what a just transition looks like. And that means many different things for different communities, whether you're a coal worker or an agricultural worker in California that may, you know, be working outside in worse and worse heat. But it also means thinking about the parts of the world that need assistance to make this transition. So I think we need to be taking that much more seriously. FASKIANOS: Next question is a raised hand from Tara Weil, who is an undergraduate student at Pomona College. Q: Hi. So, given that developed nations are the largest contributors to carbon emissions, as you've said, how can larger powers be convinced as to the importance of addressing global inequality with regards to climate change? And thank you so much, also, for giving this talk. BORDOFF: Yeah. Thank you for being here. I don't have a great answer to your question. I mean, the politics of foreign aid in general are not great, as we often hear in events at CFR. So I do think one—we need to continue to encourage, through political advocacy, civil society, and other ways, governments in advanced economies to think about all the tools they have at their disposal. I think the ones that are going to be—I'm reluctant to try to speak as a political commenter rather than a climate and energy commenter on what's going to work politically. But part of that is demonstrating what—it's not just generosity. It is also in one's self-interest to do these things. And just look at the pandemic, right? What would it look like for the U.S. to show greater leadership, or any country to show even greater leadership and help cope with the pandemic all around the world in parts of the world that are struggling to vaccinate their people? That is not only an act of generosity, but it is clearly one of self-interest too, because it's a pretty globalized economy and you're not going to be able to get a pandemic under control at home if it's not under control abroad. Of course, the same is true of the impacts of climate change. It doesn't matter where a ton of CO2 comes from. And we can decarbonize our own economy, but the U.S. is only 15 percent of annual emissions globally. So it's not going to make a huge difference unless everyone else does that as well. There is also the potential, I think, to—and we see this increasingly when you look at the discussion of the Biden infrastructure bill, how they talk about the U.S.-China relationship, which of course are the two most important countries from the standpoint of climate change. It is one of cooperation. That was one of the success stories in Glasgow, was a commitment to cooperate more. We'll see if we can actually do it, because it's a pretty difficult and tense U.S.-China relationship right now. So the question is, can you separate climate from all those other problems on human rights, and intellectual property, and everything else and then cooperate on climate? It's been hard, but there's a renewed commitment to try to do that. But also, a recognition that action in the clean energy space is not only about cooperation but it's also about economic competition. And you have seen more and more focus on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle on thinking about the security of supply chains, and critical minerals, and the inputs in lithium and rare earth elements that go into many aspects of clean energy. To my point before about aspects of industrial policy that might help grow your own domestic economy, I think there are ways in which countries can take measures that help—that help their own economies and help workers and help create jobs, and that in the process are helping to drive forward more quickly the clean energy technologies we need, and bring down the cost of those technologies to make them more accessible and available in some of the less-developed countries. So I think trying to frame it less as do we keep funds at home, do we write a check abroad? But there are actually many steps you could do to create economic opportunities and are win-win. Without being pollyannish about it, I think there is some truth to some of those. And I think we can focus on those politically as well. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take an international question from Luciana Alexandra Ghica, who is an associate professor for international cooperation at the University of Bucharest. What type of topics do you think we should address immediately in university programs that provide training in climate, development, global policies, or international public affairs, so that a new generation of leaders really pushes forward the agenda on climate change? BORDOFF: Yeah. Well, I'll say a quick word about what we're doing at Columbia, and maybe it's relevant to that question, because Columbia has made this historic commitment to build a climate school. There are many initiatives, and centers, and institutes. There was not only a handful of schools—law school, business school, medical school, engineering school. And it is the largest commitment a university can make to any particular topic, is something on the scale of a school with degree-granting authority and tenure-granting authority, and all the things that come with a school. And it's just the scale at a place like Columbia, and many other places, is just enormous. That's what we're doing on climate. We have created a climate school. And I'm honored President Bollinger asked me to help lead it. And we're going to build a faculty. We have our first inaugural class of masters' students, about ninety students that are going through the program right now, and we have a building in Manhattan for the climate school, and on and on. The idea—but the question is, what is climate, right? Because academia has been historically organized into traditional academic disciplines. So you have people who you hire through a tenured search, and they go to the engineering faculty and build their lab there. And there's law professors, and their business school professors, and on and on and on, social work. But for climate, you need all of those, right? They all kind of need to come together. And, like, interdisciplinary doesn't even sort of do justice to what it means to think about approaching this systemic—it's a systemic challenge. The system has to change. And so whatever solution you're talking about—if you want to get hydrogen to scale in the world, let's—you know, for certain sectors of the economy that may be hard to do with renewable energy, or in terms of renewable energy and, say, green hydrogen. You need engineering breakthroughs to bring down the cost of electrolyzers, or you need new business models, or you need financial institution frameworks that figure out how you're going to put the capital into these things. You need the policy incentives. How are you going to—you need permitting and regulation. How do we permit hydrogen infrastructure? It's barely been done before. There are concerns in the environmental justice community about some aspects of technologies like that or carbon capture that need to be taken seriously and addressed. There are geopolitical implications, potentially, to starting to build a global trade in ammonia or hydrogen, and what security concerns—energy security concerns might accompany those, the way we thought about oil or gas from Russia into Europe. I have an article coming out in the next issue of Foreign Affairs about the geopolitics of the energy transition. So we need disciplines that come together and look at a problem like that in all of those multifaceted dimensions, so we can figure out how to get from a lab to scale out in the world. And so when we think about the areas of concentration here, climate finance, climate justice, climate in society, climate in international security—I mean, a range of things that I think are really important to help people understand. And that's going to be a major focus of what we do at the climate school here. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Let's go next to Sean Grossnickle, who has raised his hand. A graduate student at Fordham University. Q: Speak now? Hi, this is not Sean but Henry Schwalbenberg, also at Fordham, where I teach in our international political economy and development program. I went to a conference about a month ago in Rome. And there was a physicist from CERN. And he was a big advocate of something I'd never heard of, and this is this thorium for nuclear reactors. And he was going through all the pros, but I wanted a more balanced perspective on it. And I'm hoping that you might give me a little pros and cons of this thorium nuclear reactor technique. BORDOFF: Yeah. I will be honest and say that nuclear is not my area of focus. We have a pretty strong team here that works in nuclear, and I think is optimistic about the breakthroughs we're going to see in several potential areas of nuclear—advanced nuclear technology, that being one of them, or small modular reactors, and others. At a high level, I will say I do think if you're serious about the math of decarbonization and getting to net zero by 2050, it's hard to do without zero-carbon nuclear power. It's firm, baseload power. It runs all the time. Obviously, there are challenges with intermittency of solar and wind, although they can be addressed to some extent with energy story. Most of the analyses that are done show not necessarily in the U.S. but in other parts of the world significant growth in nuclear power. The International Energy Agency just modeled what it looks like to get to net zero by 2050, and this pathway that got a lot of attention for saying things like we would not be investing in new oil and gas supply. The world has to change a lot pretty quickly. And they have about a hundred new nuclear plants being built by 2030, so that's a pretty big number. So we're going to need all tools—(laughs)—that we have at our disposal. And unfortunately, I worry we may still fall short. So I think at a high level we need to think really hard about how to improve nuclear technology. The people who know that really well I think are optimistic about our ability to do that. And I will follow up on thorium in particular with my colleagues at Columbia, and happy to follow up with you offline about it. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to take a written question from Stephen Bird, who's an associate professor of political science at Clarkson University. He thanks you, and he wanted you to talk a little bit more about political will. The overall dollar amounts are clear. Much cheaper to address climate change than to ignore it. That said, countries are, clearly, lagging. Is it a case of countries just don't want to take action now because of issues of fairness or because of lack of domestic political support, i.e., citizens aren't convinced that they should pay costs now with payoffs that come later, and what might we do to improve that issue in terms of persuading or arguing for more political will? BORDOFF: Yeah. It's a question for, you know, a political scientist as much as an energy or climate expert, and I wish I had a better answer to it. I think it is—climate is one of the trickiest problems for so many reasons but one of those is there is no acute event now that you sort of respond to, hopefully, and pull everyone together. It's a set of things that, you know, of course, there would have been storms and droughts before but we know they're intensified and made worse. It's hard to rally public support. We often respond to a crisis kind of proverbial, you know, frog in the boiling water kind of thing. So that makes it hard. There are huge issues—we talked about a just transition a few minutes ago—there are huge issues with intergenerational equity when we talk about climate. There are, clearly, climate impacts and damages today but some of the worst will be in the future, including for people who may not be born yet, and we don't do a great job in our political environment about thinking about those and valuing them today and how you do that, and from an economic standpoint, of course, there are questions about discount rates you apply and everything else. I think, politically, one of the things that has mobilized stronger climate—support for climate action, so it is encouraging that if you look at polling on climate change, the level of urgency that the public in many countries, including the U.S., broadly, ascribe to acting on climate has gone up a lot. It's higher today than it was, you know, a decade or so ago. That's a result of people seeing the impacts and also advocacy campaigns and political campaigns. It is often tied to—it's like a win-win. Like, President Biden says when he thinks of climate he thinks of jobs, and so we're going to deal with climate and we're going to grow the economy faster and we're going to create jobs, and there is truth to that. It is also the case that there are costs. The cost of inaction are higher, but there are costs associated with the transition itself. So if you survey the American public, I think, climate, according to the latest YouGov/Economist poll I saw, you know, it was number two on the list of things they cared the most about. That's much higher than in the past. And then if you ask the American public are they willing to pay $0.25 a gallon more at the pump to act on climate, 75 percent say no. And you look at the challenges the Biden administration is having right now sort of thinking about a really strong set of measures to put in place to move the ball forward on climate, but acute concern today about where oil prices are and inflation and natural gas prices as we head into the winter. If the weather is cold then it's going to be really expensive for people to heat their homes in parts—some parts of the country like New England, maybe. So that's a reality, and I think we need to—it was interesting, in the roundtable we did with President Obama with climate activists, that was a message he had for them. You know, be impatient, be angry, keep the pressure on, but also be pragmatic. And by that he means, like, you know, try to see the world through the eyes of others and people who are worried about the cost of filling up at the pump, the cost of paying their heating bills. They're not—some of them may not be where you are yet. They may not have the same sense of urgency with acting on climate that many of us on this Zoom do and need to take those concerns seriously. So I think that's a real challenge, and it can be addressed with good policy, to some extent, right, if you think about the revenue raised from a carbon tax and how it could be redistributed in a way that reduce the regressive impacts. I've written about how, at a high level—I'll say one last point—if we get on track for an energy transition, which we're not on yet, right. (Laughs.) Oil and gas use are going up each and every year. But imagine we started to get on track where those were falling year after year. It's still going to take decades, and that process of transition is going to be really messy. It's going to be really volatile. We're going to have fits and starts in policy from Obama to Trump to Biden. We're going to make estimate—we're going to make bets on technologies and maybe get those technologies wrong or misunderstand the cost curves, the potential to shut down investment in certain forms of energy before the rest are ready to pick up the slack. If it's messy and volatile and bumpy, that's not only harmful economically and geopolitically, it will undermine public support for stronger climate action. So you see, like, in Washington they're selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because we're moving to a world beyond oil and also we have all this domestic oil now with shale. We need more, not fewer, tools to mitigate volatility for the next several decades if we're serious about making this transition, and I think the same is true for thinking about sort of buffers you could build into geopolitics, foreign policy, and national security, because there will be—in a post-oil and gas world, you know, you may say, well, we're not going to worry as much about the Middle East or about, you know, Russia's leverage in Europe. But there will be new risks created and we can talk about what some of those might be, and we need new tools of foreign policy to mitigate those potential foreign policy risks. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question. Raised hand from Chloe Demrovsky, adjunct instructor at NYU. Q: Hey, can you hear me? BORDOFF: Yes. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Hi. Chloe Demrovsky, adjunct at NYU and president and CEO of Disaster Recovery Institute International. Thanks for being with us, Jason. So my question is about the feasibility and your thoughts on artificially altered clouds or solar geoengineering. What are the ethical and geopolitical implications of, perhaps, using this to buy a little time for our energy transition? Thanks. BORDOFF: Yeah. A super interesting question, and I will say, again, I'm sort of—think of myself as an energy expert. So that is where I spend more time than thinking about tools like solar geoengineering. I guess, it seems there's, obviously, huge risks associated with something like that and we need to understand them. We need to do research. We need to figure out what those risks may be. There are global governance concerns. It's actually pretty cheap to do solar geoengineering. So what happens when some country or some billionaire decides they want to start spraying stuff into the atmosphere to cool the planet? And for those who don't know that, you know, solar—I mean, you think of after a volcano the planet cools a little bit because of all the particulates up in the atmosphere. When you model in an energy system model how much phasing out coal will reduce warming, you, obviously, have much less carbon dioxide emissions but that's offset slightly—not completely, of course—it's offset a little bit by the fact that you have less local air pollution, which is a good thing from air pollution. But air pollution has a slightly cooling effect, because you have these little particles floating around that reflect sunlight. So the idea is can we create that artificially and cool the planet, and you can imagine lots of reasons why that could go wrong when you're trying to figure out what—how much to put in there, what unintended consequences could be. You still have other impacts of carbon dioxide like ocean acidification. Maybe you go too far in one direction, that's like you're setting the thermostat. That's why one of the companies doing carbon removal is called Global Thermostat. You're kind of figuring out what temperature it should be. But I will say so it's an area that needs research and I think, given how far we are away from achieving goals like 1.5 and net-zero 2050, I guess what I would say is in the same way that when I worked in the Obama administration it was—I wouldn't say controversial, but there were some people who didn't want to talk about adaptation because it was kind of a more—there was a moral hazard problem there. It was, you know, less pressure to mitigate and reduce emissions if we thought adaptation was a solution. People worry about that from the standpoint of solar geoengineering. But the likelihood—I hope I'm wrong, but the likelihood that we roll the clock forward, you know, later this decade and we realize we've made progress but we're still pretty far short, and the impacts of climate change in the same way the IPCC 1.5 report said, you know what, 1.5 is going to be pretty bad, too, and that's even worse than we thought, the more we learn about climate the more reason there is to be concerned, not less concerned. It seems very plausible to me that we will kind of come to a growing consensus that we have to think about whether this technology can, as you said, buy us time. This is not something you do permanently. You need to get to net zero to stop global warming. But if you want to reduce the impacts of warming on the rate of Arctic sea ice melt and all the rest, can you buy time, extend the runway, by doing this for some number of decades. And I think—I don't have a strong view on the right answer to that. But I think it's something we, certainly, need to be thinking about researching and understanding what the consequences would be because we're going to have to figure out how to take more abrupt actions to close that gap between ambition and reality unless the reality starts to change much more quickly than is the case right now. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I saw a raised hand from Maya but she lowered it. So if you want to raise your hand again, please do so. And in the meantime, I'm going to take a written question from Jennifer Sklarew, who's an assistant professor of energy and sustainability at George Mason University. Was CCS/CCUS, which carbon capture and storage/carbon capture utilization and storage, to write out those acronyms, promoted as a climate change solution in Glasgow and was there a pushback against this technology option as both a climate change solution and a support mechanism for continued fossil fuel use? BORDOFF: There was some pushback but, I think, actually, more in the other direction. So I think there has been a growing recognition from many in the climate world that carbon capture technology, carbon removal technology, need to be part of the solution. I think there's almost no climate model at this point that shows how you would get to 1.5 degrees or net zero—1.5 degrees without huge amounts of negative emissions—carbon removal. Some of that can be nature based, but a lot of it will be—some of it will be technology based as well and focusing on what we care about, which is the emissions, is the most important thing. So and this is not, I don't think, the primary thing you're going to do. You want to do the things that are easiest and cheapest and present the fewest risks. So putting a lot of renewables into the grid, getting electrification into the vehicle fleet—there's a lot of things that you would do before that. But if you think about some of the sectors in the economy we talked about before that are hard to decarbonize like steel and cement, it may well be the case that carbon capture is part of the technology there. There was a big announcement yesterday from the NET Power Allam Cycle gas plant in Texas that they had finally come online with delivering net-zero power to the grid. It was sort of a milestone in that technology. So we need to advance this technology and figure out how we're going to—how we're going to get where we need to be. We need to hold that kind of technology accountable to make sure that it's actually meeting the standards we're talking about so that it actually is very low, if not zero, carbon. But if you look at, you know, most of the scenarios I'm aware of, whether it's—Princeton did the study “Net-Zero America,” how we get to net zero by 2050 in the U.S. The International Energy Agency, as I said, did it for net zero globally. There is a meaningful role for carbon capture, to some extent, in the power sector in these heavy industry sectors like steel and cement, and then making, say, hydrogen some of that will be blue hydrogen. Most of it, eventually, will be green, but there may be some role for blue hydrogen, which is—which is gas with carbon capture. So I think, if anything, there's been a growing understanding that we need all tools on deck right away and, again, I fear even with all the tools we may still fall short. FASKIANOS: Great. There's a written question from Laila Bichara, who's at SUNY Farmingdale, international business. There was a New York Times article, “Business Schools Respond to a Flood of Interest in ESG,” talking about the issue of the scarcity of skills in recent graduates to help with social impact, sustainable investments, climate finance, and social entrepreneurship. And she wanted to know if there are resources that you could point the group to in terms of foundation courses or certification that would provide all students with a basic foundation. BORDOFF: Yeah. That's a really good question and it's a growing area of focus and I think universities should be doing more in. The Tamer Center of Columbia Business School does a lot of work in ESG. We hosted a really interesting roundtable at the Center on Global Energy Policy yesterday on ESG and actually been doing a lot of work thinking about that in the context of state-owned enterprises and national oil companies, which we don't talk about enough. But they're a really, really big part of the problem we're talking about. We tend to focus more on these very well-known private sector companies or financial institutions in places like New York. So there—Bloomberg Philanthropies has done a huge amount in this space. I think there's some really good educational programs with some universities and business schools that have done a lot in the ESG space. But I think it's a need, to be frank. I mean, the fact that you're asking the question and I'm pointing to a few examples, but not a huge number, and it is something that universities need to educate themselves about but then is an opportunity for us to educate others. Maybe a revenue one, too, with executive education or something. But there's a lot of companies and financial institutions that want to understand this better. I worry that while there's a huge growing focus on climate, which is a good thing, in the financial community, the phrase ESG kind of means so many different things right now. It's this alphabet soup of regulations and standards and disclosure requirements, and some may make a difference and some may not and it's hard to figure out which ones matter, and for people who want to do the responsible thing what does that really mean. That's an area where research is needed. I mean, that's a role for what we do every day to think about if the SEC is going to regulate what makes a difference and what doesn't, if you're going to create green bonds. If you're going to call everything green in the finance community, what's real and what's not? What moves the needle? What doesn't? What are the returns for greener portfolios? How is that affecting the cost of capital for clean energy versus dirty energy? You know, on and on. I think those are important research questions for us to take on and then it's our job to help educate others as well. FASKIANOS: Great. So the next question I'm going to take from—oh, OK. Good. Maya Copeland (sp) has written her question. She's a political science major at Delaware State University. Do you believe developed nations like the U.S. have done a lot in reference to climate change or mostly talk? If you believe nations like the U.S. have dropped the ball in this aspect, what do you think it would take to get those powerhouses serious about environmental change? BORDOFF: I think advanced economies have done—many have done a lot. I mean, the European Union has taken climate seriously and has reduced emissions and has pretty strong measures in place with a carbon market, for example, with a pretty high carbon price right now. The politics of this issue are not quite as favorable in the U.S., but the U.S. has seen emissions decline more than most over the last decade and a half, in part because of policy measures that have, you know, advanced renewable energy and brought the cost of that down as well as cheaper natural gas displacing coal for a while. But at a broader level, you know, have we done enough? The answer is no one's done enough—(laughs)—which is why emissions are still going up every single year. So that—so the answer is no, we haven't done enough. Almost no country has done enough at home to be on a trajectory for net zero 2050. You saw the announcements from countries like India saying, we'll get to net zero by 2070, and, you know, people said, oh, well, that's terrible. They're not saying 2050. And implicit in that is sort of saying, well, if you want to get global to net zero by 2050 we're not all going to move at the same speed, right. Some countries have advanced with the benefit of hydrocarbons since the Industrial Age and some haven't. So, presumably, the pathways are going to look different, right. And, you know, that's not always how countries in the advanced—in the developing—in the developed world talk about it. The commitment from the Biden administration is net zero by 2050. So I would say there's been—there are some models to point to of countries that have taken this issue seriously but we're not doing enough and partly because the political will is not there and partly—I come back to what I said before—this problem is harder than people realize. So you say which countries are doing enough, like, point to some models, right, and somebody might point to Norway, which, you know, the share of new vehicles sold that are electric in Norway went from zero to, I think, it's 70 percent now. I mean, that's amazing. Seventy percent of new car sales are electric. And if you go back to the start of that trajectory, about a decade or decade and a half, oil demand is unchanged in Norway. So we can talk about why that is and it's because a lot—as I said earlier, a lot of oil is used for things other than cars, and it's increased for trucks and planes and petrochemicals. It takes time for the vehicle fleet to turn over. So when you start selling a bunch of electric cars, you know, average car is on the road for fifteen years so it takes a while before that—the vehicle stock turns over. So I saw that kind of mapped out on a chart recently, just two lines—one is electric vehicle sales going straight up and then the other is oil demand in a flat line. It's a reminder of how unforgiving the math of decarbonization is. The math of climate is really unforgiving, like, you know, the kind of harmful impacts we're going to see with even 1.5 degrees warming. But the math of energy and decarbonization is really unforgiving, too. It's—and we just need to be honest with ourselves about what it takes to get where we need to go. Because I think it's good to have optimism and ambition, but I worry there should be optimism but not happy talk. We should recognize that there's a lot of work to do and let's get to work doing it. FASKIANOS: Great. So there are several questions in the chat about China. I'm going to start off with Andrew Campbell, who's a student at George Mason University. Is LNG—liquefied natural gas—a bridge toward renewable energy still being considered? If not, how are India and China's expected growth and increase in coal use going to be addressed? And then there are a couple of other comments or questions about China. You know, what's your take on China as the biggest emitter and return somewhat to coal? Can we actually even make stated and adequate new goals? And, you know, given the relationship between U.S. and China, which is contentious, you know, what is the cooperation going to be between U.S. and China on climate? So there's a lot packed in there, but I know you can address it all. (Laughs.) BORDOFF: Yeah. I think the China question is really hard, as I said earlier, this kind of, like, competition and cooperation and we're going to try to do both, and I think there was a hope early on—Secretary Kerry said it—that climate could be segmented from the broader challenges in the U.S.-China relationship, and I think that has proven harder to do than people had hoped, in part, because, you know, you need both parties to want to do that. I think China has signaled it's not necessarily willing to segment cooperation on climate from lots of other issues. And then these things bleed together where, you know, there's measures being taken in Washington to restrict imports of solar panels from China, that there were concerns that were made with—in ways that have human rights abuses associated with them with forced labor or maybe have unfair trade practices in terms of subsidies. China is—you know, the leadership in China takes climate seriously. This is a country that recognizes, I think, climate change is real and that needs to be addressed. They have a set of national interests that matter a lot, obviously, to them in terms of economic growth, and the pathway to get there is challenging. So it's a country that's growing clean energy incredibly quickly, as we're seeing right now, in part because there's a(n) energy crunch throughout Europe and Asia. They are ramping up the use of coal quite a bit again, but also taking some pretty strong measures to advance clean energy and, over time, hopefully, move in a lower carbon direction for reasons both about concerns over climate but also local air pollution, which is much, much worse in many parts of China than it is here and that's a huge source of concern for the public there. So when it comes to things like coal they need to figure out how to address those air pollution problems. And then for reasons of economic competition, like I mentioned a minute ago. I mean, China dominates the global market for refining and processing of critical minerals for solar panels, and there are economic and national competitiveness and strategic reasons to do that. So all of those things motivate them to move in the direction of clean energy, but they need to be moving faster to phase down hydrocarbon energy for sure. And then you ask a really hard question about—not hard, but one of the most contentious questions is about the role of natural gas in the transition, and we can have a whole separate session about that. I think there is a view of many in the climate community and many in developing countries—in developed countries that there's not space left in the carbon budget for natural gas, and you saw the Biden administration recently declare through the Treasury Department that, except in very rare cases of the poorest of the poor like Sierra Leone or something, they would not finance natural gas projects through the multilateral development banks. The vice president of Nigeria, I think, responded—speaking of CFR—in Foreign Affairs by writing that this was not fair and you need to think about a viable pathway for a country like Nigeria to develop and it just—it doesn't work to get there that fast. There has to be a bridge. The role of gas looks very different in different parts of the world. It looks different in the U.S. than it does in an emerging or a developing economy. It looks different in the power sector, where there are a lot more alternatives like renewables than it does in heavy industry or how we heat our homes. It looks different for, say, in the Global South, where you're talking about people who are still using coal and charcoal and dung for cooking to think about solutions like liquefied petroleum gas. So all of those things are true, but we need to think about gas also with the carbon budget in mind. I mean, the math is just the math. (Laughs.) If you're going to build any gas infrastructure and not have it blow through the carbon budget, it's going to have to be retired before the end of its normal economic life and you need to think about how that might look in different parts of the world. So you need to be fair to people, to allow them to grow, but also recognize that the math of carbon, you know, is what it is. FASKIANOS: Great. I just want to credit those last—the China questions came from Lada Kochtcheeva at North Carolina State University and Joan Kaufman, who's director of Schwarzman Scholars based in China. We are really at the end of our time—we started a couple minutes late—and I just wanted to go back to—there are students on the call who are following with a professor on the webinar who wanted you just to comment on blue hydrogen, whether or not it is contributing or helping to reduce greenhouse gases. BORDOFF: I think the answer is it can. You just need to make sure that it actually does. So the question of—and by blue hydrogen we mean, you know, using gas with carbon capture to create hydrogen. It needs to have very low methane leakage rates. It needs to have very high capture rates, and we know that is technically possible. It doesn't mean it will be done that way. So if people are going to pursue blue hydrogen as part of the solution in the—particularly in the near term, you need to make sure that it's meeting those standards. I think in the long run my guess and, I think, most guesses would be that green hydrogen is going to make more sense. It's going to be cheaper. The cost is going to come down. And so if we have a significant part of the energy sector that is hydrogen and ammonia in, say, 2050, more of that's going to be green than blue. But there can be a role for blue if you make sure it's done the right way. You just have to actually make sure it's done the right way. FASKIANOS: Great. And, Jason, we are out of time, but I wanted to give you one last, you know, one-minute or thirty seconds, whatever you want, just to say some parting words on your work at the center or, you know, to leave the group with what they can do, again. So— BORDOFF: Well, I would just say thanks for the chance to be with you all and for the work that you're doing every day. You know, I think Glasgow was a moment when the world came together to elevate ambition and roll up our sleeves and say this is—this is the decisive decade. Like, we'll know ten years from now—(laughs)—if we got anywhere close to making it or not. And so it's time for everyone to kind of roll up their sleeves and say, what can we do? We're doing that, I think, at Columbia with the creation of this new climate school. We do that every day at the Center on Global Energy Policy. And so just in all of your institutions, you know, what does that mean for you? What does it mean for the institution? What does that mean for your own research and time and how you allocate it? How do we step up and say, what can we do in the biggest and boldest way we can? Because we need—we're creating a climate school because I think the view is—you know, a hundred years ago there were no schools of public health and now it's how would you deal with a pandemic without a school of public health? So I think our view is decades from now we'll look back and wonder how we ever thought it was possible to handle a problem as complex and urgent as climate change without universities devoting their greatest kind of resource to them. And the measure of success for universities has to be research and new knowledge creation. It has to be education. It has to be serving our own communities. For us, it's, you know, the community here in New York, Harlem. But also are we focusing the extraordinary resources and capacity and expertise of these great institutions to solve humanity's greatest problems? That has to be a motivating force, too, for much of—maybe not all of but a lot of what universities do. So I'd just ask all of us to go back and think about how we can do that in our own work every day. and we have to do it through partnerships. I think universities don't work together as well as they need to. But this is only going to work if we work together. FASKIANOS: Great way to end. Thank you very much, Jason Bordoff. We really appreciate it. We'll have to look for your article in Foreign Affairs magazine, which is published by CFR. So, we are excited that you continue to contribute to the magazine. You can follow Jason Bordoff on Twitter at @JasonBordoff. Very easy to remember. Our final academic webinar of the semester will be on Wednesday, December 1, at 1:00 p.m. (ET). Michelle Gavin, who is CFR's Ralph Bunche senior fellow for Africa policy studies, will talk about African politics and security issues. So in the meantime, follow us at @CFR_Academic. Come to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues, and we look forward to continuing the conversation with you. Take care. BORDOFF: Thank you. (END)

Cryptocurrency's future, fossil fuels and alternate energy sources, the humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia, a new university devoted to academic freedom emerging deep in the heart of Texas, plus ethnic food as the gateway to a better understanding of economics and immigration: all are part of a multicourse intellectual feast featuring Hoover senior fellows Niall Ferguson, H. R. McMaster, and John Cochrane, with their guest, George Mason University  economist/blogger/podcaster/foodie Tyler Cowen. Recorded November 9, 2021

EPISODE #652 NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES Richard speaks with a psychotherapist and professor of death studies who will discuss her work with the chronically ill, dying and bereaved clients. She'll reveal details of her own Near Death Experience and share the lessons she's learned from her clients NDEs as well as the value of after-death communication. Guest: Lani Leary, Ph.D. specializes in work with chronically ill, dying, and bereaved clients. She has worked for the past 25 years as a psychotherapist in private practice, as a chaplain in the intensive care unit of a hospital, and as a counsellor in 6 hospices across the country. She served as the director of mental health services at an AIDS clinic, as a professor of Death Studies at George Mason University, and as a researcher at the National Cancer Institute of NIH. Lani has spoken nationally at over 250 conferences including the American Holistic Medical Association, Virginia Association of Hospices, Spirituality and Healthcare, International Sudden Infant Death Symposium, and Omega Institute of Holistic Studies. She is the author of Healing Hands, an internationally best-selling audio tape about therapeutic touch and complimentary approaches to pain management. She is certified in grief therapy, EMDR, hypnotherapy, and Critical Incident Stress Management.  BOOK: No One Has to Die Alone: Preparing for a Meaningful Death SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS Life Change and Formula 13 Teas All Organic, No Caffeine, Non GMO!  More Energy!  Order now, use the code 'unlimited' to save 10% on all non-SALE items, PLUS... ALL your purchases ships for free!!! C60EVO -The Secret is out about this powerful anti-oxidant. The Purest C60 available is ESS60.  Buy Direct from the Source.  Buy Now and Save 10% – Use Coupon Code: EVRS at Checkout! Strange Planet Shop - If you're a fan of the radio show and the podcast, why not show it off?  Greats T-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, and more.  It's a Strange Planet - Dress For It! BECOME A PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER FOR LESS THAN $2 PER MONTH If you're a fan of this podcast, I hope you'll consider becoming a Premium Subscriber.  For just $1.99 per month, subscribers to my Conspiracy Unlimited Plus gain access to two exclusive, commercial-free episodes per month. They also gain access to my back catalog of episodes. The most recent 30 episodes of Conspiracy Unlimited will remain available for free.  Stream all episodes and Premium content on your mobile device by getting the FREE Conspiracy Unlimited APP for both IOS and Android devices... Available at the App Store and Google Play.

Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University, joins Tim Kane to talk about his book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom, which is about to be updated and republished. In this interview he explains why foot voting is more powerful than heading to the ballot box, and outlines the many benefits. As well as writing about immigration, Ilya is an immigrant himself, and in this conversation explains why he and his parents left the Soviet Union. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/why-america/message

The price of a gallon of gas, empty store shelves, longer shipping times for merchandise we order online. What will inflation and supply chain issues mean for the upcoming holiday season? Newt's guest is Christine McDaniel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Treasury Department and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Do you like the process of learning? Are there a lot of different roles that seem right for you? If so, you might have something in common with today’s guest. Leslie Durham is an academic advisor at the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University. She has a varied background and broad educational experience. Listen to the episode to learn more about how Leslie ended up in her current role, what it was like for her working on dig sites, and what the life of a military spouse is like. Topics Discussed in Today’s Episode: Leslie’s current role How Leslie found her way to her current role Leslie’s educational background How Leslie feels about the process of learning Who Leslie’s peers are in her classroom What it’s like to work on a dig site The coolest thing that Leslie has found What it’s like to be a military spouse The difficulty of putting a career on hold because of military moves Taking control of your life How culture and background have impacted Leslie’s life Significant moments of impact that shaped Leslie’s life What Leslie sees that gives her hope for the future What drives a gap in problem-solving and collaboration skills Advice that Leslie would give to her younger self Resources: Leslie Durham

Tom Vartanian discusses his recent book, 200 Years of American Financial Panics - Crashes, Recessions, Depressions, and the Technology That Will Change It All. Tom is the former head of the financial institutions practice at two major law firms; the former General Counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and at the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation; and the former executive director and professor of law at George Mason University's Scalia Law School Program on Financial Regulation & Technology. 

This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're bringing you the most significant Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) policy updates from COP26. At the time of this episode's release, COP26 is coming to a close. Many countries are pledging to bring their emissions to net-zero in the next few decades. What are the specifics of these new pledges, how does CDR fit into all of this, and what needs to happen to push the CDR industry forward in a timely manner? Plus, last Friday night, House Democrats along with 13 Republican Representatives voted to pass the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal that their Senate colleagues had approved 87 days earlier. Included in the bill is $3.5b to build four direct air capture hubs— an amount that dwarfs all other federal support of DAC to date. The bill also provides $2.5b to build geologic storage sites for storing the gas underground and $2.1b to transport it via pipelines. Will this all be enough to create significant progress towards U.S. climate goals? Our good news story of the week centers around Biden's Carbon Removal “Earthshot” initiative, which has the goal of bringing carbon removal costs to $100/ton by 2030. We are joined by special guest host David Morrow, the Director of Research at the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University, and Research Fellow at the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University. As always, hosts Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori and Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo are here to weigh in on the latest carbon removal happenings. Resources Sustainable Carbon Removal Report (Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy) Why the BID is a BIG Down Payment on Clean Energy Buying down the Cost of Direct Air Capture U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Join us for another episode as Amanda Miller Garber and Drew chat about what to do with the family we are given.  Arise Campus Ministry serves students at Northern Virginia Community Colleges and George Mason University. We believe in Jesus and thus welcome all, share God's universal love, and compassionately live out our faith on campus and in the community. To learn more about Arise go to www.arisegmu.org

Here are the things to expect in the episode:Support from family, make connections and get help - while battling cancer.Where does Kate gain the courage & strength to fight cancer?What are the positive outcomes of military service?What is exposure-related cancer means?Why is breathwork so powerful?Alarming breast cancer rates among troops are between 20 and 40%!Lower the age of mammography for any woman - A way to save lives!And much more!About Kate:Kate Hendricks Thomas, Ph.D. is a behavioral medicine researcher and Master Certified Health Education Specialist. She studies evidence-based mental fitness and peak performance and is the author of several books. Kate is passionate about education and teaches for George Mason University's Department of Global and Community Health. Her TEDx speeches provide a glimpse into Dr. Kate's unique ability to make science accessible and actionable for everyday audiences.She is a writer and researcher at heart and has authored over 100 scientific publications and presentations. Her behavioral health research, published in journals like Best Practices in Mental Health, the Journal of Environmental Psychology, and Military Behavioral Health, has been praised as “masterful” and “constructive.” She writes for a diverse array of popular blogs and newspapers – her social commentary has been featured on NPR and BBC and published in The Hill and in The Washington Post.Resources:Dr. Kate's writing focuses on military health, evidence-based mental fitness, and peak performance. Grab your copy now! https://dockate.com/books/Connect with Kate Hendricks Thomas!Website: https://dockate.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedrkate/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedrkate/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI7znGw-oSzB5FCZh6I1z_AConnect with Kamie Lehmann!Website: https://www.kamielehmann.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kamie.lehmann.1

65 Minutes PG-13 Marcel Gautreau is an Economics PHD candidate at George Mason University and three-time Mises Institute Summer Fellow. Marcel joins Pete to give a breakdown of the corruption in the Republican and Democrat parties, as well as within the system of commerce and economics itself. Today's Sponsor: Open a Crypto IRA w/ iTrustCapital to Invest in Cryptocurrency & Physical Gold. Get $100 in Bitcoin when you sign up and fund your account through the link below. https://itrust.capital/freeman Marcel on Twitter Marcel's Substack Get Autonomy 19 Skills PDF Download The Monopoly On Violence Support Pete on His Website Pete's Patreon Pete's Substack Pete's Subscribestar Pete's Paypal Pete's Books on Amazon Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter

65 Minutes PG-13 Marcel Gautreau is an Economics PHD candidate at George Mason University and three-time Mises Institute Summer Fellow. Marcel joins Pete to give a breakdown of the corruption in the Republican and Democrat parties, as well as within the system of commerce and economics itself. Today's Sponsor: Open a Crypto IRA w/ iTrustCapital to Invest in Cryptocurrency & Physical Gold. Get $100 in Bitcoin when you sign up and fund your account through the link below. https://itrust.capital/freeman Marcel on Twitter Marcel's Substack Get Autonomy 19 Skills PDF Download The Monopoly On Violence Support Pete on His Website Pete's Patreon Pete's Substack Pete's Subscribestar Pete's Paypal Pete's Books on Amazon Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter

Alba Rodrigues a PhD student at George Mason University joins us to talk about the article ‘Teaching martial arts in schools: A proposal for contents organization' and the chapter ‘Pedagogia do jogo no processo de ensino e aprendizagem das artes marciais [Game pedagogy in the process of teaching and learning of martial arts]' published with Dr. Marcelo Antunes and Dr. David Kirk. We discuss teaching martial arts through combat games to enhance children and youth's possibilities of prolonged engagement. Twitter: @AlbaICRodrigues Full Cite: Antunes, M. M., Rodrigues, A. I. C., & Kirk, D. (2020). Teaching martial arts in schools: A proposal for contents organization. Revista Valore, 5, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.22408/reva502020511e-5031 Antunes, M. M., Rodrigues, A. I. C., & Kirk, D. (2021) Pedagogia do jogo no processo de ensino e aprendizagem das artes marciais [Game pedagogy in the teaching and learning process of martial arts]. In M. M. Antunes & D. L. Moura (Eds.), Dialogando com as lutas, artes marciais e esportes de combate [Dialogue with combative activities, martial arts and combat sports] (Coleção Reflexões Sobre Educação Física e Esporte, v. 1, pp. 103-120). DOI: 10.24824/978652511065.3 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/pwrhpe/support

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson talks about efforts in Michigan to prevent elections from being hijacked. And Republican strategist and George Mason University scholar Shikha Dalmia discuss the rise of right wing authoritarianism in America and how to counter it.

Dr. Niyati Dhokai is Program Director of Veterans and the Arts Initiative at George Mason University's Hylton Performing Arts Center.  The program has been supported, in part, by Creative Forces®: NEA Military Healing Arts Network-- an initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts in partnership with the U.S. Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.  Creative Forces places creative arts therapies at the core of patient-centered care at clinical sites throughout the country, including telehealth services. It also invests in increased access to community arts activities to promote health, well-being and quality of life for military service members, veterans, and their families and caregivers. That's where Veterans and the Arts Initiative comes in—it's an arts and community hub for people connected to the military. Since Veterans and the Arts initiative began in 2014, it has served over 10,000 people—developing robust workshops in music and art as well as performances and events for the community. In this podcast, Niyati Dhokai discusses the unique aspects of programming for veterans, service members, and their families, the very concrete ways art creates community, how the program continues to evolve, and the support and resources Veterans and the Arts has received from Creatives Forces.    A further note: Applications for Creative Forces Community Engagement Grants—managed in partnership with Mid-America Arts Alliance—are available now to eligible organizations for emerging and established projects. You can find the guidelines at maaa.org/creativeforces.  Deadline for applications is December 15, 2021.

Only twice in history have two women who served as CIA officers been elected to Congress. The first time was 2018, and the second was 2020—both of them featuring Abigail Spanberger and Elissa Slotkin. David Priess hosted an event for the Michael V. Hayden Center at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government, speaking with both of them about their careers, both in the intelligence community and in Congress. Abigail Spanberger represents Virginia's 7th congressional district and was a CIA operations officer from 2006 to 2014. Elissa Slotkin represents Michigan's 8th congressional district. She served as a CIA analyst, as well as a National Security Council staffer and Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. They talked about joining CIA, their experiences there, leaving the intel world, how their CIA experiences help them as legislators, and a few pressing national security issues.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Photo:  In 2009, the UN Millennium Development Goals programme was a proposed beneficiary of the Tobin Tax. Global Minimum Tax Cartel and France.  Veronique de Rugy, @veroderugy,  @GeorgeMasonU, @Mercatus Center lth https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/business/oecd-global-minimum-tax.html Veronique de Rugy, @veroderugy,  @GeorgeMasonU, @Mercatus Center, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University & NRO Online.

Producer/Host: Steve Wessler Program Topics: Kristallnact in light of narratives in the book “The Night of the Broken Glass” and anti-Semitism in US schools -The book “The Night of the Broken Glass” causes many people to realize that the violence of Kristallnact was far more deadly. -Anti-Jewish degrading language and so-called “jokes” are used in US schools. -The use of degrading language about Jews negatively impacts some Jewish students Guests: Catherine Share. She teaches a course on the Holocaust at Congregation Bet Ha'am in South Portland, Maine. Natalie and Julia are 8th grade students who are in Catherine Share's class. About the host: Steve Wessler will soon will be starting his 28th year of working on human right issues. He founded the Civil Rights Unit in the Maine Attorney’s Office in 1992 and led the Unit for 7 years. In 1999 he left the formal practice of law and founded the Center for the Prevention of Hate. The Center worked in Maine and across the USA. He and his colleagues worked to reduce bias and harassment in schools, in communities, in health care organization through workshops and conflict resolution. The Center closed in 2011 and Steve began a consulting on human rights issues. For the next 5 years much of his work was in Europe, developing and implementing training curricular for police, working in communities to reduce the risk of hate crimes, conflict resolution between police and youth. He has worked in over 20 countries. In late 2016 he began to work more in Maine, with a focus on reducing anti-immigrant bias. He continues to work in schools to reduce bias and harassment. Wessler teaches courses on human rights issues at the College of the Atlantic, the University of Maine at Augusta and at the School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in northern Virginia. The post Change Agents 11/4/21: Kristallnact, the book “The Night of the Broken Glass” and Anti-Semitism in US schools first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Sophomore, Ben Freedman joins the podcast to talk about music and how it is a spiritual practice.  Join us every week for another reflection on spirituality, faith, and life.Arise Campus Ministry serves students at Northern Virginia Community Colleges and George Mason University. We believe in Jesus and thus welcome all, share God's universal love, and compassionately live out our faith on campus and in the community. To learn more about Arise go to www.arisegmu.org

The Supreme Court is back in session with a full plate this fall. To breakdown the latest national security cases on the docket, co-host Yvette is joined by Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Executive Director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University. Together they cover the big ticket issues, from United States v. Zubaydah and the state secrets privilege, to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and 2nd Amendment rights.  
 Jamil Jaffer is the Founder & Executive Director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University: https://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/jaffer_jamil_n 
 References: 
 United States v. Zubaydah: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/20-00827qp.pdf 
 FBI v. Fazaga: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/20-00828qp.pdf 
 Patel v. Garland: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/20-00979qp.pdf 
 U.S. v. Tsarnaev: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/20-00443qp.pdf 
 Babcock v. Kijakazi: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/20-00480qp.pdf 
 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/20-00843qp.pdf

Guests: Virginia Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith, former Democratic Virginia Congressman Jim Moran, Mark Rozell, Dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, and Bloomberg Politics Contributors Jeanne Sheehan Zaino and Rick Davis. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, associate professor in George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government and global fellow in the Wilson Center's Latin America Program, leads a conversation on the future of U.S.-Mexico relations.   CASA: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I am Maria Casa, director of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Thank you all for joining us. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera with us to discuss the future of U.S.-Mexico relations. Dr. Correa-Cabrera is associate professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and global fellow in the Latin America Program at the Wilson Center. She also serves as nonresident scholar at the Center for the United States and Mexico in Rice University's Baker Institute, is a fellow at Small Wars Journal-El Centro, and is co-editor of the International Studies Perspectives Journal. Previously Dr. Correa-Cabrera was principal investigator of a research grant to study organized crime and trafficking in persons in Central America and Mexico, supported by the U.S. Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. She is past president of the Association for Borderland Studies and the author of several books. Welcome, Guadalupe. CORREA-CABRERA: Thank you, Maria. CASA: Thank you very much for speaking with us today. CORREA-CABRERA: Thank you, Maria. Thank you very much to everyone, especially the Council on Foreign Relations, for the opportunity to talk to you about the relationships of my two countries, the United States and Mexico. So today, I'm going to start by explaining what is the current state of Mexico-U.S. relations, but in the context of a very important event that took place some days ago, in the context of the U.S.-Mexico Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities. The bicentennial—so-called Bicentennial Understanding. There was a concern at the beginning of the current administration in the United States that the relationships between the United States and Mexico were going to be difficult. Notwithstanding the last, the current year has been extremely productive in many areas. And with this new understanding, the Bicentennial Understanding, that it states in the Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities, the United States and Mexico's relation has been reframed in a very important way. There is an understanding that the Mérida initiative that had been the center of the relationship between the United States and Mexico, focused on security, needed to be reframed. And then, you know, that was—that was considered that the priorities remained the same, the priorities of the two countries, with some changes that I'm going to be talking about. But the three—I mean, the high-level understanding, this high-level meeting told us what's supposed to be—I mean, where we're going to see in the future. So I just wanted to point out some of the points that were discussed. This framework was informed by each country's security priorities, that I'm going to be talking about. And the focus is addressing violence, but through a response that's driven by justice and use of intelligence against organized crime, and based on tactical cooperation in law enforcement, based on the previous mistakes that had been identified. But currently, the focus would be on public health and development as a part of the strategy of cooperation between the two countries. I'm taking some words from the—from the communique of this understanding. And, you know, with the consideration of—for a more secure and prosperous region, the Mexico-U.S. Bicentennial Framework serves to reaffirm the friendship and cooperation that exists between the two nations. You know, as you see, the language is very friendly. It's based on an understanding that the relationship is important, cooperation is important. Apparently the two countries are in the same boat in this regard. The United States recognizes that support of militarization is not the way probably to go. And a greater focus on public health and development to address the root causes of violence in the southern hemisphere, particularly in Mexico, is probably the way to go, with an understanding to promote a more secure and prosperous region. There are four themes—I mean, this is the idea. This was—I mean, that was the conversation that's on the table. We don't necessarily know ourselves today how this is going to be implemented, what are the particular policies that—or, the collaboration, or the amounts of money to make this happen. But this is kind of like the idea of the future of this collaboration. However, I am going to be talking about the opportunities, and particularly the challenges, considering the priorities of the two nations that, in a way, and when we have the meetings of this type, and when we listen to the language and read the media and talk to the politicians that were present, we have a sense. But then when everybody goes home, we kind of, like, think about this better and we see opportunities, but more challenges than we initially thought. So there are four main things in the United States-Mexico relations that need to be highlighted, plus one that has been also always important but today is more important due to the pandemic. Which is the theme of public health, where an important collaboration between Mexico and the United States has been observed but at the same time poses certain challenges with regard to the border management. Title 42 is still in place and the borders are going to be opened gradually, considering, you know, the vaccination status of people. But that has had a major impact on border communities, and certain impacts on trade and development, particularly at the U.S.-Mexico border. The other four main themes of U.S. Mexico relations that I want to talk about are immigration, security, trade, and energy. I mean, I don't want to place them in order of priority. I think that energy is going to define the future of Mexico-U.S. relations, but I'm going to mention the four in the context of the present—I mean, the present situation. So with regards to trade, the successful passage and, you know, implementation of renegotiation of NAFTA, today in the shape of USMCA, has been extremely successful. Poses some challenges, of course. And this is going to be connected with the last subject we'll be talking about, the proposal of the Mexican government to reform the electricity sector. This is something that is going to be very, very important, and what are the priorities of the United States in the framework of build back better? But with regards to trade, apparently their relationships could not be, you know, better than today. There are some challenges, of course, that have to be with labor rights and unions in Mexico that would cause some loss of competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. And in the framework build back better, of course, this is going to benefit the United States and it's going probably to affect the manufacturing sector of Mexico. Let's see how it works. But with regards to trade, things are mainly, you know, stable, with exception of the future. And this is going to be very, very important. The potential passage, we don't really know, it's very difficult that the electricity reform in Mexico will pass. But anyway, the president—the current president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has a very important amount of—I mean, segment of the population, and a very important support from his base that might help him to achieve his goal. I see it very differently, but we'll talk about that. So the next area that I would like to talk about is immigration. Here we have enormous challenges, enormous challenges that have been visualized with, you know, the current situations at the border that started since the beginning of this administration. During the past years, I mean, they had started to be increasing in magnitude, or at least in visibility. As I mentioned, Title 42 is maintained, and the migration protection protocol—Migrant Protection Protocols, so Stay in Mexico program, where a number of asylum seekers would have to wait for their cases to be decided in Mexico, there's a new definition in this framework. The Supreme Court of the United States very recently made a decision with regards to the reinstatement of the Migrant Protection Protocols. In the beginning the Department of Homeland Security, you know, made the declaration that they would—they would continue with that, but very recently they intention is not to continue with the Migrant Protection Protocols. In the end, and this is why this is very important in the very current conversation, in the end the continuation of this—of this program that has been highly criticized. Then it's also—it has put the human rights of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers at risk. That might—this will not work if Mexico—if the government of Mexico does not accept it. We have to see what is going to be the result. But we have a definition in this regard. The role of Mexico is key in the management of the U.S.-Mexico border, in the management of what some call migrant crisis, and then a crisis at the border. We observed that crisis very recently with a number of Haitian citizens that all left their country, went to South America, and from South America—from countries such as Ecuador, Brazil, Chile—traveled north through different countries, finding different challenges and dangers, and arrived to one point of the U.S.-Mexico border, with the help of a number of actors, such as migrant smugglers and corrupt authorities, but with the aim of making—I mean, escaping a terrible life and making a better life in the United States. We have a caravan that's now in direction to Mexico City. They were going go—they will put their demands on the table, but their intent is to continue going to the United States. There is a very big definition with regards to the migrant crisis, or what some call the migrant crisis, and the immigration issues that the government of the United States has recognized very accurately, and the Mexican government too, that there need to be collaboration to address the root causes of the situation that has to do with the development of the countries of Central America, of South America. And, you know, to achieve stability in South America, probably not through militarization. Secretary Blinken in a very surprising statement has led us to believe that today the United States is also reframing its aid to Latin America, to Central America and the Caribbean. And the focus is not going to be in aid in military equipment or in the militarization of the region. This is very important. And this brings me to talk about the third important—the third theme in the U.S.-Mexico relations. Mexico's security—the relationship of Mexico and the United States in the past few years has been focused on this connection between security and immigration. That's in the end centered on a specific attention of border enforcement, of border security cooperation. The situation in Mexico has deteriorated in the past few years, and the situation has not improved in an important way. Mexico's homicides remained at high levels, despite the pandemic. During the pandemic the decrease was very small, but today and we expect that this year the homicide rate continues growing in a trend that does not seem to be going down. The approach of the Mexican government since the transition period was—I mean, I can be summarized in the phrase talks not bullets. Which means, like, a completely—I mean, a complete shift of the declaration of Mexico's war on drugs to some other, like, approaches that will focus as well to solve the root causes of violence insecurity in Mexico, mainly development frameworks. However, the prior militarization of criminal groups in different parts of the country, and the events—the shootings and the diversification of criminal activities by armed groups in the country—has also caused a very complicated situation. The count of homicides in Mexico shows that killings remain essentially unchanged, more than 36,000 homicides in the year 2020. As I mentioned before, this year we expect an important increase. I don't know what will be the magnitude, but we have observed since the beginning of the year very unfortunate events. For example, at the U.S.-Mexico border, in the city of Reynosa, the massacre of migrants, and also assassinations and disappearances in a very key highway of Mexico from Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey. We still remember the Culiacanazo in the year 2019, which was a very complicated year. And today the situation in states like Michoacán, Guerrero, and Sinaloa, the massacres that be found, and people who disappear—or, that remain disappeared, is a very big concern, both to Mexico and the United States. There is not really an understanding of how this collaboration with regards to security will be framed. However, there was a very big advancement in the Bicentennial Understanding initial talks that the Mérida Initiative, at least on paper, supposed to be ending. But there's going to be a focus on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, probably in a different way and not with a focus on the military sector or on armed forces. At least, this is what we have on the paper. Mexico has been very straightforward with regards—and very critical with regards to the role of the DEA. And that has caused several tensions in this relationship. We also have the issue of security and the—I mean, the priorities of the United States with regards to build back better proposal or reform. And then we have, as I said, the reform of the electric sector in the Mexico state, who want to recover the control of the management of electricity, of the electricity market, and the capacity of the state to manage the lithium. So Mexico has—and the Mexican government has three main projects: the construction of the refinery in—the Dos Bocas in Tabasco, the Santa Lucia airport, and the Maya Train. There is a tension between Mexico and the United States with regards to priorities. Mexico has a priority to continue with the support of oil and gas. This is—this is reflected in the construction of the refinery. And here, we're probably going to see the main point of tension. Because of build back better and the commitment with build back better, and also focus on U.S. internal markets where Mexico has been benefitting from the growth of its manufacturing sector. We don't really know how this is going to be playing out, but at least, you know, on paper things are going to be good. But definitely the priorities with regards to energy are very different, and the focus of the U.S.-Mexico government on the lessening of climate change. And this focus is going to be very different—very difficult. The United States is committed to meet its climate goals, create millions of jobs inside the United States. And that has really changed their relationship. So we can talk more about these. Thank you for listening to this. And as I said, we'll probably be talking a lot about energy and the inequalities that public health and vaccination rates, that will also cause tensions. And immigration is another point that we need to talk about in greater depth. Thank you. CASA: Thank you, Guadalupe, for that introduction. There certainly is a lot to talk about. Now let's open this up to questions from our participants. (Gives queuing instructions.) Let's see. We will start with a written question from Paul Haber, who's a professor at University of Montana. He asks: Can you please provide some detail regarding the changes in labor required in Mexico by the USMCA? And what has happened to date? And do you expect a real deepening of the reforms between now and the end of the AMLO administration? CORREA-CABRERA: This is a very important question. With regard to the USMCA, mainly the main point that might cause tensions have to do—has to do with labor unions, particularly in the maquiladora sector, in manufacturing sector. The United States has been very clear with regards to that requirement, but that would, at the same time, lower the competitiveness of Mexico's manufacturing sector. As I said, there have been, I mean, in the past couple of years an attempt to create independent labor unions in the maquiladora sector, but there are still extreme tensions. And there have not been a real advance in this—in this sense. But at the same time, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, with his theme of primero los pobres, the poor first, and a support of Mexican labor, an increase—a very important increase since the beginning of his administration of wages, he is supposedly committed to help Mexican workers and to—and he has been focused as well on supporting not only the labor unions or the labor sector, but with his social programs that have been, I mean, advertised a great extent. Such as Jóvenes Construyendo el Futuro, the Youth Constructing Future, which is a very important, for him, but also very criticized program. And the support of mothers without—I mean, single mothers. And, I mean Youth Constructing Future for those who don't have jobs. So on the one hand Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also in order to continue building his base of support or maintaining his base of support, focused—has focused on these programs, these social programs, that are not necessarily just focused on labor, as the way that the United States wants this to be seen in order to also rebuild the economy by changing the focus to internal development. I don't see in that regard if what—if your interest comes from the United States, what has happened with the union is—with the labor unions and their capacity to really, I mean, grow in the Mexican manufacturing sector—I don't see—I don't see a lot of advancement in that area. And definitely in this regard, there are very different priorities in Mexico versus the United States. But Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been able to convince a number of his supporters, a number of Mexican workers, because he has increased in a very important way Mexican wages. And he is probably going to be able to achieve more increases when the elections—the presidential elections approach. But definitely we don't see very definite changes with regards to this area as the USMCA has been posed. CASA: Next we have a raised hand from Sherice Nelson, assistant professor at Southern University in Baton Rouge. Sherice. Q: Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your talk. And I appreciate you leaving time for us to ask questions. As a professor, how do—the biggest challenge often is to get students to back away from some of the stereotypical information they get about U.S.-Mexico and the relationship, and the centering of that—of that relationship on immigration, when there's far—as you mentioned—there are far other issues that define our relationship. Where are places that we can lead students to, to get better information that is not as stereotypical about the relationship, that will pique their interest? Thanks so much. CORREA-CABRERA: That's a very important question. Thank you for asking. And absolutely, there is a way to present the issue on immigration, to place it in a political perspective—either from the right side or the left. The problem with immigration and the quality development and the access for jobs—I mean, it has been studied in depth by Mexican academics, United States academics. Issues have more to do with development and with the jobs that are offered in the United States, the pull and push factors of undocumented immigration, for example. And we have very different areas to be thinking about migration or immigration. And the focus recently has been at the border, has been with regards to asylum seekers, has been politicized in the United States, while many other areas have been, to some extent, ignored. There are—for educators, there are a number of analyses. One particular area that's important to know, it's United States—I mean, immigrants—how immigrants in the United States, coming from different countries, have been able to develop, have been able to make this country great. That's one area that we have to focus on. And there is a lot of information in that regard. Another, I mean, issue that it's important to know are the pull and push factors of undocumented immigration. And one important factor that usually we're not focused on are the jobs that exist in the United States, and the perspective from—I mean, the undocumented immigration from the perspective of employers. And that is connected to this analysis of the role of immigrants in the United States. Where are they coming from? What are they doing? How they came here, and not just of those who want to come. Another issue that has been widely covered is the one that has to do with migration. Migration flows that start in countries such as Chile, that dangerous journey where that media has been focused on, without analyzing this as a whole, without analyzing this understand that there are jobs in the United States, there is a comprehensive immigration reform that's on the table, and that that comprehensive immigration reform will definitely help to solve the problems of a system that needs the, I mean, immigrants to continue working, but it's creating all sorts of problem. The disfunctions of U.S. immigration system have been identified. There is a proposal that's bipartisan to solve these issues with temporary visas, pathway towards citizenship for those that are already here, that already have jobs, that already contribute to this economy. But unfortunately, immigration is definitely, as you correctly mention, a subject that has been utilized, that has been polarized, because it touches very important sentiments of the electorate. And we don't understand it. Definitely the immigration system in the United States needs to change. And there are—there is a very important amount of articles, of studies that analyze not just those who want to come or the so-called migrant crisis at the border, but how the market in the United States works, the labor markets, what undocumented migrants do in the United States, how to solve these issues with these bipartisan efforts that have been put together in documents, such as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and also those that want to work. And many of these problems would probably be solved through the mechanisms that think tanks, and analysts, and academics have done. Important work by think tanks like the Migration—MPI, the Migration Policy Institute, or the—I mean, other initiatives in Mexico. There have been a lot of—there's a lot of information about the possible policies to solve these issues. It's important to consider that information is there, that the work is done, but the problem is the coverage. And definitely our students need to go to understand the suggested—the suggested solutions, creating legal pathways to migration, to temporary work in the United States, is probably the way to go. But unfortunately, we got into these politicized moments, and these electoral moments, and the discourse gets politicized. But there is a lot there, a lot of analysis, a lot of proposals that you can find. Amazing work, both in the United States, in Mexico, and in many other countries of the Americas, because right now the issue of undocumented immigration, irregular immigration does not only have to do with Mexico and the United States. Immigrants have to pass through Mexico in order to get to where they want to go in order to go where the works are located. But we know and we have seen that a number of people, for example, that what was called the Haitian crisis at the border, like, the journey was done from countries as far as Chile, and so many countries have to deal with that. For example, the situation in Venezuela—many migrants that have been—I mean, finding jobs and a home in Colombia temporarily are also going—also moving up and are going to the border. So there's a lot there, and our students, you know, can find a lot of information. It's just to get out of the media discourses that are presented and that do not allow us to see the reality. But there is a lot out there that we can access, particularly for our students. CASA: Our next question is a written question and comes from Pedro Izquierdo, a graduate student at George Mason University. He asks, what improvements and flaws do you see in the bicentennial framework regarding arms trafficking, unlike the Mérida Initiative? CORREA-CABRERA: Well, it's—the Bicentennial Understanding is not—at this point it's just a number of good wishes and the recognition of certain problems. Arms trafficking has been recognized in this Bicentennial Understanding. As of today, we don't really know what the United States is going to be able to do with regards to arms trafficking, and there is a very important and complicated situation here because in the United States it's not by decree, it's not by—I mean, the arms possession and the way that United States citizens understand their rights with regards to bearing arms. It's a constitutional right; therefore—and there's a lot of—you know, there's a very, very big business that will not end so easily. Therefore, the two countries might, you know, might agree on—I mean verifying or collaborating to end or to lessen the issue of arms smuggling. However, this is going to be very difficult unless something important happens in the United States with regards to the legislation to place some limits on the bearing of arms. This is very important. As of today, Pedro, there is not a concrete plan of how the two countries are going to collaborate in this regard. As we know, the minister of foreign affairs—I mean the Mexican government through the minister of foreign affairs, I mean, has a lawsuit against United States arms manufacturers with regards to the arms that come to Mexico and end up in the hands of drug traffickers. There is nothing else that it's current today where we will know what the two countries are going to be doing. And this is the same with many of the good wishes, many of the areas of the collaboration, the end of the Mérida Initiative and the beginning of this understanding. We really don't know what specific programs are going to be implemented and how these programs are going to be implemented, how much money is going to be directed to these programs at this time. We just have an understanding of how the priorities can get together to improve and to reframe, to some extent, the collaboration in terms of security and development. CASA: Next we are going to a raised hand; we have Terron Adlam, an undergraduate student at Delaware State University. Please go ahead, Terron. Q: Can you hear me now? CASA: Yes. Q: Hi. Yes. So I'm thinking about more the energy sector of this talk. So in Mexico I know there's a lot of geothermal activity, so isn't there a more effective way of, like—because global warming is increasing more and more as time goes on, like, the flooding, the overheating of the ozone, stuff like—couldn't geothermal usage be more effective in Mexico and solar too, versus the oil refineries? CORREA-CABRERA: This is a very important question. The understanding of climate change in the United States is very different from Mexico. In the developed world, the concern about the environment has been focused—I mean, this has now been the center of the discussion and the center of the development programs and projects. In the developing nations, there are more immediate needs to be covered. With regards specifically to Mexico, there is not—climate change is not in the center of the discourse and the priorities of the Mexican government. Mexico has oil and gas and the current Mexican president—I mean, notwithstanding the analysis of other actors. What the Mexican government has had as a priority since the beginning of the administration has more to do with the development from the state, more centralization of the state, a greater role of the state in the sector of oil and gas. The climate change priority comes from the United States. Today, you know, the diplomatic efforts are going to be done to make Mexico to turn into the renewable sector, but at this point, it is not the priority of the Mexican government, neither the priority of a majority of the Mexican people, because in the developing world, climate change is important but it's more important sometimes in certain parts of Mexico, such as Guerrero, Michoacán, and Tamaulipas, and it's particularly the poorest regions of Mexico—Oaxaca or Chiapas—where there are several problems and, you know, immediate needs of people are not covered. And I'm talking about food. I'm talking about security very particularly. These pictures of children with arms in Guerrero and Michoacán tell us what the emergency situation is for a number of people, and the Mexican president has been able to create a discourse around these needs, around the needs for poor people, around the needs of those who can listen to that better, and he has a priority today—I mean, he sent a proposal to achieve an electric reform; well, the state is going to have more involvement and also a focus on electricity with the technologies that the Mexican state has been managed, which is not connected to solar or wind or the mindset that the United States has had in the past few years. So the priorities are very different and the studies are not directed there. The Department of Energy of the United States, through one of the laboratories of renewable energies, conducted a—I mean conducted a study and released the results of this report talking about the—according to the report—the negative effects in terms of emissions of carbon by Mexico and the increase in the cost of producing electricity. The Mexican government—the president alleged that that study was not based in reality. And you can see, then, what Mexico wants. And, you know, currently, Mexico has actively participated in the COP26 and it's been involved in the conversation, but definitely we don't know how much money or how this—(inaudible)—is going to be made. This is a very important question because I wasn't able to go in depth with this. This is probably going to be the main point of tensions between the two countries in the future—definitely for Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Andrés Manuel López Obrador was a very big critic of the recent energy reform of 2013, 2014, the energy reform that allowed private capital to get into the oil sector. He was a pretty big critic. There have been a number of events that link corrupt Mexican governments with the concessions in the oil sector, oil and gas sector, so this is probably going to be—continue to be discussed. And if the president has the capacity of passing the reform—that I see it very difficult because of the numbers that he needs—the situation is going to become more tense, because his vision is nationalistic and it's not—and nationalism—Mexican nationalism of today is not looking at climate change as its main priority. And you can see the supporters of Andrés Manuel López Obrador are really not discussing climate change. Mexican elites are discussing climate change and, of course, the opposition against Andrés Manuel López Obrador against the government of the Fourth Transformation, but they have an important majority—they don't have a majority, sorry, the opposition. The important majority is within the government of the Fourth Transformation, and their support for electric reform is important. I don't know how this is going to play out in the end, but in the United States and in Mexico, climate change is perceived in a very different way. That has to be understood very clearly because we don't see the media, we don't see how in the schools and how in Mexico overall the issue is well-ingrained into the society, because, of course, the society, the Mexican society, particularly the most vulnerable ones in the country, the very important number of poor people in the country has other priorities that have to do with food insecurity—have to do with food insecurity. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written question; it's from Yuri Mantilla, professor of law at Liberty University, and he writes, can you please analyze the influence of political ideologies in Mexico and the U.S. that are shaping both international relations between the two countries and perceptions of the Mexican and American people regarding the current political contexts under the Biden administration in the U.S. and the López Obrador leadership in Mexico? CORREA-CABRERA: That's an amazing question, but that is a very difficult question to answer very quickly. OK, let me try to do it. It's a very big challenge. This is a very challenging question. As I mentioned with regards to climate change, the ideologies in Mexico and the United States, what is right and what is left in the two countries is quite—it's, to some extent, different in the United States, the left and right. And today, because we have a president that ran on a left-wing platform and he was recognized as a left-wing president and also a very big critic of so-called neoliberal reforms and the neoliberal system that were represented by the previous administrations and that by the administrations that achieved democratization in Mexico. I'm talking about the National Action Party and all the parties that supported those reforms, the democratization in the country. And because of that, today, the ideology has transformed, to some extent; it's not about—I mean, support for the Washington consensus as it was in the previous decades versus—which was represented in the government—versus another project that direct—the relationship more with the people. Now that mindset, that discourse, sometimes propagandistic in certain ways, is in the government. So the government presents itself as a left-wing government. Nationalism and a conception of first the poor—the poor first, very big criticism, in discourse only, about neoliberalism, without, you know, a real perspective what neoliberalism is because of the support that the current Mexican government has provided to USMCA, which is one of the foundation parts of what is perceived as neoliberalism, which is mainly liberalism in—not in the perspective of the United States overall—free markets, the importance of free markets in the economy. It's a very challenging question because in the United States and Mexico there are important concepts that mean different things for people. Liberalism or neoliberalism for Mexicans mean support of markets and a support of the right, while in the United States, when we talk about liberalism, we think about progressive thinking; we think about equality but in a different way. In Mexico the center is equality in the economic regard, and the president today, the government, you know, is governing with the flag of equality, is governing with the flag of the left. And the so-called left is with the Mexican—or allegedly voted for the current Mexican president, but now some of them are debating themselves in different areas. So it's not as easy to place the right and the left as it is more in the United States; even in the United States there are many issues with regards to position yourself in right and left. We have the progressive part of the electorate in the United States versus a more moderate left, and, as you all know, the Republican Party or the conservative segment of the U.S. population that's more connected with Republican candidates, it's kind of like a very different conception in Mexico. The right wing in Mexico in many ways support, for example, the Democratic Party in the United States. What is conceived as the opposition to Andrés Manuel López Obrador even are very critical of Andrés Manuel López Obrador's relationship with feminism or the feminist movement. Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not supporting the feminist movement because Andrés Manuel López Obrador alleges the feminist movement has been supported by other countries and the opposition. So for the alleged left that is represented by the government, feminism is not a part of their agenda, while in the United States the LGBTQIA movement, the feminist movement, support for climate change, those important values are part of the progressive movement of the left. I mean, in Mexico, and I explain this is why this is very, very important and a very challenging question to answer—I mean, just very quickly—is that, for example, climate change is not in the agenda and climate change is in the—it has been taken by the opposition to the Mexican government. Many representatives of the opposition are criticizing the current Mexican government but not focusing on not going and continuing with the desire of constructing the Dos Bocas refinery and going with oil and gas and focusing on electricity as in the previous times of the PRI. So a number of the Mexican elite that is in opposition—I mean that's considered the opposition are supporting climate change. Why—not supporting climate change but are supporting, like, you know, the development of renewable energies and have as an objective climate change but mainly to criticize what the Mexican government is doing. So in that regard, we see a very big polarization between the ones that supported previous administrations versus this current government that connects with the left, while in the United States we see what is the ideological spectrum. A number of those who represent, as I said, the opposition are connected with the current administration objectives. For example, President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa presents very frequently his photographs with members of the Democratic Party, the current president, Joe Biden, and he's very critical of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, so there's a confusion that we can have based on our own ideologies that's not very easy to understand in very quick explanation. But I hope that I was, to some extent, clear in this regard. CASA: Next we're going to a raised hand. Ellen Chesler, who's senior fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center. Ellen? Q: I actually had put my question in the chat, I thought, but I'll ask it. Thank you so much for this interesting overview. I wanted to—I'm a historian by training and was going to ask you to historically frame some of your introductory remarks in a little bit more depth. First, of great interest to me, your comments about the importance of public health, specifically reproductive health policy. Have United States policies and support of Mexico in the last, you know, twenty-five years or so, in your view, been positive for the country, and what are the challenges that remain? And in a way linked to that, from your introductory comments, a question about labor: You mentioned, of course, that NAFTA, in your view, was successful, certainly from Mexico's standpoint, but has remaining challenges, largely relating to labor organization and the raising of wages in Mexico to equalize the situation between the two countries. Can you comment on what prospects there are for that happening today in Mexico? CORREA-CABRERA: Very interesting questions. With regards to reproductive health, this also has to do with the ideology. The left in Mexico, which is now represented, in a way, by the current Mexican government, the current Mexican government has adamantly—since Andrés Manuel López Obrador was head of the government of Mexico City there have been, you know, an advancement with regards to reproductive rights, reproductive health, and that is not under question of the current administration, which is very interesting because in the United States the—I mean, there's a different type of tension. And in other countries of the hemisphere too, we can see—you know, because we're Catholic countries we can see that area as very complex and a lot of opposition with regards to that. In Mexico, there needs to be an opposition because of the mentality, because of the culture, but there has been an advancement in the courts, and recently there was a decision in one state of Mexico that decriminalized—and it's very interesting how the Mexican government has been able to build a different discourse that has allowed the current government to advance in that direction. Decriminalization of abortion is a way that this has advanced. So I believe that possibly—I dare to say that possibly in the Americas, Mexico is one of the most progressive governments with regards to this subject, reproductive health and reproductive rights. It is very interesting—there must be a number of studies coming from this decision of the courts of one state of Mexico that's going to be defining the future of reproductive rights in the country. With regards to the second question about NAFTA, labor rights, there is an understanding in the United States that NAFTA has been good, particularly for Mexico. In the technocracy sector, particularly those that, you know, contributed to renegotiate NAFTA—I mean, the Mexican elites recognize the gains of Mexico in the framework of NAFTA, particularly if we focus on the manufacturing sector. The jobs that we're creating in maquiladoras, the jobs that were created due to NAFTA, were not enough to achieve or to allow Mexico to grow at rates that were acceptable. During the time of NAFTA, Mexico has grown at the same—almost at the same level of demographic rates of population rates. So overall, a number of jobs were lost in the beginning, the first years of NAFTA. Many of these people needed to move to the United States. So the effects of NAFTA in Mexico have been very extremely, extremely unequal. But what you will read probably in the reports that have been produced by Mexican academics, Mexican analysts and think tanks and in the think tanks of the United States is that NAFTA has been overall very good for Mexico. It has not been bad for Mexico. It has allowed the country to have access to a number of products but, at the same time, has affected some other sectors that could be considered of national security. And I'm thinking about the production of grain in the agricultural sector in particular. But with regards to labor rights—and this is why the question is very important, and I'm not sure that I answered it correctly. The United States has different priorities and has had different priorities that were manifested in the growth of dissatisfaction among an important segment of the U.S. population that has not been able to—I mean, become part of the development in the United States. That gave place to the Make America Great Again movement where the intention or the importance that a number of people in the United States, both in the left or in the right—the idea of a Green New Deal that it's right now in the form of the Build Back Better framework has this idea in mind, to generate jobs inside the United States, because globalization or very aggressive globalization after the end of the Cold War really put a number of people in the United States in a complicated situation because the jobs were performed outside the borders of the United States. So today, this is why it is important to understand what USMCA is about with regards to labor. There is an important pressure from the United States, in particular, to Mexico to increase or—the conditions of the workers in the manufacturing sector overall because there is an important focus on wages. But if wages are—increase more than what the president already increased, you know, into this framework and labor unions make more complicated the entrance of foreign capital and the foreign capital goes back to the United States, will Mexico lose its competitiveness? And the losses will be for Mexico. So there is a tension there and definitely this tension has not been solved. The wages in Mexico have been low but that has to do with the labor supply and with the conditions of labor markets overall. And if there is a force to create the labor unions, this is probably not going to be in the—I mean it's not going to benefit Mexican workers because the businesses are probably not going to generate those jobs and will probably relocate. That's a conversation that has been going on and we have not solved. And we have not seen an improvement overall in the conditions or the wages of workers, more than the one that Andrés Manuel López Obrador by decree—has been given to the workers by increasing in double, particularly at the border wages in the manufacturing sector. But in the framework of USMCA, we haven't yet seen the results and we have not yet seen also the pressure if Mexico has not because the unions have not been created and there are many tensions in that sector. There was an attempt to start with the first labor union in the maquiladora sector by—I mean today a person who is right now in Congress, Susana Prieto Terrazas—she ended up in jail in the state of Tamaulipas, so this is a very complicated subject that we haven't been able to solve. CASA: I'm afraid we have to close now. We're not able to get to all the questions, but we will give you the contacts for the professor and you can reach out to her directly, if you would like to continue the conversation. Guadalupe, thank you very much for being with us today, and to all of you for your great questions and comments. You can follow Guadalupe on Twitter @GCorreaCabrera. Our next Academic Webinar will take place on Wednesday, November 17, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center of Global Energy Policy and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University, will lead a conversation on energy policy and efforts to combat climate change. In the meantime, I encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic on Twitter and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for new research and analysis on global issues. Thank you again for joining us today. We look forward to tuning in on November 17. (END)

Join Cindie and her guest, Lindsey A. Wolko, founder of the Center for Pet Safety. A long-term pet safety advocate, Ms. Wolko leads a mission that is personal to every pet owner. With a keen understanding of the pet industry, she has authored safety standards for pet products, launched a certification program, counseled pet product manufacturers around the globe and works tirelessly for consumer and companion animal safety. GUEST NAME: Lindsey A. Wolko GUEST BIO: Ms. Wolko is the founder of Center for Pet Safety. She has a background in project/program management as well governance/controls development. Ms. Wolko holds a bachelors degree from George Mason University and currently leads the research division of Center for Pet Safety. GUEST URL: http://www.centerforpetsafety.org/

Jack Naglieri is a professional with a passion for information security, cloud infrastructure, and security software.His exposure to information security began as an incident responder for Verisign. After graduation from George Mason University, he moved to the San Francisco Bay area and spent two years at Yahoo as an incident responder. He later transitioned into a security engineering role, with the challenge of deploying security monitoring tools at a massive scale. In 2016, he joined Airbnb, and open sourced a framework that enables real-time data analysis and alerting at scale called StreamAlert. He then managed a team of engineers further developing detection and response infrastructure at Airbnb.Now, he has formed his venture-backed startup, Panther Labs, to help companies detect and prevent security breaches in the cloud-first world.

https://youtu.be/Ga4JWC_jgSo In reality, most of the great fortunes in American history have resulted from someone's figuring out how to reduce costs, so as to be able to charge lower prices and therefore gain a mass market for the product. Henry Ford did this with automobiles, Rockefeller with oil, Carnegie with steel, and Sears, Penney, Walton and other department store chain founders with a variety of products.   Thomas Sowell, Ph.D., Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (2014, Basic Books) p. 165 Marcel Gautreau is a PhD student at George Mason University and a Mises Institute Research Fellow. Follow Marcel Gautreau here: Substack Twitter Article on "Exploitation" discussed: Marxist v. Austrian Class Analysis by Hans-Hermann Hoppe Odysee  BitChute Spotify Flote Minds Archive

Marcel Gautreau is a PhD student at George Mason University and a Mises Institute Research Fellow. Follow Marcel Gautreau here: Substack: https://mgautreau.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/anarchyinblack Article on "Exploitation" discussed: https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/exploitation-debate-marxism-v-libertarianism/ ------------------ If you find value in the content, please consider donating to my PayPal KeithKnight590@gmail.com LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b BitChute: KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone https://www.bitchute.com/channel/keithknightdonttreadonanyone/ Minds: https://www.minds.com/KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone/ MeWe: mewe.com/i/keithknight25 Flote: https://flote.app/VoluntaryistKeith Gab: https://gab.com/Voluntarykeith Twitter: @an_capitalist The Libertarian Institute: https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/ One Great Work Network: https://www.onegreatworknetwork.com/keith-knight

Is it possible that the consensus around what caused the 2008 Great Recession is almost entirely wrong? It's happened before. Just as Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz led the economics community in the 1960s to reevaluate its view of what caused the Great Depression, the same may be happening now to our understanding of the first economic crisis of this century. Foregoing the usual relitigating of the problems of housing markets and banking crises, renowned monetary economist Scott Sumner argues that the Great Recession came down to one thing: nominal GDP, the sum of all nominal spending in the economy, which the Federal Reserve erred in allowing to plummet.  The Money Illusion: Market Monetarism, the Great Recession, and the Future of Monetary Policy (University of Chicago Press, 2021) is an end-to-end case for this school of thought, known as market monetarism, written by its leading voice in economics. Based almost entirely on standard macroeconomic concepts, this highly accessible text lays a groundwork for a simple yet fundamentally radical understanding of how monetary policy can work best: providing a stable environment for a market economy to flourish. Scott Sumner is the Ralph G. Hawtrey Chair of Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He is also Professor Emeritus at Bentley University and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Kirk Meighoo is Public Relations Officer for the United National Congress, the Official Opposition in Trinidad and Tobago. His career has spanned media, academia, and politics for three decades. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Is it possible that the consensus around what caused the 2008 Great Recession is almost entirely wrong? It's happened before. Just as Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz led the economics community in the 1960s to reevaluate its view of what caused the Great Depression, the same may be happening now to our understanding of the first economic crisis of this century. Foregoing the usual relitigating of the problems of housing markets and banking crises, renowned monetary economist Scott Sumner argues that the Great Recession came down to one thing: nominal GDP, the sum of all nominal spending in the economy, which the Federal Reserve erred in allowing to plummet.  The Money Illusion: Market Monetarism, the Great Recession, and the Future of Monetary Policy (University of Chicago Press, 2021) is an end-to-end case for this school of thought, known as market monetarism, written by its leading voice in economics. Based almost entirely on standard macroeconomic concepts, this highly accessible text lays a groundwork for a simple yet fundamentally radical understanding of how monetary policy can work best: providing a stable environment for a market economy to flourish. Scott Sumner is the Ralph G. Hawtrey Chair of Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He is also Professor Emeritus at Bentley University and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Kirk Meighoo is Public Relations Officer for the United National Congress, the Official Opposition in Trinidad and Tobago. His career has spanned media, academia, and politics for three decades. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Chris Castaldo is the Chief Information Security Officer at Crossbeam, the world's first and most powerful partner ecosystem platform. Chris is also the author of the best selling book Start-Up Secure: Baking Cybersecurity into your Company from Founding to Exit and is a visiting fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. Year 1 proceeds from Chris's book are being donated to a phenomenal cause, Home For Our Troops. ou can find the book here: https://www.amazon.com/Start-Up-Secure-Cybersecurity-Company-Founding/dp/1119700736

Uncover Your Purpose with Clarity with Isimemen Aladejobe   Matthew 6:33 KJV "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."   Questions and Topics We Discuss: How do you discern God's will and leading and voice in your life? How do you recommend we uncover our purpose? How does our identity impact our work?   Isimemen (Isi) Aladejobi is a wife, mom, business & career growth strategist and founder of Powerful Women Make Power Moves (PWMPMoves), a community of Black millennial wonen determined to win in their careers and their lives.   Through her signature programs, Millennial Job Blueprint & Fulfilled, she has helped hundreds of Black women identify and secure their dream jobs using authentic networking and strengths based career exploration. Participants in her programs have landed multiple job offers, 6 figure offers after years of unemployment, $42k salary increases, and increased clarity and confidence, amongst many other wins.    As a business growth strategist and digital marketer, Isi has created revenue generating growth plans for CEOs, entrepreneurs and small business owners. Clients have seen 300% growth in revenue and generated six figures from her marketing campaigns.    Isi holds a bachelor's degree in Accounting and a minor in Technical Entrepreneurship from The University of Maryland at College Park and a master's degree in Education from George Mason University. She resides in Washington, DC with her husband and two daughters.   Thank You to Our Sponsor: Leman Property Management Company   Connect with The Savvy Sauce on Facebook or Instagram or Our Website   Also, check out our Patreon Page to find out how to gain access to additional podcasts and goodies!   Please help us out by sharing this episode with a friend, leaving a 5-star rating and review, and subscribing to this podcast!   Gospel Scripture: (all NIV)   Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”   Romans 3:24 “and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”   Romans 3:25 (a) “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.”    Hebrews 9:22 (b) “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”    Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”    Romans 5:11 “Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”    John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”   Romans 10:9 “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”    Luke 15:10 says “In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”   Romans 8:1 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”   Ephesians 1:13–14 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession- to the praise of his glory.”   Ephesians 1:15–23 “For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”   Ephesians 2:8–10 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God‘s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.“   Ephesians 2:13 “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.“   Philippians 1:6 “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”

Tyler Zombro is a pitcher with the Tampa Bay Rays organization. He pitched in college with George Mason University and then signed with the Rays in 2017. After going a few years through the minor league system, Zombro reached as high as AAA in 2019 and in 2021, was back in AAA pitching with the Durham Bulls. On June 3, 2021, Tyler was facing Brent Cumberland of the Norfolk Tides when a pitch was hit back up the middle at over 100 mph and hit Zombro in the right side of the head just above the ear knocking him unconscious. After being taken to the hospital, neurosurgeons at Duke University Hospital installed 16 plates and 36 screws during 2 1/2 hours of emergency surgery to stabilize Zombro's skull Today on the podcast, we talk to Tyler about his journey of baseball, wisdom from his grandfather Wimpy, that scary day in June 2021, his desire to possibly pitch again, the prayer he prays on the mound, and how his faith in God has shown him that he's here for a bigger purpose than baseball.  --- Receive our 10-day Sports Spectrum Devotional written by professional athletes for FREE when you sign up for our Sports Spectrum Weekly Email Newsletter. Sign up here.

Photo:  Tsai Ing-wen, President of the Republic of China Target Taiwan.  Gerrit van der Wees @GerritWees, and @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/what-do-taiwanese-think-of-chinas-record-setting-incursions-into-taiwans-adiz/ Gerrit van der Wees, adjunct professor at George Washington University's Elliott School of Foreign Affairs and George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government 

Photo: Inflation talk transforms into stagflation talk. Veronique de Rugy  @Mercatus Center,  @veroderugy, @GeorgeMasonU , George Mason University & NRO Online https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/stagflation-is-all-anyone-in-markets-wants-to-talk-about-now?sref=5g4GmFHo Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow,  @Mercatus Center, George Mason University & NRO Online. @veroderugy,  @GeorgeMasonU, @Mercatus Center,

Pirates can teach us quite a lot about democracy and economics. What can Blackbeard teach us about signaling theory? Why were pirates racially progressive for their era? And is it possible that pirate ships were laboratories for experiments with constitutional democracy?    In this episode, we speak to Professor Peter Leeson of George Mason University, and Dr. Rebecca Simon, an expert on pirate history.   You can support our work here: Patreon.com/powercorrupts   And you can pre-order Brian's new book, Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, here (or wherever you buy books):  https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Corruptible/Brian-Klaas/9781982154097   Follow us on social media:  Twitter - twitter.com/powrcorrupts Instagram - instagram.com/powercorruptspodcast

Photo:  Export-Import Bank of the United States.  The Export–Import Bank of the United States (EXIM, or the Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. Operating as a wholly-owned federal government corporation, the Bank "assists in financing and facilitating U.S. exports of goods and services." EXIM intervenes when private sector lenders are unable or unwilling to provide financing, equipping American businesses with the financing tools necessary to compete for global sales. The Ex-Im Bank great expectations vs the PRC.  Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow,  @Mercatus Center, George Mason University & NRO Online.  @veroderugy,  @GeorgeMasonU  https://www.mercatus.org/publications/export-import-bank/ex-im-bank-competitiveness-doesnt-help-export-competitiveness

In this episode of Intelligence Matters, CBS News Intelligence and National Security Reporter Olivia Gazis interviews three top former intelligence officials about the past, present and future of U.S. engagement in Afghanistan. Panelists Michael Morell, former CIA deputy director and Intelligence Matters host, Michael Vickers, former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and CIA operations officer, and Philip Reilly, former Chief of Operations at CIA's Counterterrorism Center and Kabul station chief, each weigh in on the implications of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the future of the counterterrorism mission in the region. This episode was produced in partnership with the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and GovernmentSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.