Podcasts about Havel

Dimitrij Schaad - Autor und Schauspieler des Jahres 2024. Wilde Kindheit in Kasachstan, mit acht Jahren kommt er nach Deutschland. Jetzt hat er seine erste Serie geschaffen: "Kacken an der Havel".

We connect Jesus' call to be salt and light with Havel's “power of the powerless,” Chernobyl's warning about lies, and Isaiah's demand for justice. We name silence as a tool of harm and outline concrete ways to act with courage, mercy, and truth.

Slavné hokejové vítězství na zimních olympijských hrách v Japonsku 22. února 1998. Prezident Václav Havel přijal po návratu hokejisty u sebe na zahradě slovy: „Díky vám dnes ví miliardy lidí, co to je Česká republika. Zasloužili jste se o její známost a dobré jméno víc než mnoho politiků.“ Český tým přitom odjížděl do Japonska spíš v roli outsiderů. NHL totiž kvůli olympiádě přerušila svou soutěž. O Naganu se okamžitě začalo mluvit jako o „Turnaji století“.

Diese Woche gratuliert der Eismann der "Plattenküche", "7 Tage, 7 Köpfe" und "Treffpunkt Flughafen" und spricht über "Kacken an der Havel", "Lord of the Flies", "Das fahrende Klassenzimmer - Neuer Job Busfahrer", "Das Caravaggio-Komplott", "Der Garmisch-Krimi", "How to Kill Your Sister" und "Strip Law". Pssst...: Abonnieren und Weitersagen ist erlaubt! (wir sagen's auch nicht weiter...)Abonnieren auf Spotify, Apple & Co sowie RSS-Feed: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/dievorschauFlorians Artikel zu "Das Caravaggio-Komplott":https://www.fernsehserien.de/news/das-caravaggio-komplott-neue-krimiserie-wandelt-auf-den-spuren-eines-ungeloesten-mythosKontakt: dievorschau@wunschliste.deEin Service von http://www.wunschliste.de Und hier geht's direkt zum TOHUWAPODCAST: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tohuwapodcast

Místo, kde začínaly kapely jako J.A.R., Divokej Bill, Tichá dohoda nebo MIG 21. Vystoupily tu stovky umělců z Česka i zahraničí a konec svého prezidentského úřadu tady oslavoval Václav Havel. To je Rock Café, kultovní klub v centru Prahy, který letos slaví 35 let. Hostem Vojtěcha Přívětivého byl šéf produkce a dramaturgie Rock Café a zároveň 1. místopředseda Krajského výboru Jihočeského kraje hnutí Starostové a nezávislí Šimon Blaschko.

Ref.: Diakon Werner Kießig, Brandenburg an der Havel

« Un dernier clou a été enfoncé lundi sur le cercueil des libertés qui, longtemps, ont fait de Hong Kong un territoire à part dans le monde chinois, soupire Le Monde à Paris. Nommés par des autorités à la botte de Pékin, les juges ont retenu une peine particulièrement lourde, de vingt ans de prison, contre le militant prodémocratie et ancien magnat de la presse Jimmy Lai. (…) Hong Kong est stable, parce qu'elle est bâillonnée, et Xi Jinping y a gagné son pari d'une mise au pas impitoyable, déplore encore Le Monde. Le Monde qui regrette aussi les réactions pour le moins frileuses du monde occidental : « la situation n'a pas dissuadé le Premier ministre britannique, Keir Starmer, de se rendre à Pékin et à Shanghai à la fin janvier, alors que Donald Trump pourrait effectuer une visite en avril ». Justement, le Guardian à Londres dénonce la trop grande prudence des autorités britanniques sur cette affaire. « La Grande-Bretagne pourrait adopter une position plus ferme, estime le quotidien britannique. Cela ne garantirait pas la libération de Jimmy Lai, ni n'obligerait la Grande-Bretagne à rompre tout dialogue avec la Chine. Mais si un citoyen britannique peut être déclaré emprisonné illégalement et que la réaction se limite à des appels privés à la clémence, une limite a été franchie – et d'autres ne manqueront pas de le remarquer ». Oubliés les dissidents ! En effet, triste constat, pointe le New York Times : « la défense des dissidents n'est plus une cause publique dans le monde occidental. Il y a 40 ou 50 ans, le monde libre portait une grande importance à des figures comme Soljenitsyne et Sakharov en Union soviétique, ou Havel et Wałęsa dans les pays du bloc de l'est. En 2007 encore, George W. Bush participait à une conférence de dissidents à Prague, soulignant ainsi leur rôle crucial dans une politique étrangère américaine qui ne se contentait pas de belles paroles en faveur des sociétés libres ». Cette époque est désormais révolue… « En 2009, rappelle le New York Times, Hillary Clinton affirmait que les problèmes de droits de l'homme en Chine ne sauraient interférer avec la crise économique mondiale, la crise climatique et les crises sécuritaires. Autrement dit, il y a des affaires plus importantes à régler que les droits de l'Homme ». Et, de nos jours, souligne encore le journal, « sous Trump, la politique américaine est devenue encore plus opportuniste et immorale ». Et pourtant, déplore le quotidien américain, « ce dont Jimmy Lai a besoin, ce n'est pas de la clémence d'un État totalitaire. C'est d'une campagne internationale en sa faveur, menée par des personnes de bonne volonté qui comprennent que c'est chez les dissidents comme lui que réside la défense de la liberté humaine, sa noblesse et sa nécessité, face à des ennemis impitoyables ». Comment l'Europe peut se passer des États-Unis… Enfin toujours dans le cadre de ce monde fragmenté, à lire dans Libération à Paris ce dossier intitulé : « Europe, comment se passer des États-Unis. (…) La brutalité de Donald Trump a fait comprendre au Vieux Continent qu'il devait s'émanciper du parrain américain, pointe le journal. Face à cette situation préoccupante, l'Union européenne n'a plus de temps à perdre pour prendre son indépendance ». Et elle a les atouts pour le faire, affirme Libération : « l'Union européenne est la deuxième ou troisième puissance économique du monde après les États-Unis et au coude-à-coude avec la Chine, une puissance monétaire avec l'euro, et même la première puissance commerciale de la planète. Il serait temps qu'elle le réalise. Ses récents accords de libre-échange avec l'Amérique latine puis avec l'Inde, lui ouvrent de très gros marchés, aptes à compenser, au moins en partie, la potentielle perte du marché américain ». Toutefois, tempère Libération, « si l'on regarde le verre à moitié vide, la situation actuelle est préoccupante : l'Europe n'est pas prête à s'autogérer, elle reste dépendante des États-Unis dans de très nombreux domaines, et non des moindres, le numérique plus particulièrement, mais aussi la défense, les matières premières critiques ou les systèmes de paiement. Elle peut se défaire de ce fil à la patte mais il lui faudra au moins trois à quatre ans pour y parvenir. Et ce, si la situation politique n'empire pas, prévient Libération, c'est-à-dire si l'extrême droite ne rafle pas le pouvoir en France, en Allemagne ou dans d'autres pays clés de l'Union ».

In this episode of Revolutionize Your Retirement, host Dori Mintzer talks with gerontologist, author, and longtime positive aging pioneer Rick (Harry R.) Moody about his latest book, Climate Change in an Aging Society. Rick describes how he came to link two topics many people avoid, aging and climate, and why he believes older adults have a unique role to play in responding to the “four horsemen of the climate apocalypse”: fire, flood, drought, and heat.Rick and Dori discuss how climate realities are already affecting decisions about where and how to live, home insurance, health, and the ability to “age in place.” Drawing on stories from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, wildfire survivors in Paradise, California, and his own move from Boulder to the Bay Area, Rick underscores that relocation is not a full solution, as almost every region now faces some climate risk. Instead, he argues that the key is to move from paralysis and denial toward action—mitigation and adaptation—rooted in a sense of legacy and intergenerational responsibility.The conversation highlights Rick's core message: “Here, now, you, hope.” He explains why hope is not naïve optimism but “a verb with its sleeves rolled up,” and outlines three powerful roles for individuals at any age: citizen (voting, marching, contacting elected officials), consumer (choices about energy use, travel, food, and purchases), and investor (shifting money away from fossil fuels and toward more sustainable options). About the Guest – Rick (Harry R.) Moody, PhDRick (Harry R.) Moody, PhD, is a pioneering gerontologist, educator, and author whose work has helped shape the modern conversations on positive aging, ethics, and the spiritual dimensions of later life. He is the former Vice President for Academic Affairs at AARP, visiting faculty in the Creative Longevity and Wisdom program at Fielding Graduate University, and visiting professor at Tohoku University in Japan.Rick previously served as Executive Director of the Brookdale Center on Aging at Hunter College and as Chair of the Board of Elderhostel (now Road Scholar). He has written or co-written numerous influential books and articles, including the widely used gerontology textbook Aging: Concepts and Controversies (now in its 10th edition), Ethics in an Aging Society (the first book on biomedical ethics and aging), and The Five Stages of the Soul, which has been translated into seven languages.Key Topics We CoverWhy climate change and aging belong in the same conversation, and why the title “Climate Change in an Aging Society” matters.The difference between fear, despair, and what Rick calls real hope (not optimism), including reflections from Václav Havel and David Orr.Mitigation vs. adaptation and what each means for older adults deciding whether and where to move, downsize, or age in place.How dreams can mirror climate anxiety and also point toward personal action and awakening in the second half of life.Connect with Rick MoodyMind-Body Website: https://cmbm.org/governance/Books: Five Stages of the SoulAging What to do next: Click to grab our free guide, 10 Key Issues to Consider as You Explore Your Retirement Transition Please leave a review at Apple Podcasts. Join our Revolutionize Your Retirement group on Facebook.

Dieses Mal bei BingeWatcher: Für Toni aus Kacken an der Havel kommt es knüppeldick. Worum es da geht, erfahrt ihr hier bei Eggers und dem Engelhardt.

Hermione Lee is the renowned biographer of Virginia Woolf, Edith Wharton, Penelope Fitzgerald, and, most recently, Tom Stoppard. Stoppard died at the end of last year, so Hermione and I talked about the influence of Shaw and Eliot and Coward on his work, the recent production of The Invention of Love, the role of ideas in Stoppard's writing, his writing process, rehearsals, revivals, movies. We also talked about John Carey, Brian Moore, Virginia Woolf as a critic. Hermione is Emeritus Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford. Her life of Anita Brookner will be released in September.TranscriptHenry Oliver: Today I have the great pleasure of talking to Professor Dame Hermione Lee. Hermione was the first woman to be appointed Goldsmiths' Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford, and she is the most renowned and admired living English biographer. She wrote a seminal life of Virginia Woolf. She's written splendid books about people like Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, and my own favorite, Penelope Fitzgerald. And most recently she has been the biographer of Tom Stoppard, and I believe this year she has a new book coming out about Anita Brookner. Hermione, welcome.Hermione Lee: Thank you very much.Oliver: We're mostly going to talk about Tom Stoppard because he, sadly, just died. But I might have a few questions about your broader career at the end. So tell me first how Shavian is Stoppard's work?Lee: He would reply “very close Shavian,” when asked that question. I think there are similarities. There are obviously similarities in the delighting forceful intellectual play, and you see that very much in Jumpers where after all the central character is a philosopher, a bit of a bonkers philosopher, but still a very rational one.And you see it in someone like Henry, the playwright in The Real Thing, who always has an answer to every argument. He may be quite wrong, but he is full of the sort of zest of argument, the passion for argument. And I think that kind of delight in making things intellectually clear and the pleasure in argument is very Shavian.Where I think they differ and where I think is really more like Chekov, or more like Beckett or more in his early work, the dialogues in T. S. Elliot, and less like Shaw is in a kind of underlying strangeness or melancholy or sense of fate or sense of mortality that rings through almost all the plays, even the very, very funny ones. And I don't think I find that in Shaw. My prime reading time for Shaw was between 15 and 19, when I thought that Shaw was the most brilliant grownup that one could possibly be listening to, and I think now I feel less impressed by him and a bit more impatient with him.And I also think that Shaw is much more in the business of resolving moral dilemmas. So in something like Arms and the Man or Man and Superman, you will get a kind of resolution, you will get a sort of sense of this is what we're meant to be agreeing with.Whereas I think quite often one of the fascinating things about Stoppard is the way that he will give all sides of the question; he will embody all sides of the question. And I think his alter ego there is not Shaw, but the character of Turgenev in The Coast of Utopia, who is constantly being nagged by his radical political friends to make his mind up and to have a point of view and come down on one side or the other. And Turgenev says, I take every point of view.Oliver: I must confess, I find The Coast of Utopia a little dull compared to Stoppard's other work.Lee: It's long. Yes. I don't find it dull. But I think it may be a play to read possibly more than a play to see now. And you're never going to get it put on again anyway because the cast is too big. And who's going to put on a nine-hour free play, 50 people cast about 19th-century Russian revolutionaries? Nobody, I would think.But I find it very absorbing actually. And partly because I'm so interested in Isaiah Berlin, who is a very strong presence in the anti-utopianism of those plays. But that's a matter of opinion.Oliver: No. I like Berlin. One thing about Stoppard that's un-Shavian is that he says his plays begin as a noise or an image or a scene, and then we think of him as this very thinking writer. But is he really more of an intuitive writer?Lee: I think it's a terribly good question. I think it gets right at the heart of the matter, and I think it's both. Sorry, I sound like Turgenev, not making my mind up. But yes, there is an image or there is an idea, or there are often two ideas, as it were, the birth of quantum physics and 18th-century landscape gardening. Who else but Stoppard would put those two things in one play, Arcadia, and have you think about both at once.But the image and the play may well have been a dance between two periods of time together in one room. So I think he never knew what the next play was going to be until it would come at him, as it were. He often resisted the idea that if he chose a topic and then researched it, a play would come out of it. That wasn't what happened. Something would come at him and then he would start doing a great deal of research usually for every play.Oliver: What sort of influence did T. S. Elliot have on him? Did it change the dialogue or, was it something else?Lee: When I was working with him on my biography, he gave me a number of things. I had extraordinary access, and we can perhaps come back to that interesting fact. And most of these things were loans he gave them to me to work on. Then I gave them back to him.But he gave me as a present one thing, which was a black notebook that he had been keeping at the time he was writing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and also his first and only novel Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon, which is little known, which he thought was going to make his career. The book was published in the same week that Rosencrantz came up. He thought the novel was going to make his career and the play was going to sink without trace. Not so. In the notebook there are many quotations from T. S. Elliot, and particularly from Prufrock and the Wasteland, and you can see him working them into the novel and into the play.“I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be.” And that sense of being a disconsolate outsider. Ill at ease with and neurotic about the world that is charging along almost without you, and you are having to hang on to the edge of the world. The person who feels themself to be in internal exile, not at one with the universe. I think that point of view recurs over and over again, right through the work, but also a kind of epigrammatical, slightly mysterious crypticness that Elliot has, certainly in Prufrock and in the Wasteland and in the early poems. He loved that tone.Oliver: Yes. When I read your paper about that I thought about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern quite differently. I've always disliked the idea that it's a sort of Beckett imitation play. It seems very Elliotic having read what you described.Lee: There is Beckett in there. You can't get away from it.Oliver: Surface level.Lee: Beckett's there, but I think the sense of people waiting around—Stoppard's favorite description of Rosencrantz was: “It's two journalists on a story that doesn't add up, which is very clever and funny.”Yes. And that sense of, Vladimir going, “What are we supposed to be doing and how are we going to pass the time?” That's profoundly influential on Stoppard. So I don't think it's just a superficial resemblance myself, but I agree that Elliot just fills the tone of that play and other things too.Oliver: In the article you wrote about Stoppard and Elliot, the title is about biographical questing, and you also described Arcadia as a quest. How important is the idea of the quest to the way you work and also to the way you read Stoppard?Lee: I took as the epigraph for my biography of Stoppard a line from Arcadia: “It's wanting to know that makes us matter, otherwise we're going out the way we came in.” So I think that's right at the heart of Stoppard's work, and it's right at the heart of any biographical work, whether or not it's mine or someone else's. If you can't know, in the sense of knowing the person, knowing what the person is like, and also knowing as much as possible about them from different kinds of sources, then you might as well give up.You can't do it through impressions. You've got to do it through knowledge. Of course, a certain amount of intuition may also come into play, though I'm not the kind of biographer that feels you can make things up. Working on a living person, this is the only time I've done that.It was, of course, a very different thing from working on a safely dead author. And I knew Penelope Fitzgerald a little bit, but I had no idea I was going to write her biography when I had conversations with her and she wouldn't have told me anything anyway. She was so wicked and evasive. But it was a set up thing; he asked me to do it. And we had a proper contract and we worked together over several years, during which time he became a friend, which was a wonderful piece of luck for me.I was doing four things, really. One was reading all the material that he produced, everything, and getting to know it as well as I could. And that's obviously the basic task. One was talking to him and listening to him talk about his life. And he was very generous with those interviews. I'm sure there were things he didn't tell me, but that's fine. One was talking to other people about him, which is a very interesting process. And with someone like him who knew everyone in the literary, theatrical, cultural world, you have to draw a halt at some point. You can't talk to a thousand people, or I'd have still been doing it, so you talk to particularly fellow playwrights, directors, actors who've worked with him often, as well as family and friends. And then you start pitting the versions against each other and seeing what stands up and what keeps being said.Repetition's very important in that process because when several people say the same thing to you, then you know that's right. And that quest also involves some actual footsteps, as Richard Holmes would say. Footsteps. Traveling to places he'd lived in and going to Darjeeling where he had been to school before he came to England, that kind of travel.And then the fourth, and to me, in a way, almost the most exciting, was the opportunity to watch him at work in rehearsal. So with the director's permissions, I was allowed to sit in on two or three processes like that, the 50th anniversary production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the Old Vic with David Lavoie. And Patrick Marber's wonderful production of Leopoldstadt and Nick Hytner's production of The Hard Problem at the National. So I was able to witness the very interesting negotiations going on between Tom and the director and the cast.And also the extraordinary fact that even with a play like Rosencrantz, which is on every school syllabus and has been for 50—however many years—he was still changing things in rehearsal. I can't get over that. And in his view, as he often said, theater is an event and not a text, and so one could see that actual process of things changing before one's very eyes, and that for a biographer, it's a pretty amazing privilege.Oliver: How much of the plays were written during rehearsal do you think?Lee: Oh, 99% of the plays were written with much labor, much precision, much correction alone at his desk. The text is there, the text is written, and everything changes when you go into the rehearsal room because you suddenly find that there isn't enough time with that speech for the person to get from the bed to the door. It's physics; you have to put another line in so that someone can make an entrance or an exit, that kind of thing.Or the actors will say quite often, because they were a bit in awe—by the time he became well known—the actors initially would be a bit in awe of the braininess and the brilliance. And quite often the actors will be saying, “I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't understand this.” You'd often get, “I don't really understand.”And then he would never be dismissive. He would either say, “No, I think you've got to make it work.” I'm putting words into his mouth here. Or he would say, “Okay, let's put another sentence or something like that.”Oliver: Between what he wrote at his desk and the book that's available for purchase now, how much changed? Is it 10%, 50? You know what I mean?Lee: Yes. You should be talking to his editor at Faber, Dinah Wood. So Faber would print a relatively small number for the first edition before the rehearsal process and the final production. And then they would do a second edition, which would have some changes in it. So 2%. Okay. But crucial sometimes.Oliver: No, sure. Very important.Lee: And also some plays like Jumpers went through different additions with different endings, different solutions to plot problems. Travesties, he had a lot of trouble with the Lenins in Travesties because it's the play in which you've got Joyce and you've got Tristan Tzara and you've got the Lenins, and they're all these real people and he makes him talk.But he was a little bit nervous about the Lenin. So what he gave him to say were things that they had really said, that Lenin had really said. As opposed to the Tzara-Joyce stuff, which is all wonderfully made up. The bloody Lenins became a bit of a problem for him. And so that gets changed in later editions you'll find.Oliver: How closely do you think The Real Thing is based on Present Laughter by Noël Coward?Lee: Oh, I think there's a little bit of Coward in there. Yes, sure. I think he liked Coward, he liked Wilde, obviously. He likes brilliant, witty, playful entertainers. He wants to be an entertainer. But I think The Real Thing, he was proud of the fact that The Real Thing was one of the few examples of his plays at that time, which weren't based on something else. They weren't based on Hamlet. They weren't based on The Importance of Being Earnest. It's not based on a real person like Housman. I think The Real Thing came out of himself much more than out of literary models.Oliver: You don't think that Henry is a bit like the actor character in Present Laughter and it's all set in his flat and the couples moving around and the slight element of farce?The cricket bat speech is quite similar to when Gary Essendine—do you remember that very funny young man comes up on the train from Epping or somewhere and lectures him about the social value of art. And Gary Essendine says, “Get a job in a theater rep and write 20 plays. And if you can get one of them put on in a pub, you'll be damn lucky.” It's like a model for him, a loose model.Lee: Yes. Henry, I think you should write an article comparing these two plays.Oliver: Okay. Very good. What does Stoppardian mean?Lee: It means witty. It means brilliant with words. It means fizzing with verbal energy. It means intellectually dazzling. The word dazzling is the one that tends to get used. My own version of Stoppardian is a little bit different from, as it were, those standard received and perfectly acceptable accounts of Stoppardian.My own sense of Stoppardian has more to do with grief and mortality and a sense of not belonging and of puzzlement and bewilderment, within all that I said before, within the dazzling, playful astonishing zest and brio of language and the precision about language.Oliver: Because it's a funny word. It's hard to include Leopoldstadt under the typical use of Stoppardian, because it's an untypical Stoppard.Lee: One of the things about Leopoldstadt that I think is—let's get rid of that trope about Stoppardian—characteristic of him is the remarkable way it deals with time. Here's a play like Arcadia, all set in the same place, all set in the same room, in the same house, and it goes from a big hustling room, late 19th-century family play, just like the beginning of The Coast of Utopia, where you begin with a big family in Russia and then it moves through the '20s and then into the terrible appalling period of the Anschluss and the Holocaust.And then it ends up after the war with an empty room. This room, is like a different kind of theater, an empty room. Three characters, none of whom you know very well, speaking in three different kinds of English, reaching across vast spaces of incomprehension, and you've had these jumps through time.And then at the very end, the original family, all of whom have been destroyed, the original family reappears on the stage. I'm sorry to tell this for anyone who hasn't seen Leopoldstadt. Because when it happens on the stage, it's an absolutely astonishing moment. As if the time has gone round and as if the play, which I think it was for him, was an act of restitution to all those people.Oliver: How often did he use his charm to get his way with actors?Lee: A lot. And not just actors. People he worked with, film people, friends, companions. Charm is such an interesting thing, isn't it? Because we shouldn't deviate, but there's always a slightly sinister aspect to the word charm as in, a magic charm. And one tends to be a bit suspicious of charm. And he knew he had charm and he was physically very magnetic and good looking and very funny and very attentive to people.But I think the charm, in his case, he did use it to get the right results, and he did use it, as he would say, “to look after my plays.” He was always, “I want to look after my plays.” And that's why he went back to rehearsal when there were revivals and so on. But he wasn't always charming. Patrick Marber, who's a friend of his and who directed Leopoldstadt, is very good on how irritable Stoppard could be sometimes in rehearsal. And I've heard that from other directors too—Jack O'Brien, who did the American productions of things like The Invention of Love.If Stoppard felt it wasn't right, he could get quite cross. So this wasn't a sort of oleaginous character at all. It's not smooth, it's not a smooth charm at all. But yes, he knew his power and he used it, and I think in a good way. I think he was a benign character actually. And one of the things that was very fascinating to me, not only when he died and there was this great outpouring of tributes, very heartfelt tributes, I thought. But also when I was working on the biography, I was going around the world trying to find people to say bad things about him, because what I didn't want to do was write a hagiography. You don't want to do that; there would be no point. And it was genuinely quite hard.And I don't know the theater world; it's not my world. I got to know it a little bit then. But I have never necessarily thought of the theater world as being utterly loving and generous about everybody else. I'm sure there are lots of rivalries and spitefulness, as there is in academic life, all the rest of it. But it was very hard to find anyone with a bad word to say about him, even people who'd come up against the steeliness that there is in him.I had an interview with Steven Spielberg about him, with whom he worked a lot, and with whom he did Empire of the Sun. And I would ask my interviewees if they could come up with two or three adjectives or an adjective that would sum him up, that would sum Stoppard up to them. And when I asked Spielberg this question, he had a little think and then he said, intransigent. I thought, great. He must be the only person who ever stood up to him.Oliver: What was his best film script? Did he write a really great film.Lee: That one. I think partly the novel, I don't know if you know the Ballard novel, the Empire of the Sun, it's a marvelous novel. And Ballard was just a magical and amazing writer, a great hero of mine. But I think what Stoppard did with that was really clever and brilliant.I know people like Brazil, the Terry Gilliam sort of surrealist way. And there's some interesting early work. Most of his film work was not one script; it was little bits that he helped with. So there's famously the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he did most of the dialogue for Harrison Ford.But there are others like the One Hundred and One Dalmatians, where I think there's one line, anonymously Stoppardian in there. One of the things about the obituaries that slightly narked me was that there, I felt there was a bit too much about the films. Truly, I don't think the film work was—he wanted it to be right and he wanted to get it right—but it wasn't as close to his heart as the theater work. And indeed the work for radio, which I thought was generally underwritten about when he died. There was some terrific work there.Oliver: Yes. And there aren't that many canonical writers who've been great on the radio.Lee: Absolutely. He did everything. He did film, he did radio. He wrote some opera librettos. He really did everything. And on top of that, there was the great work for the public good, which I think is a very important part of his legacy, his history.Oliver: How much crossover influence is there between the different bits of his career? Does the screenwriting influence the theater writing and the radio and so on? Or is he just compartmentalized and able to do a lot of different things?Lee: That's such an interesting question. I don't think I've thought about it enough. I think there are very cinematic aspects to some of the plays, like Night and Day, for instance, the play about journalism. That could easily have been a film.And perhaps Hapgood as well, although it could be a kind of John le Carré type film thriller, though it's such a set of complicated interlocking boxes that I don't know that it would work as a film. It's not one of my favorite players, I must say. I struggle a little bit with Hapgood. But, yes, I'm sure that they fed into each other. Because he was so busy, he was often doing several things at once. So he was keeping things in boxes and opening the lid of that box. But mentally things must have overlapped, I'm sure.Oliver: He once joked that rather than having read Wittgenstein from cover to cover, he had only read the covers. How true is that? Because I know some people who would say he's very clever in everything, but he's not as clever as he looks. It's obviously not true that he only read the covers.Lee: I think there was a phase, wasn't there, after the early plays when people felt that he was—it's that English phrase, isn't it—too clever by half. Which you would never hear anyone in France saying of someone that they were too clever by half. So he was this kind of jazzy intellectual who put all his ideas out there, and he was this sort of self-educated savant who hadn't been to Oxford.There was quite a lot of that about in the earlier years, I think. And a sense that he was getting away with it, to which I would countermand with the story of the writing of The Invention of Love. So what attracted him to the figure of Housman initially was not the painful, suppressed homosexual love story, but the fact that here was this person who was divided into a very pernickety, savagely critical classical editor of Latin and a romantic lyric poet. In order to work out how to turn this into a play, he probably spent about six years taking Latin lessons, reading everything he could read on the history of classical literature. Obviously reading about Housman, engaging in conversation with classical scholars about Housman's, finer points of editorial precision about certain phrases. And what he used from that was the tip of the iceberg. But the iceberg was real.He really did that work and he often used to say that it was his favorite play because he'd so much enjoyed the work that went into it. I think he took what he needed from someone like Wittgenstein. I know you don't like The Coast of Utopia very much, but if you read his background to Coast of Utopia, what went into it, and if you compare what's in the plays, those three plays, with what's in the writing about those revolutionaries, he read everything. He may have magpied it, but he's certainly knows what he's talking about. So I defend him a bit against that, I think.Oliver: Good, good. Did you see the recent production at the Hamstead Theatre of The Invention of Love?Lee: I did, yes.Oliver: What did you think?Lee: I liked it. I thought it was rather beautifully done. I liked those boats rowing around that clicked together. I thought Simon Russell Beale was extremely good, particularly very moving. And very good in Housman's vindictiveness as a critic. He is not a nice person in that sense. And his scornfulness about the women students in his class, that kind of thing. And so there was a wonderful vitriol and scorn in Russell Beale's performance.I think when you see it now, some of the Oxford context is a little bit clunky, those scenes with Jowett and Pater and so on, it's like a bit of a caricature of the context of cultural life at the time, intellectual life at the time. But I think that the trope of the old and the young Housman meeting each other and talking to each other, which I still think is very moving. I thought it worked tremendously well.Oliver: What are Tom Stoppard's poems like?Lee: You see them in Indian Ink where he invents a poet, Flora Crewe, who is a poet who was died young, turn of the century, bold feminist associated with Bloomsbury and gets picked up much later as a kind of Sylvia Plath-type, HD type heroine. And when you look at Stoppard's manuscripts in the Harry Ransom Center in the University of Austin, in Texas, there is more ink spent on writing and rewriting those poems of Flora Crewe than anything else I saw in the manuscript. He wrote them and rewrote them.Early on he wrote some Elliot—they're very like Elliot—little poems for himself. I think there are probably quite a lot of love poems out there, which I never saw because they belong to the people for whom he wrote them. So I wouldn't know about those.Oliver: How consistently did Stoppard hold to a kind of liberal individualism in his politics?Lee: He was accused of being very right wing in the 1980s really, 1970s, 1980s, when the preponderant tendency for British drama was radicalism, Royal Court, left wing, all of that. And Stoppard seemed an outlier then, because he approved of Thatcher. He was a friend of Thatcher. He didn't like the print union. It was particularly about newspapers because he'd been a newspaper man in his youth. That was his alternative university education, working in Bristol on the newspapers. He had a romance heroic feeling about the value of the journalist to uphold democracy, and he hated the pressure of the print unions to what he thought at the time was stifling that.He changed his mind. I think a lot about that. He had been very idealistic and in love with English liberal values. And I think towards the end of his life he felt that those were being eroded. He voted lots of different ways. He voted conservative, voted green. He voted lib dem. I don't if he ever voted Labour.Oliver: But even though his personal politics shifted and the way he voted shifted, there is something quite continuous from the early plays through to Rock ‘n' Roll. Is there a sort of basic foundation that doesn't change, even though the response to events and the idea about the times changes?Lee: Yes, I think that's right, and I think it can be summed up in what Henry says in The Real Thing about politics, which is a version of what's often said in his plays, which is public postures have the configuration of private derangement. So that there's a deep suspicion of political rhetoric, especially when it tends towards the final solution type, the utopian type, the sense that individual lives can be sacrificed in the interest of an ultimate rationalized greater good.And then, he's worked in the '70s for the victims of Soviet communism. His work alongside in support of Havel and Charter 77. And he wrote on those themes such as Every Good Boy Deserves Favour and Professional Foul. Those are absolutely at the heart of what he felt. And they come back again when he's very modest about this and kept it quiet. But he did an enormous amount of work for the Belarus exile, Belarus Free Theater collective, people in support of those trying to work against the regime in Belarus.And then the profound, heartfelt, intense feeling of horror about what happened to people in Leopoldstadt. That's all part of the same thing. I think he's a believer in individual freedom and in democracy and has a suspicion of political rhetoric.Oliver: How much were some of his great parts written for specific actors? Because I sometimes have a feeling when I watch one of his plays now, if I'd been here when Felicity Kendal was doing this, I would be getting the whole thing, but I'm getting most of it.Lee: I'm sure that's right. And he built up a team around him: Peter Wood, the director and John Wood who's such an extraordinary Henry Carr in in in Travesties. And Michael Hordern as George the philosopher in Jumpers. And he wrote a lot for Kendal, in the process of becoming life companions.But he'd obviously been writing and thinking of her very much, for instance, in Arcadia. And also I think very much, it's very touching now to see the production of Indian Ink that's running at Hampstead Theatre in which Felicity Kendal is playing the older woman, the surviving older sister of the poet Flora Crewe, where of course the part of Flora Crewe was written for her. And there's something very touching about seeing that now. And, in fact, the first night of that production was the day of Stoppard's funeral. And Kendal couldn't be at the funeral, of course, because she was in the first night of his play. That's a very touching thing.Oliver: Why did he think the revivals came too soon?Lee: I don't really know the answer to that. I think he thought a play had to hook up a lot of oxygen and attract a lot of attention. If you were lucky while it was on, people would remember the casting and the direction of that version of it, and it would have a kind of memory. You had to be there.But people who were there would remember it and talk about it. And if you had another production very soon after that, then maybe it would diminish or take away that effect. I think he had a sort of loyalty to first productions often. What do you think about that? I'm not quite sure of the answer to that.Oliver: I don't know. To me it seems to conflict a bit with his idea that it's a living thing and he's always rewriting it in the rehearsal room. But I think probably what you say is right, and he will have got it right in a certain way through all that rehearsing. You then need to wait for a new generation of people to make it fresh again, if you like.Lee: Or not a generation even, but give it five years.Oliver: Everyone new and this theater's working differently now. We can rework it in our own way. Can we have a few questions about your broader career before we finish?Lee: Depends what they are.Oliver: Your former colleague John Carey died at a similar time to Stoppard. What do you think was his best work?Lee: John Carey's best work? Oh. I thought the biography of Golding was pretty good. And I thought he wrote a very good book on Thackery. And I thought his work on Milton was good. I wasn't so keen on The Intellectuals and the Masses. He and I used to have vociferous arguments about that because he had cast Virginia Woolf with all the modernist fascists, as it were. He'd put her in a pile with Wyndham Lewis and Ezra Pound and so on. And actually, Virginia Woolf was a socialist feminist. And this didn't seem to have struck him because he was so keen to expose her frightful snobbery, which is what people in England reading Woolf, especially middle class blokes, were horrified by.And she is a snob, there's no doubt about it. But she knew that and she lacerated herself for it too. And I think he ignored all the other aspects of her. So I was angry about that. But he was the kind of person you could have a really good argument with. That was one of the really great things about John.Oliver: He seems to be someone else who was amenable and charming, but also very steely.Lee: Yes, I think he probably was I think he probably was. You can see that in his memoir, I think.Oliver: What was Carmen Callil like?Lee: Oh. She was a very important person in my life. It was she who got me involved in writing pieces for Virago. And it was she who asked me to write the life of Virginia Woolf for Chatto. And she was an enormous, inspiring encourager as she was to very many people. And I loved her.But I was also, as many people were, quite daunted by her. She was temperamental, she was angry. She was passionate. She was often quite difficult. Not a word I like to use about women because there's that trope of difficult women, but she could be. And she lost her temper in a very un-English way, which was quite a sight to behold. But I think of her as one of the most creative and influential publishers of the 20th century.Oliver: Will there be a biography of her?Lee: I don't know. Yes, it's a really interesting question, and I've been asking her executors whether they have any thoughts about that. Somebody said to me, oh, who wants a biography of a publisher? But, actually, publishers are really important people often, so I hope there would be. Yes. And it would need to be someone who understood the politics of feminism and who understood about coming from Australia and who understood about the Catholic background and who understood about her passion for France. And there are a whole lot of aspects to that life. It's a rich and complex life. Yes, I hope there will be someday.Oliver: Her papers are sitting there in the British Library.Lee: They are. And in fact—you kindly mentioned this to start with—I've just finished a biography of the art historian and novelist, Anita Brookner, who won the Booker prize in 1984 for a novel called Hotel du Lac.And Carmen and Anita were great buddies, surprisingly actually, because they were very different kinds of characters. And the year before she died, Carmen, who knew I was working on Anita, showed me all her diary entries and all the letters she'd kept from Anita. And that's the kind of generous person that she was.That material is now sitting in the British Library, along with huge reams of correspondence between Carmen and many other people. And it's an exciting archive.Oliver: She seems to have had a capacity to be friends with almost anyone.Lee: Yes, I think there were people she would not have wanted to be friends with. She was very disapproving of a lot of political figures and particularly right-wing figures, and there were people she would've simply spat at if she was in the room with them. But, yes, she an enormous range of friends, and she was, as I said, she was fantastically encouraging to younger women writers.And, also, another aspect of Carmen's life, which I greatly admired and was fascinated by: In Virago she would often be resuscitating the careers of elderly women writers who had been forgotten or neglected, including Antonia White and including Rosamund Lehmann. And part of Carmen's job at Virago, as she felt, was not just to republish these people, some of whom hadn't had a book published for decades, but also to look after them. And they were all quite elderly and often quite eccentric and often quite needy. And Carmen would be there, bringing them out and looking after them and going around to see them. And really marvelous, I think.Oliver: Yes, it is. Tell me about Brian Moore.Lee: Breean, as he called himself.Oliver: Oh, I'm sorry.Lee: No, it's all right. I think Brian became a friend because in the 1980s I had a book program on Channel 4, which was called Book Four. It had a very small audience, but had a wonderful time over several years interviewing lots and lots of writers who had new books out. We didn't have a budget; it was a table and two chairs and not the kind of book program you see on the television anymore. And I got to know Brian through that and through reviewing him a bit and doing interviews with him, and my husband and I would go out and visit him and his wife Jean.And I loved the work. I thought the work was such a brilliant mixture of popular cultural forms, like the thriller and historical novel and so on. And fascinating ideas about authority and religion and how to be free, how to break free of the bonds of what he'd grown up with in Ireland, in Northern Ireland, the bombs of religious autocracy, as it were. And very surreal in some ways as well. And he was also a very charming, funny, gregarious person who could be quite wicked about other writers.And, he was a wonderfully wicked and funny companion. What breaks my heart about Brian Moore is that while he was alive, he was writing a novel maybe every other year or every three years, and people would review them and they were talked about, and I don't think they were on academic syllabuses but they were really popular. And when he died and there were no more books, it just went. You can think of other writers like that who were tremendously well known in their time. And then when there weren't any more books, just went away. You ask people, now you go out and ask people, say, “What about The Temptation of Eileen Hughes or The Doctor's Wife or Black Robe? And they'll go, “Sorry?”Oliver: If anyone listening to this wants to try one of his novels, where do you say they should start?Lee: I think I would start with The Doctor's Wife and The Temptation of Eileen Hughes. And then if one liked those, one would get a taste for him. But there's plenty to choose from.Oliver: What about Catholics?Lee: Yes. Catholics is a wonderful book. Yes. Wonderful book. Bit like Muriel Spark's The Abbess of Crewe, I think.Oliver: How important is religion to Penelope Fitzgerald's work?Lee: She would say that she felt guilty about not having put her religious beliefs more explicitly into her fiction. I'm very glad that she didn't because I think it is deeply important and she believes in miracles and saints and angels and manifestations and providence, but she doesn't spell it out.And so when at the end of The Gate of Angels, for instance, there is a kind of miracle on the last page but it's much better not to have it spelt out as a miracle, in my view. And in The Blue Flower, which is not my favorite of her books, but it's the book of the greatest genius possibly. And I think she was a genius. There is a deep interest in Novalis's romantic philosophical ideas about a spiritual life, beyond the physical life, no more doctrinally than that. And she, of course, believes in that. I think she believed, in an almost Platonic way, that this life was a kind of cave of shadows and that there was something beyond that. And there are some very mysterious moments in her books, which, if they had been explained as religious experiences, I think would've been much less forceful and much less intense.Oliver: What is your favorite of her books?Lee: Oh, The Beginning of Spring. The Beginning of Spring is set in Moscow just before the revolution. And its concerns an Englishman who runs a print and publishing works. And it's based quite a lot on some factual narratives about people in Moscow at the time. And it's about the feeling of that place and that time, but it's also about being in love with two people at the same time.And, yes, and it's about cultural clashes and cultural misunderstanding, and it is an astonishingly evocative book. And when asked about this book, interviewers would say to Penelope, oh, she must have lived in Moscow for ages to know so much about it. And sometimes she would say, “Yes, I lived there for years.” And sometimes she would say, “No, I've never been there in my life.” And the fact was she'd had a week's book tour in Moscow with her daughter. And that was the only time she ever went to Russia, but she read. So it was a wonderful example of how she would be so wicked; she would lie.Oliver: Yes.Lee: Because she couldn't be bothered to tell the truth.Oliver: But wasn't she poking fun at their silly questions?Lee: Yes. It's not such a silly question. I would've asked her that question. It is an astonishing evocation of a place.Oliver: No, I would've asked it too, but I do feel like she had this sense of it's silly to be asked questions at all. It's silly to be interviewed.Lee: I interviewed her about three times—and it was fascinating. And she would deflect. She would deflect, deflect. When you asked her about her own work, she would deflect onto someone else's work or she would tell you a story. But she also got quite irritable.So for instance, there's a poltergeist in a novel called The Bookshop. And the poltergeist is a very frightening apparition and very strong chapter in the book. And I said to her in interview, “Look, lots of people think this is just superstition. There aren't poltergeists.” And she looked at me very crossly and said they just haven't been there. They don't know what they're talking about. Absolutely factual and matter of fact about the reality of a poltergeist.Oliver: What makes Virginia Woolf's literary criticism so good?Lee: Oh, I think it's a kind of empathy actually. That she has an extraordinary ability to try and inhabit the person that she's writing about. So she doesn't write from the point of view of, as it were, a dry, historical appreciation.She's got the facts and she's read the books, but she's trying to intimately evoke what it felt like to be that writer. I don't mean by dressing it up with personal anecdotes, but just she has an extraordinary way of describing what that person's writing is like, often in images by using images and metaphors, which makes you feel you are inside the story somehow.And she loves anecdotes. She's very good at telling anecdotes, I think. And also she's not soft, but she's not harshly judgmental. I think she will try and get the juice out of anything she's writing about. Most of these literary criticism pieces were written for money and against the clock and whilst doing other things.So if you read her on Dorothy Wordsworth or Mary Wollstonecraft or Henry James, there's a wonderful sense of, you feel your knowledge has been expanded. Knowledge in the sense of knowing the person; I don't mean in the sense of hard facts.Oliver: Sure. You've finished your Anita Brookner biography and that's coming this year.Lee: September the 10th this year, here and in the States.Oliver: What will you do next?Lee: Yes. That's a very good question, though a little soon, I feel.Oliver: Is there someone whose life you always wanted to write, but didn't?Lee: No. No, there isn't. Not at the moment. Who knows?Oliver: You are open to it. You are open.Lee: Who knows what will come up.Oliver: Yes. Hermione Lee, this was a real pleasure. Thank you very much.Lee: Thank you very much. It was a treat. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

Die Potsdamer wissen: Italien findet man hier an vielen Ecken. Denn zwischen Café und Pizzeria finden sich prachtvolle Bauten nach italienischem Vorbild. Doch wo genau in Potsdam findet man italienischen Flair? In dieser Episode sprechen wir mit Alessandro, als Potsdamer und Italiener erzählt er uns von seinen Lieblingsorten in der königlichen Stadt an der Havel. Alessandro's Viertel, Plätze und Gärten: Alter Markt mit dem Potsdam Museum, der Nikolaikirche und dem Museum Barberini https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/alter-markt-potsdams-historische-mitte https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/potsdam-museum-forum-fuer-kunst-und-geschichte https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/nikolaikirche-potsdam https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/museum-barberini Neuer Markt mit dem Kutschstall https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/neuer-markt-potsdam Holländisches Viertel https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/hollaendisches-viertel-ein-stueck-holland-in-brandenburg Unidram, Internationales Theaterfestival Potsdam im Kunst- und Kulturquartier Schiffbauergasse https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/schiffbauergasse-internationales-kunst-und-kulturquartier 11-LINE Potsdam – Galerie | Caffé | Bar, Charlottenstr. 119, 14467 Potsdam https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/gastro/11-line-galerie-caffe-bar Napule'e-Neapolitanische Pizza, Gutenbergstr. 90, 14467 Potsdam Müseler's Brotladen, Geschwister-Scholl-Str. 3, 14471 Potsdam Auf eine Passeggiata in Potsdam: Der Marlygarten und das Orangerieschloss im Park Sanssouci https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/marlygarten-im-park-sanssouci https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/orangerieschloss-im-park-sanssouci#/ https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/park-sanssouci Die Freundschaftsinsel mit der Inselbühne https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/freundschaftsinsel-potsdam https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/poi/inselbuehne-auf-der-freundschaftsinsel https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/planung/tourentipps Lust auf noch mehr Potsdam-Momente? Unsere öffentlichen Rundgänge nehmen dich mit zu großen Geschichten, versteckten Hinterhöfen, Filmlegenden und weltbewegenden Orten. Alle Termine und Themen gibt's hier: https://www.potsdamtourismus.de/stadtfuehrungen/oeffentliche-fuehrungen#/ Die Songs unserer Gäste findest du in der Spotify-Playlist „Dein Potsdam-Gefühl“ – perfekt für die Vorfreude auf den nächsten Potsdam-Urlaub. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2WGvNb97MC832YDeucbKdA

Send us a textRomeine 12:15 Wees bly saam met dié wat bly is en treur saam met dié wat treur. Die sterkste band wat ons met iemand kan bou, is die een wat "empatie" genoem word. Wat behels empatie? Dit beteken dat ons met aandag na hulle luister; dat ons voel wat hulle voel; of hulle nou reg of verkeerd is. Maar die belangrikste is seker dat húlle voel dat hulle gesien word; voel dat hulle gehoor word; en voel dat hulle verstaan word. Dis soos om suurstof in ‘n bedompige kamer in te pomp. Hulle kan uiteindelik asemhaal.Václav Havel was 'n Tsjeggiese dramaturg, andersdenkende en staatsman wat 'n simbool van vreedsame weerstand teen kommunistiese onderdrukking geword het. As president het hy eenkeer 'n tronk, waar sy politieke vyande, waarvan sommige van hulle vir jare lank in die tronk aangehou is, besoek.In plaas daarvan om wraak te neem, het hy na hulle geluister. Hy het empatie gehad. Hy het op 'n vreedsame oorgang van mag aangedring. Hy het selfs met sy voormalige teenstanders dialoog gevoer. Een van die tronkbewaarders het later gesê: "Hy het ons soos mense behandel toe niemand anders dit sou doen nie."Romeine 12:15 Wees bly saam met dié wat bly is en treur saam met dié wat treur.Maak ons onsself nie dikwels, te midde van ons besige lewe, skuldig daaraan om die suksesse en prestasies van diegene rondom ons te misken nie? 'n Woord van bemoediging vir goeie werk kos niks. 'n Glimlag en 'n vonkel in jou oë wanneer hulle 'n oorwinning behaal het, is suiwer goud.Dit is selfs makliker om iemand wat in lyding verkeer, te verwaarloos; want dit is rou, dit is moeilik, dit is ongerieflik. Tog sal die trane in jou oë wanneer jy hulle pyn voel, 'n band bou wat waarskynlik nooit gebreek sal word nie.Wie in jou lewe het jou empatie nodig? Aan wie kan jy nader kom deur te voel wat hulle voel?Empatie skree nie. Dit maak bloot die deur oop en transformeer enigiets van 'n nasie, soos Havel gedoen het, tot 'n enkele siel in die proses.Lag en vier fees saam met elkeen wat bly is. Huil saam met elkeen wat hartseer is.Dis God se Woord. Vars ... vir jou ... vandag.Support the showEnjoying The Content?For the price of a cup of coffee each month, you can enable Christianityworks to reach 10,000+ people with a message about the love of Jesus!DONATE R50 MONTHLY

Read about The Freedom Project here Schedule a call with Gary to learn more about The Freedom Project here   This Dead Talk episode is a channeled teaching on inner freedom after trauma, guided by two historical figures: Etty Hillesum (young Jewish diarist who wrote from Westerbork and later Auschwitz) and Václav Havel (Czech dissident who became the first president of the Czech Republic after the Velvet Revolution). The core theme: freedom doesn't come from being unhurt or from circumstances improving—it comes from no longer organizing life around the wound. Etty found freedom inside a collapsing world (Holocaust reality). Havel found freedom inside an oppressive structure (communism), and lived long enough to see inner freedom reflected outward in social change. The main teaching: trauma is not the event They redefine trauma as not what happened, and not even the pain. Trauma is: the moment life became smaller to survive, the internal contraction that says: I must be less open, feel less, expect less, risk less. This contraction becomes an internal “government” that continues long after the danger passes. It decides what you can feel, hope for, explore, or trust. In that sense, trauma is protective, intelligent, temporary by design—but it becomes limiting when it interferes with love, presence, and the ability to be touched by something good. Freedom, they say, is not “healing trauma” as a project. It's outgrowing it by restoring your range: what you're willing to feel, how much you're willing to love, how much you're willing to let in. “Imprint” vs trauma They introduce a second layer: imprint—fear and limitation installed before you had direct experience or choice. Imprints come from: parents, culture, religion, schooling, media, authority, warnings and stories that the child's body stores as reality, not information, and sometimes genetic or past-life residue. Because imprint fear is “older” than the current opportunity, it cannot be reasoned away. It must be met. The body is reacting to memory, not to now. Examples of common imprints: Money: “money runs out,” “never enough,” “security requires effort.” Authority: “I'll get in trouble,” “rules protect me from myself.” Love: “if I'm fully myself, I'll be left,” “connection is fragile.” Body/health: “symptoms mean danger,” “aging means decline.” Visibility/expression: “being free has consequences.” They note the irony: many listeners are not materially poor, yet their nervous systems are “poor” from imprinting. Practical guidance they offer They emphasize this is not a heavy “healing session,” but a noticing: “Who are you now that your nervous system no longer needs to lead your life?” “What became unavailable that might now be safe to reopen?” Key practices: Acknowledge the story as a helper “Thank you for helping me survive. You don't need to work so hard anymore.” The story persists when it doesn't feel recognized. Replace “Why did this happen?” with “What's happening now?” “Why” pulls you into the past; “now” returns you to presence. When you feel righteous/need to be right: check the body Righteousness can signal you're inside a trauma loop—trading aliveness for certainty. Ask: “What does this story allow me to avoid risking?” Trauma stories often protect you from the vulnerability of expansion. Use proximity, not coercion Don't force yourself through fear. Sit with it, let the body learn safety gradually. Talk to fear without consulting it “I see you're afraid. Thank you for trying to keep me safe. We don't have to decide today.” They make a key distinction: overriding fear to do something “wild” isn't necessarily expansion—real expansion honors safety and lets fear soften through presence. Group field moment There's a vivid description of the group's energetic field: an oval, forward-oriented, permeable, slate-blue/soft gold tone—mature, coherent, grounded, not organized around wounds. “Connection without dependency; individuality without isolation.” Humor appears as a low “center of gravity”—less seriousness, more embodied decision-making. Etty's “inner tower” and the role of acceptance Etty explains her awakening in the camps: it wasn't dramatic kundalini-style; it began when she accepted the war would not end in time for her. That acceptance removed hope-as-victimhood and opened an “inner tower” (a state of unassailable coherence). The tower wasn't protection—it was perspective. She remembered a dimension of being untouched by threat, time, or harm. Her line: “Belief didn't save me. My alignment did.” The episode closes with a powerful reframing: At first, releasing struggle doesn't feel like a rush—it feels like an exhale, a spaciousness. That space can feel unsettling because struggle used to provide identity. Eventually you see how “future safety” becomes comical—presence is the only real safety.

durée : 00:02:48 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Oui, je sais, le rapport n'est pas évident. Il faut donc que je m'explique. Le marchand de quatre saisons est un personnage imaginé - ou probablement imaginé - par Václav Havel, immense auteur de théâtre et premier président de la Tchécoslovaquie démocratique, l'un des grands hommes contemporains. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

The Routledge Handbook of 1989 and the Great Transformation analyzes the pivotal year of 1989 and the transformation processes that resulted from a historical perspective. It brings research done over the past five years at the Research Center for the History of Transformations (RECET) into dialogue with cutting-edge scholarship by political scientists, sociologists, historians, literary scholars and anthropologists at institutions across Europe and beyond. In this episode of the Transformative Podcast, two of the handbook's editors Rosamund Johnston and Jannis Panagiotidis (both RECET) talk through the four main arguments made by the book: that the “great transformation” presented here started earlier than 1989; that its legacies linger in spaces, practices, and objects; that in order to grasp the scale of what happened around 1989, it is important to bring Eastern and Central Europe into conversation with other global regions; and that the former Eastern Bloc served as an important node in a larger, global transformation. They also reflect upon how the events of that momentous year can be used as a hinge to explore longer-term processes of economic, social, political, and cultural transformation linked to the rise of neoliberalism and globalization since the 1970s. Find out more about the Routledge Handbook. Rosamund Johnston is a postdoctoral researcher at RECET. She is the author of Red Tape: Radio and Politics in Czechoslovakia, 1945-1969 (Stanford UP, 2024) and Havel v Americe (Host, 2019). Jannis Panagiotidis is the Scientific Director of RECET. He wrote the books: Antiosteuropäischer Rassismus in Deutschland (Anti-East European Racism in Germany) (Beltz/Juventa, 2024), The Unchosen Ones. Diaspora, Nation, and Migration in Israel and Germany (Indiana UP, 2019) and Postsowjetische Migration in Deutschland: Eine Einführung (Beltz/Juventa, 2021).

durée : 00:02:48 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Oui, je sais, le rapport n'est pas évident. Il faut donc que je m'explique. Le marchand des quatre saisons est un personnage imaginé - ou probablement imaginé - par Václav Havel, immense auteur de théâtre et premier président de la Tchécoslovaquie démocratique, l'un des grands hommes contemporains. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

« Guerre des mots » : quand le président tchèque accuse le chef de la diplomatie de le faire chanter - Václav Havel au cœur du débat géopolitique après le discours de Mark Carney à Davos - En 2026, une collection inédite de cartes QSL pour les 90 ans de Radio Prague International

« Guerre des mots » : quand le président tchèque accuse le chef de la diplomatie de le faire chanter - Václav Havel au cœur du débat géopolitique après le discours de Mark Carney à Davos - En 2026, une collection inédite de cartes QSL pour les 90 ans de Radio Prague International

Budget de l'État 2026 : bientôt la fin des « douzièmes provisoires » en Tchéquie - La politique étrangère tchèque tiraillée entre les positions du gouvernement et du président - 30 ans depuis la disparition d'Olga Havlová, « libre penseuse » et première épouse de Václav Havel

Budget de l'État 2026 : bientôt la fin des « douzièmes provisoires » en Tchéquie - La politique étrangère tchèque tiraillée entre les positions du gouvernement et du président - 30 ans depuis la disparition d'Olga Havlová, « libre penseuse » et première épouse de Václav Havel

Freedom is born not only through God's miracles, but through human agency. Drawing on the Torah reading, Václav Havel, and contemporary politics, Rabbi Cosgrove challenges us to stop “living within the lie,” reclaim our moral voice, and take agency in a consequential time.

Az előfizetők (de csak a Belső kör és Közösség csomagok tulajdonosai!) már szombat hajnalban hozzájutnak legfrissebb epizódunk teljes verziójához. A hétfőn publikált, ingyen meghallgatható verzió tíz perccel rövidebb. Itt írtunk arról, hogy tudod meghallgatni a teljes adást. Az ideális jégeralsó, a tökéletes pattanástapasz és az online szerelem nyomában. Vietnamiak a pult mögött. El a kezekkel a cigányzenétől! 00:33 Winkler Róbert gyalog, de jégeralsóban. Mennyit ér egy jéger? A podcastoláshoz ideális alsónemű.07:00 Geszti Péter, a geopolitikai elemző. Mark Carney beszéde. Disszidensek és ellenzékiek. A nyolcmilliárd geopolitikai elemző bolygója.12:39 Trump davosi beszéde. Bede Márton cikke Európa lapjairól. Bizalomvesztés Európában. A kanadai Matolcsy.16:56 Carney Pekingben. Havel nem nyalt volna. Kínában lehet bízni. Jó hír: csökken Orbán áldozatainak száma. Az emberiség előtt álló lényegesebb problémák.20:33 Gulyás Kínában. Kínai paprika Szerbiában.23:56 Cigányzene a Szaletlyben. Lakossági techno az Asadorban. A Dohány utcai Kulacs. RATM a a Monokini Kantinban. Stoner metal a Flying Birdben. Az Om és az orosz Phurpa.30:33 Fejes László ismét megaláz. A lappok bögölyellenes intézkedései. Saunahattu, 2. rész. Finn gyerekek szaunázási szokásai.35:20 Marokkó-Szenegál. A szenegáli kapus törölközője. Interkontinentális kupák az 1960-as évek második felében Argentínában. Törő máig fáj!39:59 A probiotikum-kamu. Az NHS szakvéleménye. Homeopátia a magyar egészségügyben.43:47 Vietnamibolt-dömping Pest különböző kerületeiben. Univerzális fogantyú és macskakaparó.49:00 Uj Péter operációs rendszert telepít.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest Mário Havel Panelists Eriol Fox | Victory Brown Show Notes In this episode of Sustain, host Eriol Fox and co-host Victory Brown are live at Devconnect Conference in Buenos Aires, with Mário Havel, protocol support at the Ethereum Foundation and co-founder of the Bordel Hackerspace in Prague. Mário shares his experience working in protocol support, contributing to the evolution and scalability of Ethereum. He dives into the significance of the Hackerspace 'Bordell' in Prague, discussing its role in fostering a creative and collaborative community focused on free and open source software. Mário also highlights the philosophical underpinnings of free software, emphasizing user freedom and security, and discusses the impact of corporate involvement in open source projects, the complexities of sustaining such initiatives, and the innovative “crowd-loaning” model used to fund their Hackerspace through Ethereum. Hit download now to hear more! [00:00:40] Mário explains working at the Ethereum Foundation, his role on the protocol support team, the Ethereum Protocol Fellowship, and he introduces Bordel Hackerspace as a community space for hackers, makers, and artists. [00:04:08] He elaborates on the Hackerspace which is explicitly free and open source software users and contributors and his free and open source software philosophy. Eriol reflects on her own journey learning what “free” really means in this context. [00:07:54] Mário dives into how scalability, security, and new devs/fellowships link directly to sustainability. [00:12:48] Mário discusses corporate influence on free/open source. He emphasizes the need for more neutral, community driven structures so projects can accept money without losing independence. [00:15:25] Eriol contrasts joyful, playful hacker culture with the pressure many projects feel to “look corporate” to survive. Mário shares his personal stance: he avoids proprietary software and doesn't use banks or KYC, preferring free/open monetary systems like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero. [00:17:41] Mário details “crowdloaning” smart contracts they built on Ethereum. Eriol suggests many open source projects doing individual donation drives could learn from this crowdloaning model. [00:21:10] Find out where you can follow Mário and the projects on the internet, and he spotlights the project GrapheneOS, a highly secure, privacy-respecting, easy-to-use mobile operating system. Links podcast@sustainoss.org richard@sustainoss.org SustainOSS Discourse SustainOSS Mastodon SustainOSS Bluesky SustainOSS LinkedIn Open Collective-SustainOSS (Contribute) Richard Littauer Socials Eriol Fox X Victory Brown X Mário Havel X Mário Havel GitHub Devconnect- 2025, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 17-22 November Ethereum Ethereum Foundation Ethereum Foundation Blog Bordel Hackerspace Bordel Hackerspace First Ever Pure DeFi Mortgage/Contribute to the crowdloan GrapheneOS Credits Produced by Richard Littauer Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound Logistical support by Tina Arboleda from Digital Savvies Special Guest: Mário Havel.

Can Christian Americans Resist Authoritarian Drift?   Pete Wehner—The Atlantic columnist and former Reagan and Bush administration staff member—joins host Curtis Chang to ask the uncomfortable question: in Trump's America, is morality a loser that's been replaced by the "law of the jungle"—especially in U.S. foreign policy? From Venezuela to a looming Greenland/Denmark showdown that could fracture NATO, Wehner argues we're watching "might makes right" go mainstream. The antidote, he says, isn't vibes—it's resistance: stop living within the lie and start living within the truth.   00:04:23 - Explaining the U.S. Foreign Policy Shift  00:06:36 - What Is America's Moral Aspiration in Foreign Policy? 00:07:57 - Trump's "Will to Power" Ethic 00:11:34 - Do We Have Historical Amnesia? 00:16:36 - Contrasting Trump and PEPFAR  00:19:09 - The Disconnect Between Christian Identity and Policy  00:26:34 - Demagogues and Moral Erosion 00:34:19 - President Trump's Unique Amorality 00:37:10 - Primacy of Human Dignity and Christian Ethics  00:41:01 - Venezuela, Greenland, and Moral Implications 00:44:02 - The Value of Beauty and Creation 00:47:14 - What Are the Limits and Possibilities of Action   More about the Religious Landscape Study pewresearch.org/rls   Sign up for the Good Faith Newsletter   Mentioned In This Episode: Pete Wehner's article Trump's Folly More about PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) Anne Applebaum's Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism William Galston's Anger, Fear, Domination: Dark Passions and the Power of Political Speech Jeane Kirkpatrick's essay Dictatorships and Double Standards (Commentary) Václav Havel's The Power of the Powerless David Brooks' article America Needs a Mass Movement—Now  Without one, America may sink into autocracy for decades (The Atlantic) C.S. Lewis' idea of active obedience is found in Mere Christianity Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Nobel Prize Lecture (literature, 1970)   More from Pete Wehner: Pete Wehner's articles at The Atlantic Pete Wehner's opinion pieces at The New York Times Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   The Good Faith Podcast is a production of a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization that does not engage in any political campaign activity to support or oppose any candidate for public office. Any views and opinions expressed by any guests on this program are solely those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Good Faith.    

Can Christian Americans Resist Authoritarian Drift?   Pete Wehner—The Atlantic columnist and former Reagan and Bush administration staff member—joins host Curtis Chang to ask the uncomfortable question: in Trump's America, is morality a loser that's been replaced by the "law of the jungle"—especially in U.S. foreign policy? From Venezuela to a looming Greenland/Denmark showdown that could fracture NATO, Wehner argues we're watching "might makes right" go mainstream. The antidote, he says, isn't vibes—it's resistance: stop living within the lie and start living within the truth.   00:04:23 - Explaining the U.S. Foreign Policy Shift  00:06:36 - What Is America's Moral Aspiration in Foreign Policy? 00:07:57 - Trump's "Will to Power" Ethic 00:11:34 - Do We Have Historical Amnesia? 00:16:36 - Contrasting Trump and PEPFAR  00:19:09 - The Disconnect Between Christian Identity and Policy  00:26:34 - Demagogues and Moral Erosion 00:34:19 - President Trump's Unique Amorality 00:37:10 - Primacy of Human Dignity and Christian Ethics  00:41:01 - Venezuela, Greenland, and Moral Implications 00:44:02 - The Value of Beauty and Creation 00:47:14 - What Are the Limits and Possibilities of Action   Sign up for the Good Faith Newsletter   Mentioned In This Episode: Pete Wehner's article Trump's Folly More about PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) Anne Applebaum's Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism William Galston's Anger, Fear, Domination: Dark Passions and the Power of Political Speech Jeane Kirkpatrick's essay Dictatorships and Double Standards (Commentary) Václav Havel's The Power of the Powerless David Brooks' article America Needs a Mass Movement—Now  Without one, America may sink into autocracy for decades (The Atlantic) C.S. Lewis' idea of active obedience is found in Mere Christianity Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Nobel Prize Lecture (literature, 1970)   More from Pete Wehner: Pete Wehner's articles at The Atlantic Pete Wehner's opinion pieces at The New York Times Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   The Good Faith Podcast is a production of a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization that does not engage in any political campaign activity to support or oppose any candidate for public office. Any views and opinions expressed by any guests on this program are solely those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Good Faith.    

Při proslovech před hlasováním o důvěře vládě jednotliví ministři představili své vize a plány. Ne všechny ale přesvědčili k tomu, aby pro ně zvedli ruku. Hostem Press klubu byl předseda TOP 09 Matěj Ondřej Havel, který taky patří mezi jedny z nich. Zklamalo ho, že vláda nemá v plánu přiblížit Česko k zavedení eura. Není to ale všechno, poslechněte si celý pořad.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Česká policie kauzu Vrbětice odložila, protože neměla důkazy, řekl v Partii Terezie Tománkové na CNN Prima NEWS poslanec Radim Fiala (SPD). Proti jeho slovům se ohradil poslanec Matěj Ondřej Havel (TOP 09) s tím, že šlo o akt státního terorismu. Podobnými výroky se podle něj Fiala – stejně jako Tomio Okamura (SPD) – snaží vytvořit „umělou kouřovou clonu“, aby zakryli výroky „zlobivého generála“ Jaromíra Zůny, který se několikrát ohradil vůči Rusku.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Protiukrajinský novoroční projev předsedy Poslanecké sněmovny Tomia Okamury má dohru, opozice navrhuje jeho odvolání. Je Okamurovo vystupování v souladu s funkcí třetího nejvyššího ústavního činitele? „Být předsedou Sněmovny neznamená přestat mít politické názory,“ hájí předsedu svého poslaneckého klubu Libor Vondráček (Svobodní, za SPD). „Ten projev je kremelská propaganda, na Ukrajině se bojuje i za nás,“ kritizuje předseda TOP 09 Matěj Ondřej Havel.Všechny díly podcastu Pro a proti můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

STAŇTE SE PŘEDPLATITELI NA HEROHERO.CO/STUDION A SLEDUJTE VŠECHNY DÍLY BEZ OMEZENÍ „Andrej Babiš si musí ve vládě pohlídat extrémní názory, aby nešel proti tomu, co slíbil svým voličům – tedy že bude líp,“ říká šéf Člověka v tísni Šimon Pánek. Terč na záda neziskovým organizacím podle něj kreslí především SPD a Motoristé. „To, co říkají, je tragikomické. I mezi jejich voliči jsou ti, kteří využívají služeb nevládních organizací,“ tvrdí ve Studiu N. Zatímco od prezidenta nedávno převzal státní vyznamenání, nová vláda se netají tím, že chce nevládní organizace přiškrtit. Jak si tento rozpor vysvětluje? Naráží solidarita ve společnosti na své limity? Co dnes Ukrajina reálně potřebuje, ale Západ to nechce vyslyšet? Jak se budeme s odstupem času dívat na český postoj k Izraeli a Palestině? A bude někdy kandidovat na prezidenta, jak ho k tomu před lety vyzýval Václav Havel? Podívejte se na celý rozhovor na herohero.co/studion

„Naše země nevzkvétá,“ řekl v 90. letech Václav Havel. Podle sociologa Daniela Prokopa platí výrok i dnes – ne proto, že by ekonomika nerostla, ale protože země přehlíží kořeny svých problémů: podfinancované vzdělávání, regionální nerovnosti a nespravedlivé rozdělování prosperity. Bez inovací a dlouhodobé vize hrozí stagnace i pokles důvěry v demokracii. Jakou příležitost dává Česku nový kalendářní rok? Poslechněte si novoroční zamyšlení nad stavem země.Všechny díly podcastu Jak to vidí... můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

„Naše země nevzkvétá,“ řekl v 90. letech Václav Havel. Podle sociologa Daniela Prokopa platí výrok i dnes – ne proto, že by ekonomika nerostla, ale protože země přehlíží kořeny svých problémů: podfinancované vzdělávání, regionální nerovnosti a nespravedlivé rozdělování prosperity. Bez inovací a dlouhodobé vize hrozí stagnace i pokles důvěry v demokracii. Jakou příležitost dává Česku nový kalendářní rok? Poslechněte si novoroční zamyšlení nad stavem země.

In this episode of the Good Leadership Podcast, host Charles Good and guest Dr. Karla Van Hevel discuss the importance of building a sense of community in the workplace, especially in today's dispersed work environments. They explore the definition of community, the benefits of fostering it, and practical steps leaders can take to cultivate a strong workplace culture. Karla shares insights from her research and introduces her Workplace Community Insight assessment tool, emphasizing AI's role in strengthening community connections while preserving the human element.TAKEAWAYSBuilding community is essential for employee engagement.Community in the workplace can enhance trust and reduce turnover.AI can facilitate connections but should not replace human interaction.Understanding how employees define community is crucial.The 'BRING' method helps leaders foster community effectively.Leaders should prioritize getting to know their team members.Community-building requires ongoing effort and consistency.Successful organizations often have strong community cultures.Assessments can help measure and improve the workplace community.Creating a sense of belonging can lead to better organizational outcomes.CHAPTERS00:00 Building Community in the Workplace07:09 Defining Community and Its Importance10:34 Leveraging Technology for Community Building13:57 Assessing Community with the Workplace Community Insight14:37 First Steps to Cultivating Community16:36 Key Insights and Takeaways

Matthew 1:18-25Now the birth of Jesus, the Messiah, took place in this way. When his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, but before they were living together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, he planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, Son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. The child conceived in her womb is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”All of this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the prophet: “Look, the virgin will conceive and bear a Son and he will be called ‘Emmanuel' which means ‘God is with us.'”So Joseph did as he was commanded. He took Mary to be his wife, but he had no marital relations with her until after she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. We all know names are a thing. I've gone by several over the years, depending upon my age, my station in life, and who it is that's addressing me.My parents have called me by my initials – M.R. – short for Mark Randall – for as long as I can remember. I realize “M.R.” isn't a thing at all, really. BJ, TJ, AJ, CJ, sure. JD is a good one. But “M.R.” is strange. It's not shorter than Mark. It saves no time. And it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, either.In High School, I was “Little Havel,” because I have an older brother. In college, I was “Long Hair,” or just plain “Havel,” because 95% of my circle of friends were known exclusively by our last names. My wife calls me “Schmoops” or “Schmoop-Dog,” courtesy of a random Seinfeld episode from years ago. To most of you I'm “Pastor Mark,” or just plain “Pastor,” which I find endearing in a way that surprises me, still.And my latest, favorite – which some of you may have read about in our daily, digital devotion this Advent – is courtesy of Clive Blackmon who calls me “Pastor Goofy.” I love it because he's 2. And because his parents swear it has nothing to do with however in the world they talk about me at the Blackmon house, or when I'm not around.Anyway, I suspect some of you are wondering – like Joseph must have, had he known about what had been “spoken by the prophet” – what was he supposed to name this baby, “Jesus” or “Emmanuel?”“Jesus,” like the angel said, because he's going to save his people from their sins?Or should it be “Emmanuel,” like the prophet predicted, because ‘God is with us?'So, real quick … a little Bible study.It helps to know that “Jesus” is the linguistic, vernacular evolution of Yeshua … Joshua … the Old Testament hero … the successor to Moses … the guy who ultimately led the Israelites into the Promised Land. Joshua was Moses' side-kick and protégé; the mighty military warrior; the brave and faithful leader of God's chosen ones. And very early on in his story, from the Book of Joshua, he is promised – over and over and over again – that God would be a faithful presence, for him and with him, as he led God's people to safety and security into that Promised Land.Joshua 1:5 – “No one shall be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.”Joshua 1:9 – “I hereby command you: Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”Joshua 1:17 – “Just as we obeyed Moses in all things, so we will obey you. Only may the Lord your God be with you, as he was with Moses!”So, God's promised presence with Joshua was an encouragement for him and a measure of validation for his calling as a leader of God's people. So Matthew conflates and connects that prophecy from Isaiah about Immanuel – “God with us” – with the naming of Yeshua … Joshua … Jesus, which means something like “Yahweh helps” or “Yahweh saves,” because the story of Joshua is covered up with this notion and promise that God accomplishes that help – God does the work of salvation – by way of God's ever-faithful presence for and with God's people.And the thing is, “Jesus” – as a name – wasn't really all that special. It was a pretty common name actually, as you might imagine, once you know Joshua's story. Lots of parents, apparently, had named their little boys after Joshua – this hero of their people.So, what we're supposed to notice as much as anything – what's really special about this story of Jesus' naming – is that Joseph named him at all. We know about the drama and back story of Mary becoming pregnant in the first place – while she and Joseph were planning to be married, but before they had sealed the deal. We know that Joseph would have, could have, should have – by some standards – punished and abandoned Mary for what was sure to bring judgment, shame, and skepticism upon them both.So, Joseph's act of naming this child was a bold, defiant, faithful, loving, brave act of adopting Jesus into his life, into his family – and into the family and line of David. It's no mistake that Matthew reports the angel as having addressed Joseph so formally and completely: “Joseph, Son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife…” Names are a thing, after all, remember.Now, I've talked often about how much credit I like to give Mary for Jesus' worldview … about his concern for the poor … about his call to do justice … about his passion for railing against the rich, the mighty, the oppressors of the world and the powers that be. I love, in these days of Christmas, to imagine Mary teaching and singing the words of her Magnificat as a quiet, holy, strange, rebellious lullaby to her little boy – while she carried him in her belly; in the manger on the night of his birth; and every time he wouldn't sleep or needed to nurse; and all throughout his childhood, too.I imagine she sang something like that song she first sung upon learning of her pregnancy; that song about God's mercy being for those who fear him; about a God who scatters the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; about a God who brings down the powerful from their thrones; who lifts up the lowly; who fills the hungry with good things and who sends the rich away empty.It's no wonder Jesus grew up with a clear picture of what it looked like to do justice, to love his neighbor, to care for the poor, to forgive his enemies, to walk humbly with God, to flip some tables every once in a while, and all the rest.But this morning, we get a glimpse of – and a reminder that – Jesus learned some of that from Joseph, too. And it begins with this seemingly simple act of naming. Because naming a child was the father's responsibility in Jesus' day, and by doing that, Joseph was claiming Jesus as his. And it was no small thing – it was a bold, defiant, humble, loving, faithful act to welcome this Jesus into his family – the family and House of David.Joseph could have “dismissed her quietly,” remember. Or he could have had Mary cast out or killed, even, for claiming to be pregnant with the Holy Spirit's baby; because who would believe that?! But what Joseph shows us – and what Jesus surely realized in time – was that his Dad chose righteousness and faithfulness and loving-kindness and grace over the law and over public opinion and over and above his own self-interest, his own self-preservation, his own pride, ego, and well-being.And to put it plainly, we need more Josephs in the world, these days. We need men – like Joseph and his little boy – who listen to and who believe women. We need men who stand up for and protect women and girls – like Joseph and his son did – when men in power would sooner doubt, disgrace, and demean them. We need men – like Joseph and Jesus – who don't just go along to get along. We need men – like Joseph and Jesus – who break the rules – and maybe even the laws, on occasion – when they are unjust, unfair, and unkind. We need men – like Joseph and Jesus – who look for ways to sacrifice, to be generous, to be unapologetically vulnerable to God's claim on their lives and to trust the difference they can make in the world, when they do.And we can – and we are called to do this – men, women, and everyone in between – no matter the names by which we are known in the world. We can – and we are called to do this – because of the name we share as baptized children of God, bound by love for one another and bound by love for the sake of the world, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

News, Czech Constitutional Court scraps separate school enrolments for Ukrainian children, Václav Havel: a legacy growing ever more important?, portrait of Václav Havel "in his own words"

In this episode of the Good Leadership Podcast, host Charles Good engages with Dr. Karla Van Havel, an executive and leadership coach, to explore the transformative power of coaching for leaders. They discuss the importance of coaching in navigating leadership challenges, the significance of time management, and the unique approaches coaches can bring to the table. Dr. Karla Van Havel shares success stories, insights on finding the right coach, and the evolving role of AI in coaching. The conversation emphasizes the need for leaders to be open to change and self-reflection as they seek to enhance their leadership journey.CHAPTERS00:00 Introduction to Executive Coaching01:54 The Journey to Coaching04:20 The Importance of a Safe Space05:01 Overcoming Time Management Challenges09:14 The Coaching Toolbox11:12 Finding the Right Fit in Coaching13:29 Are You Ready for a Coach?16:01 Human-Centered Coaching vs. AI Coaching18:13 Group Coaching Dynamics20:30 Courage in Coaching21:52 Key Insights and Takeaways

Česká společnost v listopadových dnech tradičně mluví o svobodě, kterou získala v roce 1989. Západ se tehdy na svobodné Československo podle Tomáše Sedláčka, ekonoma, filozofa a ředitele Knihovny Václava Havla, díval s očekáváním, že tu může vzniknout něco unikátního. „A my Bohémové jsme přece jen s něčím novým přišli,“ napadá Sedláčka. „Možná jsme tady objevili odpověď na smysl života, vesmíru a vůbec.“

Česká společnost v listopadových dnech tradičně mluví o svobodě, kterou získala v roce 1989. Západ se tehdy na svobodné Československo podle Tomáše Sedláčka, ekonoma, filozofa a ředitele Knihovny Václava Havla, díval s očekáváním, že tu může vzniknout něco unikátního. „A my Bohémové jsme přece jen s něčím novým přišli,“ napadá Sedláčka. „Možná jsme tady objevili odpověď na smysl života, vesmíru a vůbec.“Všechny díly podcastu Leonardo Plus můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

Few lines in the Constitution have provoked as much passion—or confusion—as this one: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What did the Founding Fathers mean by “well regulated”? What did they mean by “Militia”? And, do any of those definitions hold in 21st-century America? Guns are one of the most divisive symbols in the country. At the same time, the idea of surrendering weapons and trusting the state feels dangerous, and to many, guns are not symbols of violence, but symbols of freedom. Still, the question remains: freedom at what cost? With mass shootings now a fixture of American life, with countless families being wrecked by gun violence—what exactly are we protecting? This debate is about what the Second Amendment really means, what its limits should be, what the root causes of our gun violence are. And how, if at all, we can address them. We think about this subject a lot: Would America be safer without the Second Amendment? To debate this topic we brought together Dana Loesch and Alan Dershowitz recently in Chicago—a city that has had more than its fair share of gun violence. Alan argued yes, that America would be safer without the Second Amendment. Alan is a lawyer, a law professor for 50 years at Harvard, and the author of too many books to mention. He has litigated and won hundreds of cases in multiple countries, including his pro bono defense of dissidents such as Natan Sharansky, Václav Havel, and Julian Assange. And he is a fierce advocate for tighter gun control in the United States. Dana Loesch argued no, that America would not be safer without the Second Amendment. Dana is one of the country's top nationally syndicated talk radio hosts with The Dana Show, a television commentator, preeminent Second Amendment advocate, and author of several books, including the best-selling Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America. She is also a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. It's a critical debate you won't want to miss. The Free Press is honored to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to present this debate. Head to thefire.org to learn more about this indispensable organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To tu ještě nebylo. Jako dárek k výročí 17. listopadu pro vás máme malou lahůdku. Ve spolupráci s Filmem a sociologií připravil náš editor Tomáš Černý dokument o zvukařích, kteří s režisérem Pavlem Kouteckým natáčeli film Občan Havel. Ten asi znáte, ale věřte, že jste neslyšeli zdaleka všechno. Když se totiž zastavila kamera, zvuk často běžel dál. Takže Přepište dějiny poprvé (a ne naposledy) uvádí audio-dokument… 

Poslechněte si živé vystoupení podcastu Dobrovský & Šídlo z oslav Dne boje za svobodu a demokracii z Café Louvre na Nároční třídě v Praze. Vystoupení proběhlo 17. listopadu 2025 v rámci programu Sametová Paměť národa 

Vyvrátí Andrej Babiš podezření, že jako premiér bude vycházet vstříc holdingu Agrofert? Mohl by tak učinit na mimořádné schůzi na půdě sněmovny? A jak se k pravděpodobné Babišově vládě bude stavět koalice Spolu? „Tady budeme fungovat jako každá strana víceméně nezávisle. Že se opozice přirozeně koordinuje, to vidíme, když jsme podali společně návrh na svolání mimořádné schůze,“ nastiňuje poslanec Matěj Ondřej Havel, nový předseda strany TOP 09.

Vyvrátí Andrej Babiš podezření, že jako premiér bude vycházet vstříc holdingu Agrofert? Mohl by to udělat na mimořádné schůzi na půdě sněmovny? Jak se k pravděpodobné Babišově vládě bude stavět koalice Spolu? „Tady budeme fungovat jako každá strana víceméně nezávisle. Že se opozice přirozeně koordinuje, to vidíme, když jsme podali společně návrh na svolání mimořádné schůze,“ nastiňuje poslanec Matěj Ondřej Havel, nový předseda strany TOP 09.Všechny díly podcastu Dvacet minut Radiožurnálu můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

Jak chce nový předseda TOP 09 získat do budoucna přízeň voličů? Jak silná je jeho pozice uvnitř strany? Co znamená pro Evropu, že Donald Trump udělil Maďarsku výjimku ze sankcí na nákup ruské ropy a plynu? A stoupá počet lidí, kteří potřebují potravinovou pomoc?

Jak chce nový předseda TOP 09 získat do budoucna přízeň voličů? Jak silná je jeho pozice uvnitř strany? Co znamená pro Evropu, že Donald Trump udělil Maďarsku výjimku ze sankcí na nákup ruské ropy a plynu? A stoupá počet lidí, kteří potřebují potravinovou pomoc?

„Václav Havel, jeho rozhodné kroky po 17. listopadu 1989 a jeho odkaz určily roli Česka v novém světovém uspořádání... Podle mě Havel tenkrát velmi odvážně a riskantně vystoupil proti volání davu, aby zabránil rozmělnění převratu a hledání čehosi zbytečného s lidskou tváří...“

Learn how to connect faster, build trust effortlessly, and turn conversations into contracts with confidence and authenticity as told by Stefani Havel.

Asi jen málokdo z těch, co tenkrát už byli na světě, může tvrdit, že do jejich života rok 1989 vůbec nezasáhl. Rozhodně by to nemohl tvrdit Václav Havel. Čtyři měsíce z něj strávil ve vězení, na jeho samém konci se stal prezidentem. Havlovu cestu z pankrácké cely do Vladislavského sálu zachycují i nahrávky z rozhlasového archivu.

Send me a messageIn this week's episode of the Climate Confident Podcast, I sit down with Dr. Gary Yohe, one of the world's leading climate economists, long-time IPCC author, and a member of the Nobel Peace Prize, winning IPCC team of 2007. Gary has spent over four decades shaping how we understand climate change, not just as an environmental issue, but as a fundamental risk management challenge.We explore his powerful framework: abate, adapt, or suffer. These are, he argues, the only three choices humanity has left, and crucially, some level of suffering is now unavoidable. Mitigation slows the pace of warming, adaptation reduces impacts, but neither can eliminate all risks. The insurance crisis unfolding in California and beyond shows what happens when climate risks become uninsurable, raising the threat of financial instability on a global scale.Gary also reminds us that climate decisions must be iterative. Policies cannot be fixed for 100 years; they must evolve as science, technology, and risk tolerance change. He illustrates this with striking examples, from New York's evacuation planning after Hurricane Sandy to San Francisco's flexible approach to sea-level rise.Yet, despite the scale of the challenge, Gary insists on hope, not blind optimism, but the conviction, as Václav Havel wrote, that action makes sense regardless of outcome. It's this perspective that has kept him, and many others, working relentlessly on solutions for over 40 years.If you want to understand why climate change is ultimately a risk management problem, why insurance, finance, and resilience are inseparable, and why hope is a strategy we can't do without, this episode is essential listening.Podcast supportersI'd like to sincerely thank this podcast's amazing subscribers: Ben Gross Jerry Sweeney Andreas Werner Stephen Carroll Roger Arnold And remember you too can Subscribe to the Podcast - it is really easy and hugely important as it will enable me to continue to create more excellent Climate Confident episodes like this one, as well as give you access to the entire back catalog of Climate Confident episodes.ContactIf you have any comments/suggestions or questions for the podcast - get in touch via direct message on Twitter/LinkedIn. If you liked this show, please don't forget to rate and/or review it. It makes a big difference to help new people discover the show. CreditsMusic credits - Intro by Joseph McDade, and Outro music for this podcast was composed, played, and produced by my daughter Luna Juniper

“An exceptional award for exceptional people”: Joan Baez to receive Václav Havel Centre Lifetime Achievement Award, Quantum leap in Ostrava: Czechia's first public quantum computer VLQ officially starts working, From Prague to Sumatra: František Příbrský and the fight to save the Slow Loris