Podcasts about institutions

Chairman of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Bernard Owusu, has opposed the privatization of VALCO, arguing that the move could limit Ghana's share of revenue. He maintains that state-owned institutions can be successfully managed by Ghanaians if they are free from political interference.

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

Send us Fan MailI am your host, Neo Griot.Welcome to Episode 293 of Rational Black Thought, the podcast where we examine politics, religion and culture from a Black, progressive, skeptical and unapologetically rational point of view.This week's title comes from Peter Tosh's song "Equal Rights": "Everyone is crying out for peace, yes / None is crying out for justice."Tosh was pointing to a distinction that governments, political parties, police departments, churches and every other institution with power desperately want us to ignore. Peace and justice are not the same thing. Peace may simply mean that the streets are quiet, the demonstrations have ended, the dead have been buried and the institution responsible for the harm has returned to business as usual. Peace may mean Black voters continue supporting a political party without making demands forceful enough to disrupt its priorities. Peace may mean church members keep giving while refusing to ask where the money goes. Peace may mean a suffering man stops asking God why his children are dead and accepts that divine authority is beyond examination.Institutions prefer peace because peace often requires nothing from them beyond waiting for public anger to exhaust itself. Justice is more disruptive because it requires evidence, explanation, restitution and accountability. Justice asks who held the power, who made the decision, who carried out the harm and who benefited when the people who were injured were finally persuaded to become quiet.When those questions are raised, institutions suddenly become philosophical. We are told that the situation is complicated, that we do not have all the facts, that leadership requires difficult choices, that we should trust the process or that God works in mysterious ways. Every institution seems to discover complexity at the precise moment accountability arrives.But power does not become moral merely because it is powerful. Authority does not become legitimate merely because it is traditional, and silence should never be mistaken for justice. The central question this week is therefore simple: when institutions cause harm, permit harm or benefit from harm, who has the right to demand an explanation?The answer is everybody.Intro:Quote of the Week: James Baldwin Unmasking the News: Democracy Watch: Lying or Delusional, Either Way He Is Dangerous First to Vote, Last to Collect In God We Trust, but Check the Bank Records  Good News: Building the Children Who Will Build the Future  Bible Study with an Atheist: The Book of Job: When God Moved Against an Innocent Man  Reflections and Call to Action:Closing/Outro: Power Concedes Nothing without a Demand...

Dr. O. Alan Noble is Professor of English at Oklahoma Baptist University, a fellow at the Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics, and author of four books, including his most recent book: To Live Well: Practical Wisdom for Moving Through Chaotic Times. Check out the Christ at the Checkpoint conference at: www.christatthecheckpoint.bethbc.eduTime Stamps:00:00 Introduction 03:46 Advice for Aspiring Writers07:03 Moral Confusion and Living Well in Chaotic Times10:47 Can Going Offline Fix Modern Life?13:04 The Seven Classical Virtues Explained14:28 On Prudence and Difficulty Making Decisions22:49 Why Courage Is Hard for Young Adults Today27:19 Justice, Social Media, and Virtue Signaling36:07 Suffering, Courage, and Healing from Trauma42:23 Which Virtues Are Hardest to Practice?44:50 Politics, Institutions, and the Common Good52:47 Are Big Corporations Inherently Evil? (Closing Thoughts)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Welcome to Schauer hour, I hope you're ready to hear my thoughts lol. This week (and next) we'll be discussing major milestones and events that happened and continue to happen during the Disability Rights Movement.  I do have to apologize in advance as *I am autistic* and *we do talk about autism* and *I am allowed to cry.* I realize emotions are just a natural part of being human but when I cry my voice gets quieter and becomes generally hard to hear, so next week I will enunciate better or take a moment to collect myself. I can't wait to share more next time as I didn't even make it to the passing of the ADA! But we will get there. I hope you enjoy and can't wait to chat next week. Books: Disability Pride: Dispatches From a Post-ADA World - Ben Mattlin How Emotions Are Made - Lisa Feldman Barrett Between Us: How Cultures Create Emotions - Batja Mesquita Descartes Error - Antonio Damasio Infected: How Power, Politics, and Privilege Use Science Against the World's Most Vulnerable - Muhammad H. Zaman Frostbite: How Refrigeration Changed Our Food, Our Planet, and Ourselves - Nicola Twilley  Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's - Charles Piller The Palestine Laboratory - Antony Loewenstein  Plastic: The Secret History and Shocking Future of Big Oil's Biggest Bet - Beth Gardiner A Silent Fire: The Story of Inflammation, Diet, and Disease - Shilpa Ravella An Elegant Defense: The Extraordinary New Science of the Immune System - Matt Richtel  Sources & Resources: Trump's action signal a move toward institutionalizing people with disabilities, advocates warn https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-actions-signal-a-move-toward-institutionalizing-people-with-disabilities-advocates-warn History of Disability Rights Milestones and Laws https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/disabilityrights/about_us/timeline/ The Trump Administration Aims to Penalize Disabled Adults Who Live with Their Families https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-social-security-ssi-disability-benefits-cuts-parents-children Lomax's Matrix: Disability, Solidarity, and the Black Power of 504 https://dsq-sds.org/article/id/1086/ Worth Repeating: Ed Roberts' 504 Sit-In Victory Rally Speech https://ollibean.org/ed/ A History of Institutions for People with Disabilities: Neglect, Abuse, and Death https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2023/10/25/a-history-of-institutions-for-people-with-disabilities-neglect-abuse-and-death/ Fairness of Reagan's Cutoffs of Disability Aid Questioned https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/09/us/fairness-of-reagan-s-cutoffs-of-disability-aid-questioned.html?eafs_enabled=false AIDS blood tests for ‘insurability' https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SWTN19880818.1.18&srpos=46&e=------198-en--20--41--txt-txIN-Insurance+companies+mental+health------- Disability Resources  https://www.disabilityresources.org/ The website I mention at the end with a pretty substantial amount of disability resources! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As AI agents move from pilots into live financial workflows, most institutions still can't answer a basic question: who authorized this action, and what evidence backs it up?   In this episode, Shahir Daya, Chief Product & Technology Officer at Zafin, examines why uniform governance policies fail at scale and what a tiered, control-tower approach to agent oversight looks like in practice. The conversation covers execution-layer governance, cost visibility across models, and the shift required to move agentic work from promising pilot to defensible production.   This episode is sponsored by Zafin.   Learn the exact strategies we use to help leading AI brands and startups connect with their ideal enterprise AI buyers: visit emerj.com/AD1  

Brett Steenbarger, PhD, is a trading coach, best-selling author and Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at SUNY. He explains what separates elite institutional traders from retail traders, dives into the power of positive psychology and examines how current froth in the market is impacting the mental state of traders.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

For decades, Congress has created boards, commissions and oversight bodies intended to operate with some distance from presidential control. Two recent Supreme Court decisions are providing new insight into how the Court views that balance and what it could mean for the people serving in those roles. Here to help us consider the implications is former FDIC Inspector General Jay Lerner.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This episode is presented by Create A Video – With the publication of Dr. Anthony Fauci's diaries during we see how many people inside the Trump administration and media worked with Fauci to undermine the President and tried to silence people who disagreed with Fauci's recommendations. The lies have been exposed over the past six years, shattering faith and trust in public health institutions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast My preferred podcast platform: SpreakerAll the links to Pete's Prep are free!Get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com  

Max Bareiss, Head of Lending at Galaxy, sat down with me at the Injective Policy Summit to discuss the rapid growth of institutional crypto lending, Galaxy's digital asset services, and his outlook on the crypto market.⭐️⛏️ GoMining is an All-in-one Bitcoin superapp to mine, earn and use BTC. They have 5 Million+ users and have been live since 2021. - https://siagomininglatvia.sjv.io/aNLaRq 

Institutional investors are no longer asking whether crypto matters—they're asking how to use it.In this episode, Fidelity International digital asset strategist Giselle Lai joins David Sencil to discuss why Bitcoin is becoming the first step for institutional portfolios, how spot Bitcoin ETFs are changing adoption, and why tokenization could reshape traditional finance.The conversation explores Bitcoin allocations, stablecoins, tokenized funds, real-world assets, and why Japan could become one of the next major institutional crypto markets.In this episode:Why institutions are finally getting into BitcoinThe role of Bitcoin ETFs in adoptionWhy “getting off zero” mattersTokenized funds and real-world assetsStablecoins and on-chain financeJapan's growing crypto opportunity

Dr. Leslie Dobson is a clinical and forensic psychologist with more than 20 years of experience working inside LA County Jail, state psychiatric hospitals, and court-related psychological assessments across California. In this episode of Locked In with Ian Bick, she shares the complete truth about what the criminal mind really looks like from the inside — and what most people fundamentally misunderstand about psychology, crime, and the justice system. She breaks down whether someone can fake not guilty by reason of insanity, what it really means to be a psychopath, why people are so fascinated with serial killers and true crime, what mental health hospitals are really like, and whether inmates deserve a second chance after prison. _____________________________________________ #psychologist #criminalminds #truecrimecommunity _____________________________________________ Connect with Dr. Leslie Dobson: Website: https://drlesliedobson.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drlesliedobson?igsh=MWs4M2JrZWRpd3hoOA== _____________________________________________ Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ _____________________________________________ Timestamps: 00:00 Introducing Dr. Leslie Dobson 00:22 Family History and Early Influences 03:13 Finding Her Path: Education & Adversity 07:51 Surviving Major Health Challenges 14:10 Forensic Psychology Career Beginnings 19:21 Naivety, Manipulation & Lessons in Jail 23:19 State Hospitals and High-Risk Populations 27:00 Complexity of Mental Illness in Institutions 34:00 Violence, Psychopathy, and Untreatable Cases 39:02 Staff Dynamics & Institutional Corruption 43:41 True Crime, Fan Mail, and Media Fascination 51:20 Social Media, Justice, and Public Advocacy 58:46 Sexual Abuse Laws, Inconsistencies, and Second Chances 01:06:34 Civil Work, Emotional Damages, and Lie Detection 01:14:00 Psychopaths, Social Life, and Professional Challenges 01:18:43 Second Chances: Prison vs. Sex Offenses 01:25:12 Complexities of Sex Offense Cases 01:31:00 Endless Cycle of Evil & Protecting the Innocent 01:36:03 Broken System, Court Corruption, and Podcasting's Role 01:42:06 Solutions, Screening Staff, and The Path Forward 01:42:51 Conclusion and Final Thoughts _____________________________________________ To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/LockedInWithIanBicka

Open the Old Testament and you run into a problem nobody warns you about. Israel is supposed to worship one God. Yet the text keeps naming others. Baal. Asherah. The gods of the nations. So where did they all go, and when did Israel actually land on one God alone?Old Testament scholar Dr. Matthew Lynch of Regent College joins the Dig In Podcast to take that question apart. The standard scholarly story says monotheism showed up late, forged in the wreckage of the Babylonian exile. Dr. Lynch says that timeline is wrong, and he found the evidence hiding in a rare Hebrew word the prophet Isaiah used to humiliate the gods of the nations. What follows is a conversation about how the Bible does the work of lifting one God above every rival power, both the seen and the unseen.In this episode you will learn:The real difference between monotheism, monolatry, henotheism, and polytheism, and why those distinctions change how you read the Old TestamentWhy the Hebrew word Elohim is far wider than most readers realize, covering angels, the dead, and the God of Israel himselfThe standard scholarly account of how Israel slowly arrived at one God, and exactly where Dr. Lynch believes it falls apartThe rare term in Isaiah used to strip the gods of their dignity, a word that appears almost nowhere else in the entire Old TestamentHow Genesis 1, the Psalms, and Ezekiel each silence rival gods in completely different waysWhy the prophets aimed their fire not just at other gods, but at the empires of Assyria, Egypt, and BabylonWhat the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten reveals about whether Israel actually invented monotheismHow the unrivaled uniqueness of Israel's God sets the stage for everything the New Testament claims about ChristGuest: Dr. Matthew LynchAssociate Professor of Old Testament at Regent College, Vancouver, and co-founder and co-host of the OnScript podcast. His books include First Isaiah and the Disappearance of the Gods, Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God, Portraying Violence in the Hebrew Bible, and Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles, all available on Amazon.Connect with Dr. Lynch: https://www.regent-college.edu/faculty/lynch-matthewFirst Isaiah and the Disappearance of the Gods (Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible Book 12)- https://a.co/d/0fZgv5hS Stay Connected:johnnyova.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@thejohnnyovaThe Revelation Reset on Amazon: https://a.co/d/hiUkW8H

Today's guest, Matthew Ritger, is the author of Houses of Correction: Carceral Institutions and Humanist Culture in Early Modern England (U Pennsylvania Press, 2026). This book delves into the archival records of Bridewell, Europe's first house of correction, which was overseen by the humanist reformer Richard Grafton. It makes the case that the Bridewell prison and workhouse were central to the history of humanism in ways that both challenge idealized notions of European humanism and illustrate its commitments to civic and Christian reform. The book explores Bridewell's mission to discipline the poor and the “idle” through hard labor, vocational training, and basic education, while also exposing its coercive and exploitative practices, which included whippings, forced labor, and the infliction of fear. Houses of Correction also explores how Bridewell contributed to a broader humanist culture of correction, which united textual methods with practical forms of knowledge, and which extended to rhetorical and textual forms, as well as literary productions. The book's five chapters connect the history and influence of Bridewell to a range of literary texts, including Thomas More's Utopia, Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Measure for Measure, and The Tempest, and Milton's Of Educationand Samson Agonistes. Through its interrogation of the logic of carceral humanism, Houses of Correction demonstrates the crucial role that Bridewell played in cultivating a culture of correction that pervaded humanist education, textual practices, and literary representations. Jane Hwang Degenhardt is Professor English at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is the author of Globalizing Fortune on the Early Modern Stage (Oxford UP, 2022) and Islamic Conversion and Christian Resistance on the Early Modern Stage (Edinburgh UP, 2012). She is also a co-editor of the academic journal English Literary Renaissance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Today's guest, Matthew Ritger, is the author of Houses of Correction: Carceral Institutions and Humanist Culture in Early Modern England (U Pennsylvania Press, 2026). This book delves into the archival records of Bridewell, Europe's first house of correction, which was overseen by the humanist reformer Richard Grafton. It makes the case that the Bridewell prison and workhouse were central to the history of humanism in ways that both challenge idealized notions of European humanism and illustrate its commitments to civic and Christian reform. The book explores Bridewell's mission to discipline the poor and the “idle” through hard labor, vocational training, and basic education, while also exposing its coercive and exploitative practices, which included whippings, forced labor, and the infliction of fear. Houses of Correction also explores how Bridewell contributed to a broader humanist culture of correction, which united textual methods with practical forms of knowledge, and which extended to rhetorical and textual forms, as well as literary productions. The book's five chapters connect the history and influence of Bridewell to a range of literary texts, including Thomas More's Utopia, Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Measure for Measure, and The Tempest, and Milton's Of Educationand Samson Agonistes. Through its interrogation of the logic of carceral humanism, Houses of Correction demonstrates the crucial role that Bridewell played in cultivating a culture of correction that pervaded humanist education, textual practices, and literary representations. Jane Hwang Degenhardt is Professor English at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is the author of Globalizing Fortune on the Early Modern Stage (Oxford UP, 2022) and Islamic Conversion and Christian Resistance on the Early Modern Stage (Edinburgh UP, 2012). She is also a co-editor of the academic journal English Literary Renaissance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Today's guest, Matthew Ritger, is the author of Houses of Correction: Carceral Institutions and Humanist Culture in Early Modern England (U Pennsylvania Press, 2026). This book delves into the archival records of Bridewell, Europe's first house of correction, which was overseen by the humanist reformer Richard Grafton. It makes the case that the Bridewell prison and workhouse were central to the history of humanism in ways that both challenge idealized notions of European humanism and illustrate its commitments to civic and Christian reform. The book explores Bridewell's mission to discipline the poor and the “idle” through hard labor, vocational training, and basic education, while also exposing its coercive and exploitative practices, which included whippings, forced labor, and the infliction of fear. Houses of Correction also explores how Bridewell contributed to a broader humanist culture of correction, which united textual methods with practical forms of knowledge, and which extended to rhetorical and textual forms, as well as literary productions. The book's five chapters connect the history and influence of Bridewell to a range of literary texts, including Thomas More's Utopia, Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Measure for Measure, and The Tempest, and Milton's Of Educationand Samson Agonistes. Through its interrogation of the logic of carceral humanism, Houses of Correction demonstrates the crucial role that Bridewell played in cultivating a culture of correction that pervaded humanist education, textual practices, and literary representations. Jane Hwang Degenhardt is Professor English at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is the author of Globalizing Fortune on the Early Modern Stage (Oxford UP, 2022) and Islamic Conversion and Christian Resistance on the Early Modern Stage (Edinburgh UP, 2012). She is also a co-editor of the academic journal English Literary Renaissance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

Today's guest, Matthew Ritger, is the author of Houses of Correction: Carceral Institutions and Humanist Culture in Early Modern England (U Pennsylvania Press, 2026). This book delves into the archival records of Bridewell, Europe's first house of correction, which was overseen by the humanist reformer Richard Grafton. It makes the case that the Bridewell prison and workhouse were central to the history of humanism in ways that both challenge idealized notions of European humanism and illustrate its commitments to civic and Christian reform. The book explores Bridewell's mission to discipline the poor and the “idle” through hard labor, vocational training, and basic education, while also exposing its coercive and exploitative practices, which included whippings, forced labor, and the infliction of fear. Houses of Correction also explores how Bridewell contributed to a broader humanist culture of correction, which united textual methods with practical forms of knowledge, and which extended to rhetorical and textual forms, as well as literary productions. The book's five chapters connect the history and influence of Bridewell to a range of literary texts, including Thomas More's Utopia, Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Measure for Measure, and The Tempest, and Milton's Of Educationand Samson Agonistes. Through its interrogation of the logic of carceral humanism, Houses of Correction demonstrates the crucial role that Bridewell played in cultivating a culture of correction that pervaded humanist education, textual practices, and literary representations. Jane Hwang Degenhardt is Professor English at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is the author of Globalizing Fortune on the Early Modern Stage (Oxford UP, 2022) and Islamic Conversion and Christian Resistance on the Early Modern Stage (Edinburgh UP, 2012). She is also a co-editor of the academic journal English Literary Renaissance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

Leftist Takeover Of Public Institutions! And A Win For Law And Order. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comRobert P. George is a legal scholar and political philosopher. At Princetown, he's the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He's also a senior fellow at both the American Enterprise Institute and the Witherspoon Institute, which he co-founded. His many books include Making Men Moral and In Defense of Natural Law. We spent many years sparring in print over marriage, gays, and Catholicism.For two clips of the episode — on disobeying unjust laws, and the supposed harms of gay marriage — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: his dad's harrowing service in WWII; Robby growing up in Appalachia with his grandfathers in the coal mines; first in his family to go to college; stories of both of us being at Oxford at the same time; the origins of bluegrass; Robert Byrd's legacy; Plato's Gorgias; Aristotle and friendship; Robby's close friendship with Cornel West; Montaigne; Aquinas; Vatican II; Eastern Orthodox liturgy; neo-scholasticism; Darwin's survival of the fittest; Nietzsche; loving one's enemy as uniquely Christian; just law and unjust law; MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail; Hume; Oakeshott; natural law theorists vs legal positivists; the AIDS crisis; Christian marriage vs civil marriage; divorce; the Manhattan Declaration; Henry VIII's annulments; the sexual habits of Clinton and Trump; illiberalism on the left and right; and the beached squids of Ptown.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Ross Barkan on the DSA and Mamdani, John O'Sullivan on conservatism, Azam Ahmed on terrifying new drugs, and Megan McArdle on pretty much anything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Where did America get the idea that "all men are created equal"? Princeton's Dr. Robert George traces it back further than Aristotle or Cicero, all the way to Genesis 1. Come along as we explore what this may mean for how we understand faith, truth, and the American founding today.  Guest bio:  Dr. Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.  Show Notes:  museumoftheBible.org/america-250 RobertpGeorge.com rgeorge.scholar.princeton.edu x.com/McCormickProf Books by Robert George, PhD (Amazon)  Stay up to date with Museum of the Bible on social media:  Instagram: @museumofBible  X: @museumofBible  Facebook: museumofBible  LinkedIn: museumofBible  YouTube: @museumoftheBible 

In this episode, we take a critical look at FIFA, global sports politics, and the way major international events can reveal deeper institutional problems. Key Topics Criticism of FIFA leadership and governance How scandals reveal an organization's true priorities The political meaning of the World Cup and other major sporting events Large events can temporarily distract from deeper structural failures. Leadership is best judged under crisis, not during calm moments. Institutions often protect reputation before they protect integrity. Links Mehreen Khan – https://x.com/MehreenKhn?lang=en Edward Luce – https://x.com/EdwardGLuce Bobby Ghosh – https://bobbyghosh.substack.com/ Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs — belfercenter.org World Review with Ivo Daalder — belfercenter.org/world-review-ivo-daalder

Escheatment is a $70 billion problem hiding in plain sight: every state, territory, and dozens of countries have laws that hand dormant and unclaimed accounts over to the government after three to five years of inactivity. Allen Osgood, co-founder and CEO of Eisen, left a five-and-a-half-year run as a payments product manager at Coinbase to build the compliance infrastructure that helps banks, brokerages, and crypto platforms reunite customers with their money before the states ever claim it. In this conversation, Allen makes the case that crypto is about to collide with escheatment rules written in the 1960s, and that most institutions have no idea how large their own dormant balances really are.What We CoveredWhat escheatment actually is and how the state-by-state rules workThe $70 billion states are holding for more than one in seven AmericansMissingmoney.com and what happens after money is remittedOhio's fight over using unclaimed property to fund a football stadiumThe Walter story: an E-Trade Amazon account liquidated to DelawareWhat counts as a "dormant" account and why logins matterWhere Eisen plugs into the escheatment processWhy reactivation beats remittance, and the Binance.US 48% case studyWhy institutions are blind to their largest dormant balancesThe 12-to-24-month gap where accounts just age untouchedDisplacing big-four spreadsheets with a single pane of glass, forecasting, and access controlsData volume as the hardest engineering problem, and where AI earns its keepThe Claims Portal and QR-code reactivationWhy crypto makes escheatment far more painful, from volatility to dustThe coming wave of crypto liquidations and the tax problemChannel strategy with the cores like Fiserv, and the road to 1099 and tax reportingKey TakeawaysThe best escheatment outcome is no escheatment at all. Eisen's real value is retention: keeping customers, deposits, and assets in the institution rather than shipping them to the state.Institutions routinely underestimate their exposure. One prospect thought it had 10,000 accounts about to escheat, the real number was 100,000. The disconnect sits between the compliance team and the data on the ground.Crypto changes the stakes. States generally require liquidation, so a dormant token gets sold, creating an unwanted taxable event and, if the market rips afterward, another Walter waiting to happen.Stale data is the enemy. The information that comes due for escheatment is by definition three to five years old, so address enrichment (LexisNexis, Socure, USPS NCOA) and early engagement are what actually move the reactivation numbers.About Allen OsgoodAllen Osgood is the co-founder and CEO of Eisen, a compliance operations platform that automates escheatment and account offboarding for financial institutions. Before founding Eisen, he spent about five and a half years as a payments product manager at Coinbase, where he first ran into the strange world of unclaimed property and stayed through the company's IPO.Connect with Fintech One-on-One:Tweet me @PeterRentonConnect with me on LinkedInFind previous Fintech One-on-One episodes

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – There's been a lot of talk since COVID about a loss of faith in institutions. Sadly, many of the reasons given for the loss of faith are misguided at best. How will anyone trust the Supreme Court if the justices' families are threatened by those who disagree with them, especially those from the Marxist left? Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify!”

We examine the institutions in the US and how they have been used to create revolutionaries due to the decades of subversion by the Communist bloc.  Channel Support - https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/FGHPVTVAPRUNU Jeff Nyquist - www.jrnyquist.blog Trevor Loudon - www.trevorloudon.com and www.keywiki.org  Lee Wheelbarger - www.klwworldnews.com Follow us on X: @Anderson10x3 @JRNyquist @TrevorLoudon1 @KLWNews1

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – There's been a lot of talk since COVID about a loss of faith in institutions. Sadly, many of the reasons given for the loss of faith are misguided at best. How will anyone trust the Supreme Court if the justices' families are threatened by those who disagree with them, especially those from the Marxist left? Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify!”

What does it mean to love your country?  Is that nationalism?  And isn't nationalism—you know—bad?  And how should our allegiance and love of country be weighed against our duties and affections to family and faith?   Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by John Wilsey to discuss his latest book, God and Country: Upholding Faith, History, and National Identity, the origins of nationalism and how it differs from patriotism, the link between history and love of ones country, the battles between the Romantics and Rationalists, and that great public servant, the freak show John Quincy Adams.   About John Wilsey From the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary   Dr. John Wilsey is Professor of Church History and Philosophy and Chair of the Department of Church History and Historical Theology.   Prior to coming to Southern, Wilsey taught elementary, middle, and high school students in history and Bible for eleven years in North Carolina and Virginia. He also has served Southern Baptist churches, as an associate pastor in Charlottesville, Virginia for eight years and interim pastor for three years in Spring, Texas. Between 2011 and 2017, he taught history and philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, with most of his teaching load in a fully accredited baccalaureate program in a maximum-security unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.   Dr. Wilsey's primary areas of teaching at Southern Seminary and Boyce College are in modern church history, history of Western thought, and American history. He supervises PhD dissertations in the areas of American church history and history of philosophy.   In addition to his work at Southern Seminary and Boyce College, Wilsey has held several fellowships, including with the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville as non-resident fellow (2023-2024); the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty as Affiliate Scholar (2016-2020); the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal as Wilbur Fellow (2023); and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Politics Department at Princeton University as William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and Public Life (2017-2018). He currently holds fellowships at the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy as Senior Fellow, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention as Research Fellow, and the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as Research Fellow.   Wilsey's academic works have been reviewed in outlets such as National Review, Publisher's Weekly, Journal of Church and State, Fides et Historia, Providence, Church History, Reading Religion, Catholic Books Review, Reviews in American History, Anxious Bench, Claremont Review of Books, First Things, The American Conservative, Christianity Today, and The Federalist. He has appeared on podcasts and programs hosted by the Acton Institute, New Books Network, Current, Thinking in Public, Law and Liberty, the City of Man Podcast, Christ Over All, the Museum of the Bible, the Family Research Council, BBC Radio Wales, 9Marks, the McConnell Center, the Commonwealth Policy Center, and Ben Franklin's World.   Wilsey has produced peer-reviewed pieces in the journal Religions and in academic books published by Palgrave and Routledge. He has contributed other chapters to books published by Crossway and B&H Academic as well as long-form articles to Modern Age: A Conservative Review and Fides et Historia. He has served as manuscript reviewer for American Political Thought, Religions, InterVarsity Press, and New York University Press. He has also served as book review editor for H-AmRel of the H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online network and The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.   Wilsey has served on the Ciceronian Society Advisory Board, the Kern Foundation Advisory Council, the Board of Directors of the Society for Values in Higher Education, the Scholar's Council for the Center for the Electoral College, the Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives Advisory Board, and the Annual Meeting Proposal Review Board for Church History as well as the Membership Committee of the Evangelical Theological Society.   In 2020, Wilsey was named Tutor of the Year in Boyce College's Augustine Honors Collegium. He has addressed students, faculty, and public audiences as an invited lecturer at Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Louisville, the Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg, Waynesburg University, Calvin University, St. Francis University, Hannibal-LaGrange University, Charleston Southern University, Grand Valley State University, the College of Biblical Studies, Houston Baptist University, Northwest Nazarene University, the University of Wyoming, Samford University, Spring Arbor University, Ave Maria University, the Philos Project, the Religious Freedom Institute, the Russell Kirk Center, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and the Kentucky Historical Association.   Over the years, Wilsey has remained active with academic societies, reading papers at meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Conference on Faith and History, the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations, the Christian Scholars' Conference, the Society for Values in Higher Education, the Society for US Intellectual History, the African American Intellectual History Society, the Ciceronian Society, the Association for the Scientific Study of Religion, and the Center for Christian Study in Charlottesville, Virginia. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Ciceronian Society, the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations, the Philadelphia Society, and the James Madison Society.   Wilsey is a columnist for World Opinions, and his other public writings have appeared in outlets such as Law and Liberty, Current, Modern Reformation, Acton's Commentary, Christianity Today, Providence, Public Discourse, 9Marks Journal, The Gospel Coalition, Aeon, History News Network, The American Conservative, The Imaginative Conservative, Anxious Bench, Religion and Liberty, and Religion in American History. He has reviewed numerous books for outlets such as Themelios, Southeastern Theological Review, Public Discourse, Fides et Historia, Westminster Theological Journal, Trinity Journal, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Journal of Church and State, Evangelical Quarterly, Journal of Markets and Morality, Religion and Liberty, Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care, H-Diplo, Ad Fontes, and The London Lyceum.   Wilsey is married to Mandy, his wife of twenty-seven years, and they have two children. He is an elder at Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky.  

 EPISODE DESCRIPTION I sat down with Reid, co-founder of Ground, to explore what it actually takes to bring on-chain finance to institutions. Ground is building a non-custodial API platform, think Stripe, but for DeFi, so that banks, neobanks, and financial companies can access yield, lending, liquid staking, and real-world assets without rebuilding their entire stack. Reid shares his journey from Square to Stripe to Chime to founding Superstate and ultimately Ground. We dig into why large institutions move slowly, why the "just build it with AI" objection misses the point, and what the future looks like when blockchains are quietly powering the back end of your Robin Hood or JPMorgan account. DISCLAIMERNothing mentioned in this podcast is investment advice and please do your own research. It would mean a lot if you can leave a review of this podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share this podcast with a friend. Be a guest on the podcast or contact us - https://www.web3pod.xyz/ CONNECT Ground Website: https://www.groundtech.co/Ground LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ground-global/Ground Twitter/X: https://x.com/ground_onchainReid Twitter/X: https://x.com/rmcumingWeb3 with Sam Kamani: https://www.web3pod.xyz/ KEY POINTS WITH TIMESTAMPS • [00:00] Sam introduces Reid and Ground, a platform helping institutions access on-chain finance• [01:20] Reid's nonlinear path from consulting to Silicon Valley to fintech at Square, Stripe, and Chime• [02:00] How Reid joined Compound Labs, built Compound Treasury, then co-founded Superstate before incubating Ground• [03:04] The core problem Ground solves: abstracting blockchain complexity into a Stripe-like API experience• [04:26] What on-chain finance functions look like: stablecoins, lending protocols, LP pools, liquid staking, and RWAs• [05:34] Why institutions are eager but slow, regulatory uncertainty, internal change management, and calcified tech stacks• [08:08] How Reid navigates complex enterprise sales cycles versus faster-moving startup clients• [10:40] Building during a market downturn: why Reid sees it as the best time to build with high signal• [14:15] Ground as a non-custodial API: clients retain full control while Ground handles orchestration and security• [17:26] Addressing the "we'll just build it ourselves with AI" objection, and why real clients never actually say this• [21:30] Current institutional client conversations: time savings, security, compliance, and avoiding cannibalization of existing business• [23:31] The Innovator's Dilemma in crypto: why incumbents like Stripe struggle to self-disrupt on fees• [25:32] Key challenges bridging TradFi and DeFi: compliance, on/off ramps, RWA liquidity, and security insurance• [27:33] The hardest role to hire for: go-to-market talent that bridges crypto-native and institutional worlds• [30:54] What's next in crypto: tokenization plus DeFi becoming invisible infrastructure powering mainstream finance apps• [33:26] Reid's advice for founders and investors: keep turning the crank, stay curious, never get complacent• [34:56] Ground's asks: hiring engineers and a BD lead, onboarding corporate treasury clients, and building yield or investment products

Program discontinuation is usually the fight presidents avoid. Fairleigh Dickinson University put a significant slate of program discontinuations and consolidations to a faculty referendum, and roughly 88 percent of the faculty endorsed it. The vote reflects a larger redefinition underway at FDU: a shift from the four-year degree to a university built around lifelong learning. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Michael Avaltroni, President of Fairleigh Dickinson University and the first FDU graduate to hold the office, about the four-P framework guiding that redefinition: programs, people, partnerships, and place. Avaltroni explains how FDU is specializing in health, health-adjacent, and professionally focused programs rather than trying to be everything to everyone; designing for five generations of learners on one campus; delivering degrees inside corporations such as Merck, Novartis, Fiserv, and Barclays; and reimagining its campuses as intergenerational "impact cities" that place retirement living alongside student housing. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, and board members weighing program portfolio decisions, partnership strategies, and how to pursue radical change without losing faculty and community trust. Topics Covered Why the fundamental model higher education was built for is gone, and the optimistic "but" that follows The four Ps of the university of the future: programs, people, partnerships, and place Winning faculty endorsement of program cuts through a data-driven shared governance process Serving five generations of learners concurrently, from pre-college pathways to retirement Corporate classrooms, advisory councils, executives in residence, and a learn-while-you-earn platform with health systems Humanics: preparing a healthcare workforce that is technologically literate, data literate, and human literate Real-World Examples Discussed A faculty referendum endorsing a significant slate of program discontinuations by roughly 88 percent On-site MBA and leadership programs where practitioners, including a VP of HR, team-teach with FDU faculty Plans to add university-based retirement living alongside student housing on FDU's two New Jersey campuses Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Know who you are. Be the institution you are called to be, serving the students you are called to serve, not a copy of anywhere else. Rethink what higher education can be. The time-driven, hours-logged degree has run its course; the strategic question is how to deliver true lifelong learning, at its fullest a subscription-based model for life. Be bold. Institutions that nibble around the edges risk obsolescence; take a big swing and adjust course, and bring everybody along. This episode offers a working view of what redefining a university around lifelong learning actually requires: a clear identity, a disciplined portfolio, partners who carry what the institution should not, and governance strong enough to carry hard decisions. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/fairleigh-dickinson-lifelong-learning-ecosystem/ #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #LifelongLearning

Mark Wendland, Chairman and CEO of Canton Strategic Holdings, joined me to discuss how the company is leveraging Canton Coin and supporting the Canton Network to accelerate institutional blockchain adoption.Topics: - Institutional blockchain adoption - Canton Strategic Holdings and Canton Network ecosystem - Tokenized asset vs Traditional asset marketsBrought to you by - Learn about iTrustCapital's powerful Premium Custody Account (PCA) and tax-advantaged Crypto IRA platforms https://www.itrustcapital.com/go/thinkingcrypto iTrustCapital Representative: R.Rankin@itrustcapital.com 

The great lie of the Epstein scandal isn't just what he did, but how the powerful around him suddenly claimed they couldn't remember him at all. Presidents, princes, billionaires, academics, bankers, and celebrities who once courted his money and shared his jets all reached for the same script when the walls closed in: I barely knew him. It was a coordinated act of survival, not an accident. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, Deutsche Bank, and JP Morgan played the same game, pretending they never saw the red flags. Legacy media, instead of hammering the contradictions, often published these denials straight, allowing amnesia to masquerade as truth. Forgetting became strategy, and strategy became cover.But memory leaves evidence. Flight logs, photographs, donations, and testimonies remain, and every denial only underscores the complicity of those who looked away. The survivors don't get to forget; they live with scars while the powerful rewrite history. What the amnesia act reveals is cowardice: a willingness to erase reality to protect reputation. Epstein built his empire on memory, yet his circle tried to survive through erasure. In the end, their denials brand them more deeply than their associations ever could—because the attempt to forget is itself proof they remembered perfectly well.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The National Security Hour with Brandon Weichert – The Charlie Kirk case reveals a widening crisis of confidence in American institutions. Questions about evidence, transparency, and political influence fuel public skepticism toward investigators, courts, federal agencies, and the media. As unanswered concerns multiply, credibility depends on open procedures, clear explanations, and facts that withstand scrutiny under public...

Get ready to get deep into the realm of Special Education. As a general ed teacher, I've had a love-hate relationship with how best to work with special education students and the teachers who support them. While I understand the necessity, the implementation in a general education classroom often felt awkward and overwhelming. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I'm also sure our special education teachers have similar grievances when dealing with general ed teachers.So I decided to do a deep dive to better understand the history of our SPED programs, how they are supposed to work, and whether they are really benefiting the students they serve. This deep dive was too big to fit into a single episode, so Jen and I decided to create several episodes to give this topic the time it deserves. Welcome to Episode one:The History of Special Education (SPED)In this episode of Transparency in Teaching, Jen and I dive deep into the history of special education (SPED) in the United States. We start with a light-hearted conversation about Jen's rigorous walking routine, but quickly transition into the main topic: the evolution of special education. In this episode we discuss:Early Days of Special Education:Initially, children with disabilities were often institutionalized or kept at home with no formal education.Wealthier families could afford private tutors or specialized schools, but most families had limited options.Legislative Milestones:A series of laws from 1958 to 1968 began addressing the needs of children with disabilities, but these were piecemeal efforts.Notable acts included the Captioned Films Act (1958), the Training of Professional Personnel Act (1959), and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965).Major Legal Cases:Brown vs. Board of Education (1954): Although primarily about racial desegregation, it laid the groundwork for arguments against segregating children with disabilities.PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971): This case established that children with intellectual disabilities had the right to public education.Mills vs. Board of Education of D.C. (1972): Extended the right to free public education to all children with disabilities, regardless of the cost.The IDEA Act:The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), guaranteed a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities.This act has been reauthorized multiple times but has not been updated since 2004.Current Challenges:The IDEA Act is outdated and needs reauthorization and updates to address current educational needs and funding issues.The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) further ensured accessibility in public spaces, including schools.Jen's Perspective: She is struck by how long it took for meaningful changes to occur and empathizes with the struggles of parents both past and present.Anne's Perspective: She is concerned about the IDEA Act's outdatedness and the lack of recent updates to address current educational challenges.We wrap up by encouraging listeners to reflect on the history of special education and its impact on today's educational landscape. We also tease the next episode, which will delve into the current state of special education, including enrollment numbers and costs.Listeners are invited to share their thoughts and experiences related to special education on our website, TransparencyInTeaching.com, where they can also find past episodes and blog posts.Key Points Discussed: Reflections and Takeaways:Conclusion:Call to Action:

Charles Schwab's Adam Lynch breaks down the recent price action in Bitcoin and Ethereum, highlighting how institutional fund flows have added strength for Ethereum as the crypto space sees lasting pressure. He also examines the Clarity Act and the political challenges the crypto legislation could face as it moves through the U.S. Senate.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

The National Security Hour with Brandon Weichert – The Charlie Kirk case reveals a widening crisis of confidence in American institutions. Questions about evidence, transparency, and political influence fuel public skepticism toward investigators, courts, federal agencies, and the media. As unanswered concerns multiply, credibility depends on open procedures, clear explanations, and facts that withstand scrutiny under public...

François Ruffin est député et journaliste, auteur de plusieurs documentaires et candidat à notre prochaine élection présidentielle.Je me méfie de moi-même quant il s'agit de faire des interviews politiques car je ne crois pas du tout que si tu parles à une personne pendant 2h tu fini par savoir ce qu'elle a dans le ventre.Alors j'ai proposé à François une discussion à bâton rompu, sur des tonnes de sujets à débuter par l'écologie comme la plus grande insécurité qu'on refuse de nommer, du logement comme premier problème de pouvoir d'achat en France, de la mondialisation que les Français n'ont jamais vraiment choisie, de l'intelligence artificielle qui menace autant les cadres que les ouvriers, et de la manière dont le Rassemblement National a construit sa progression en trois étages.J'ai questionné François Ruffin sur ses propres angles morts, sur ce que "faire ensemble" veut dire pour lui, et sur ce qu'il changerait dans l'école, la police et la fiscalité s'il en avait le pouvoir.Je crois que comme il le dit lui même c'est une discussion qu'on en entend rarement avec un politique : sans petite phrase, sans recherche de buzz, avec une vraie tentative de dire ce qu'il pense dans ses tripes.Citations marquantes"L'économie et l'argent, ce sont des imaginaires. Il n'y a pas d'argent, il n'y a pas d'économie." (00:10:01)"Si la planète était une banque, ça fait longtemps qu'on l'aurait sauvée." (01:21:58)"On a des PDG à stock-options ou propriétaires multimilliardaires qui viennent se cacher derrière la vertu du petit entrepreneur." (00:45:41)"Je crois qu'on existe par les autres et qu'on se sauve par les autres." (01:04:00)"La démocratie, ce n'est pas du consensus. C'est du conflit, mais organisé, verbalisé, institutionnalisé." (01:41:54)Idées centrales L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité (00:07:06) Pour Ruffin, l'écologie n'est pas un sujet parmi d'autres mais l'insécurité la plus grave qu'on refuse de traiter comme telle, parce qu'on préfère l'éviter psychologiquement plutôt que de regarder en face une "chronique d'une mort annoncée".Le logement, angle mort du pouvoir d'achat (00:27:53) La part du logement dans le budget des ménages est passée de 10 % à 30 % en vingt ans, avec des loyers en hausse de 80 % pendant que les salaires réels progressaient de 20 %. Ruffin en fait un sujet aussi central que les retraites, et un facteur direct de la chute de la natalité.Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble (01:05:47) Ruffin distingue une société qui cohabite (statique, côte à côte) d'une société qui avance vers un horizon commun. Sans projet partagé, il pense qu'un peuple s'épuise dans les jalousies et les boucs émissaires, comme un couple sans projet commun.Un État colonisé de l'intérieur (00:49:07) Plutôt que de parler de lobbying, Ruffin décrit un État où les intérêts privés (pharmaceutiques en particulier) ont pénétré la décision publique de l'intérieur, citant les réunions du lobby des grands labos tenues dans les salons de l'Élysée.L'IA, un double choc pour les classes moyennes (01:28:10) Contrairement aux vagues précédentes, l'IA touche des métiers qualifiés qui se croyaient protégés par leur diplôme, en cumulant robotisation et délocalisation des postes de bureau, de comptabilité ou de design.Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages (01:49:45) Ruffin décrit le RN comme construit en couches successives : Jean-Marie Le Pen et le racisme affiché, Marine Le Pen et le discours social, Jordan Bardella et le ralliement aux milieux économiques, avec une tension naissante entre ces deux derniers étages.Questions posées dans l'interviewPourquoi l'écologie n'est-elle jamais présentée comme la insécurité qu'elle est réellement ?Comment un responsable politique peut-il agir au niveau national dans un monde mondialisé ?Le logement est-il devenu le vrai sujet du pouvoir d'achat en France ?Comment expliquer que les Français n'aient jamais vraiment choisi la mondialisation ?Faut-il taxer davantage les ultra-riches sans braquer les petits patrons ?Comment redonner une finalité claire à l'école et à la police ?L'intelligence artificielle peut-elle faire s'effondrer le capitalisme lui-même ?Pourquoi les partis politiques n'arrivent-ils plus à débattre entre eux, même à gauche ?Quels sont les angles morts de la gauche, et les vôtres ?Comment le Rassemblement National a-t-il construit sa progression électorale ?Références citéesLivres et écritsLe Progrès. Le Nôtre, François Ruffin (00:56:55)Ecotopia, Ernest Callenbach (01:24:03)Résonance, Hartmut Rosa (01:26:39)La Grande Transformation, Karl Polanyi (01:29:38)"The Antisocial Century", The Atlantic (01:04:19)Travaux de Ha-Joon Chang, économiste sud-coréen (00:20:10)Rapport d'Olivier Lluansi sur la réindustrialisation (00:47:12)Article de Grégory Pouy pour la Fondation Jean-Jaurès sur l'impact des podcasts en politique (00:04:21 et 01:45:19)Personnes citéesAmbroise Croizat (00:13:44)Jean Monnet (01:10:35)Franklin D. Roosevelt (01:09:07)Christophe Castaner (00:22:58)Gérald Darmanin (00:42:52)Bernie Sanders (01:12:27)Kamala Harris (01:12:23)Michel Maffesoli (00:36:42 et 01:15:04)Sarah Saldmann (01:46:12)Annie Ernaux (01:47:42)Antoine Foucher (00:22:12)Yann LeCun et Fidji Simo (01:35:43)Jean Pisani-Ferry (01:23:09)Keynes (01:21:36)Institutions et conceptsSAFER (00:30:26)RIC, référendum d'initiative citoyenne (00:37:24)CROUS (00:31:34)Medef, CGPME, U2P (00:45:20)Classement Challenges des grandes fortunes (00:40:44)Livret A et taux de centralisation (00:56:53)Timestamps clés00:04 : Pourquoi cette conversation avec un politique sort de l'ordinaire06:13 : Générique, entrée en matière sur la canicule07:06 : L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité10:01 : L'économie et l'argent, de purs imaginaires12:27 : D'où vient l'engagement politique de Ruffin13:44 : Ambroise Croizat et la naissance de la Sécurité sociale17:14 : Comment agir au niveau national contre les multinationales20:10 : Le modèle sud-coréen : importer moins plutôt qu'exporter plus22:58 : La mondialisation, un choix des dirigeants, pas des Français25:48 : Protéger certains produits sans fermer le pays27:53 : Le logement, premier poste du pouvoir d'achat33:21 : Les années 80 et la grande déréglementation37:24 : Le RIC et les états généraux comme réponse démocratique40:38 : Sortir des boucs émissaires et de la jalousie sociale45:22 : Distinguer les petits patrons des multinationales49:07 : Un État colonisé de l'intérieur par les intérêts privés53:00 : Où trouve-t-on l'argent pour l'armée58:38 : Remettre la cuisine, le jardinage et la réparation à l'école1:01:02 : La théorie de la société sans friction1:05:47 : Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble1:09:07 : L'horizon commun : une économie de guerre climatique1:12:23 : Les angles morts de Kamala Harris et de la gauche1:15:18 : Insécurité, immigration, violence : ce qu'en pense Ruffin1:21:36 : Sortir de la compétitivité comme seul horizon1:26:48 : L'IA peut-elle faire tomber le capitalisme1:28:10 : Le double choc de l'IA : robotisation et délocalisation1:35:43 : Pourquoi l'Europe n'a ni réseau social ni IA souveraine1:41:54 : La démocratie comme conflit organisé, pas comme consensus1:44:06 : Le rôle des journalistes politiques dans la course au buzz1:46:12 : Ce que l'expérience de terrain change vraiment1:49:45 : Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages1:53:53 : Pourquoi la radicalité se mesure au programme, pas au ton1:56:50 : Ouvrir et fermer la porte, la conclusion de François Ruffin Suggestion d'autres épisodes à écouter : #401 Les politiques sont-ils deconnectés du réél? Avec Boris Vallaud (Partie 1) (https://audmns.com/ZOPVNPw) #376 Quelles stratégies pour reconstruire une France autonome et résiliente? Avec Arnaud Montebourg - Partie 1 (https://audmns.com/UxFQjUM) [Solo] La vraie violence est celle dont on ne parle pas (https://audmns.com/COyPqqx)Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

François Ruffin est député et journaliste, auteur de plusieurs documentaires et candidat à notre prochaine élection présidentielle.Je me méfie de moi-même quant il s'agit de faire des interviews politiques car je ne crois pas du tout que si tu parles à une personne pendant 2h tu fini par savoir ce qu'elle a dans le ventre.Alors j'ai proposé à François une discussion à bâton rompu, sur des tonnes de sujets à débuter par l'écologie comme la plus grande insécurité qu'on refuse de nommer, du logement comme premier problème de pouvoir d'achat en France, de la mondialisation que les Français n'ont jamais vraiment choisie, de l'intelligence artificielle qui menace autant les cadres que les ouvriers, et de la manière dont le Rassemblement National a construit sa progression en trois étages.J'ai questionné François Ruffin sur ses propres angles morts, sur ce que "faire ensemble" veut dire pour lui, et sur ce qu'il changerait dans l'école, la police et la fiscalité s'il en avait le pouvoir.Je crois que comme il le dit lui même c'est une discussion qu'on en entend rarement avec un politique : sans petite phrase, sans recherche de buzz, avec une vraie tentative de dire ce qu'il pense dans ses tripes.Citations marquantes"L'économie et l'argent, ce sont des imaginaires. Il n'y a pas d'argent, il n'y a pas d'économie." (00:10:01)"Si la planète était une banque, ça fait longtemps qu'on l'aurait sauvée." (01:21:58)"On a des PDG à stock-options ou propriétaires multimilliardaires qui viennent se cacher derrière la vertu du petit entrepreneur." (00:45:41)"Je crois qu'on existe par les autres et qu'on se sauve par les autres." (01:04:00)"La démocratie, ce n'est pas du consensus. C'est du conflit, mais organisé, verbalisé, institutionnalisé." (01:41:54)Idées centrales L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité (00:07:06) Pour Ruffin, l'écologie n'est pas un sujet parmi d'autres mais l'insécurité la plus grave qu'on refuse de traiter comme telle, parce qu'on préfère l'éviter psychologiquement plutôt que de regarder en face une "chronique d'une mort annoncée".Le logement, angle mort du pouvoir d'achat (00:27:53) La part du logement dans le budget des ménages est passée de 10 % à 30 % en vingt ans, avec des loyers en hausse de 80 % pendant que les salaires réels progressaient de 20 %. Ruffin en fait un sujet aussi central que les retraites, et un facteur direct de la chute de la natalité.Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble (01:05:47) Ruffin distingue une société qui cohabite (statique, côte à côte) d'une société qui avance vers un horizon commun. Sans projet partagé, il pense qu'un peuple s'épuise dans les jalousies et les boucs émissaires, comme un couple sans projet commun.Un État colonisé de l'intérieur (00:49:07) Plutôt que de parler de lobbying, Ruffin décrit un État où les intérêts privés (pharmaceutiques en particulier) ont pénétré la décision publique de l'intérieur, citant les réunions du lobby des grands labos tenues dans les salons de l'Élysée.L'IA, un double choc pour les classes moyennes (01:28:10) Contrairement aux vagues précédentes, l'IA touche des métiers qualifiés qui se croyaient protégés par leur diplôme, en cumulant robotisation et délocalisation des postes de bureau, de comptabilité ou de design.Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages (01:49:45) Ruffin décrit le RN comme construit en couches successives : Jean-Marie Le Pen et le racisme affiché, Marine Le Pen et le discours social, Jordan Bardella et le ralliement aux milieux économiques, avec une tension naissante entre ces deux derniers étages.Questions posées dans l'interviewPourquoi l'écologie n'est-elle jamais présentée comme la insécurité qu'elle est réellement ?Comment un responsable politique peut-il agir au niveau national dans un monde mondialisé ?Le logement est-il devenu le vrai sujet du pouvoir d'achat en France ?Comment expliquer que les Français n'aient jamais vraiment choisi la mondialisation ?Faut-il taxer davantage les ultra-riches sans braquer les petits patrons ?Comment redonner une finalité claire à l'école et à la police ?L'intelligence artificielle peut-elle faire s'effondrer le capitalisme lui-même ?Pourquoi les partis politiques n'arrivent-ils plus à débattre entre eux, même à gauche ?Quels sont les angles morts de la gauche, et les vôtres ?Comment le Rassemblement National a-t-il construit sa progression électorale ?Références citéesLivres et écritsLe Progrès. Le Nôtre, François Ruffin (00:56:55)Ecotopia, Ernest Callenbach (01:24:03)Résonance, Hartmut Rosa (01:26:39)La Grande Transformation, Karl Polanyi (01:29:38)"The Antisocial Century", The Atlantic (01:04:19)Travaux de Ha-Joon Chang, économiste sud-coréen (00:20:10)Rapport d'Olivier Lluansi sur la réindustrialisation (00:47:12)Article de Grégory Pouy pour la Fondation Jean-Jaurès sur l'impact des podcasts en politique (00:04:21 et 01:45:19)Personnes citéesAmbroise Croizat (00:13:44)Jean Monnet (01:10:35)Franklin D. Roosevelt (01:09:07)Christophe Castaner (00:22:58)Gérald Darmanin (00:42:52)Bernie Sanders (01:12:27)Kamala Harris (01:12:23)Michel Maffesoli (00:36:42 et 01:15:04)Sarah Saldmann (01:46:12)Annie Ernaux (01:47:42)Antoine Foucher (00:22:12)Yann LeCun et Fidji Simo (01:35:43)Jean Pisani-Ferry (01:23:09)Keynes (01:21:36)Institutions et conceptsSAFER (00:30:26)RIC, référendum d'initiative citoyenne (00:37:24)CROUS (00:31:34)Medef, CGPME, U2P (00:45:20)Classement Challenges des grandes fortunes (00:40:44)Livret A et taux de centralisation (00:56:53)Timestamps clés00:04 : Pourquoi cette conversation avec un politique sort de l'ordinaire06:13 : Générique, entrée en matière sur la canicule07:06 : L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité10:01 : L'économie et l'argent, de purs imaginaires12:27 : D'où vient l'engagement politique de Ruffin13:44 : Ambroise Croizat et la naissance de la Sécurité sociale17:14 : Comment agir au niveau national contre les multinationales20:10 : Le modèle sud-coréen : importer moins plutôt qu'exporter plus22:58 : La mondialisation, un choix des dirigeants, pas des Français25:48 : Protéger certains produits sans fermer le pays27:53 : Le logement, premier poste du pouvoir d'achat33:21 : Les années 80 et la grande déréglementation37:24 : Le RIC et les états généraux comme réponse démocratique40:38 : Sortir des boucs émissaires et de la jalousie sociale45:22 : Distinguer les petits patrons des multinationales49:07 : Un État colonisé de l'intérieur par les intérêts privés53:00 : Où trouve-t-on l'argent pour l'armée58:38 : Remettre la cuisine, le jardinage et la réparation à l'école1:01:02 : La théorie de la société sans friction1:05:47 : Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble1:09:07 : L'horizon commun : une économie de guerre climatique1:12:23 : Les angles morts de Kamala Harris et de la gauche1:15:18 : Insécurité, immigration, violence : ce qu'en pense Ruffin1:21:36 : Sortir de la compétitivité comme seul horizon1:26:48 : L'IA peut-elle faire tomber le capitalisme1:28:10 : Le double choc de l'IA : robotisation et délocalisation1:35:43 : Pourquoi l'Europe n'a ni réseau social ni IA souveraine1:41:54 : La démocratie comme conflit organisé, pas comme consensus1:44:06 : Le rôle des journalistes politiques dans la course au buzz1:46:12 : Ce que l'expérience de terrain change vraiment1:49:45 : Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages1:53:53 : Pourquoi la radicalité se mesure au programme, pas au ton1:56:50 : Ouvrir et fermer la porte, la conclusion de François RuffinHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:Michael Santino is an X space host and social media influencer. Michael is a Make-Up and hair stylist for film and television.

Que se passe-t-il à Madagascar ? Depuis plusieurs semaines le pays connaît une flambée de violences et de faits criminels qui traumatisent les populations et inquiètent les autorités. Des disparitions et des assassinats - en particulier d'enfants - sont régulièrement rapportés sur les réseaux sociaux : 90 signalements pour disparitions ces dernières semaines à Antananarivo. Sur ce total, 43 personnes ont été retrouvées. Les autorités malgaches ont depuis pris un certain nombre de mesures pour combattre le phénomène. Le 7 juillet dernier, la présidence a annoncé le déploiement immédiat de la garde présidentielle et de 400 éléments des forces de défense et de sécurité. Ces mesures sont-elles à la hauteur du climat de psychose ambiant à Madagascar et notamment à Antananarivo, la capitale ? Ketakandriana Rafitoson, la numéro deux de Transparency International Initiative Madagascar, est au micro de Polycarpe Essomba. RFI : Récemment, Madagascar a fait face à une vague inédite de disparitions, d'homicides violents, notamment d'enfants. Que se passe-t-il exactement dans le pays ? Ketakandriana Rafitoson : Nous assistons à une montée très préoccupante de l'insécurité. On vit dans une sorte de psychose, surtout à Antananarivo, la capitale. Mais je pense qu'il serait réducteur, en même temps, de considérer ces événements uniquement comme une succession de faits divers. Ils révèlent, selon moi, une crise de conscience profonde entre les citoyens et les institutions chargées de leur protection. Lorsque les citoyens ont le sentiment que les enquêtes n'aboutissent pas suffisamment vite, que des auteurs ne sont pas identifiés, ou que certaines formes de criminalité deviennent plus audacieuses, cela nourrit un climat de peur qui dépasse largement chaque affaire prise isolément, et c'est le cas ici à Antananarivo. Mais qui sont les auteurs de ces actes de violence ? Est-ce qu'on a pu identifier les origines de ce phénomène ? Ce serait irresponsable de désigner des coupables sans preuve, c'est précisément le rôle des enquêteurs de la justice. Et malgré certaines arrestations sporadiques ici et là, l'opinion publique n'est pas convaincue que les auteurs ou les commanditaires réels de ces événements aient été appréhendés. En revanche, ce que l'on peut dire, c'est que lorsqu'une criminalité devient organisée ainsi, cela suppose souvent l'existence de réseaux de complicité, de capacités logistiques, qu'il appartient justement, aux autorités, d'identifier. Vous parlez de réseaux dans la rue. À Antananarivo, on parle souvent de complicité à haut niveau lors des kidnappings ou des trafics de ressources, comme les élus dans le sud du pays. Est-ce qu'on peut envisager que le manque de transparence institutionnelle empêche de démanteler ces réseaux-là ? La transparence est une condition essentielle de l'efficacité de l'État. Cela va sans dire. Quand les institutions fonctionnent de manière opaque, lorsque les responsabilités sont mal établies et lorsque les mécanismes de contrôle sont affaiblis, il devient plus difficile de lutter efficacement contre les réseaux criminels ou les réseaux de corruption. D'ailleurs, et cela est en lien avec la capture de l'État, certaines institutions cessent progressivement de fonctionner exclusivement dans l'intérêt général et peuvent être influencées par des intérêts privés ou particuliers. « Nous sommes en guerre », a indiqué la semaine précédente le Premier ministre sur un ton qui se voulait très offensif. Il a par ailleurs annoncé qu'aucune tolérance ne sera accordée aux auteurs de ces crimes. Une telle sortie vous semble-t-elle justifiée au regard de la situation ? Je comprends parfaitement que les autorités souhaitent envoyer un message de fermeté, devant la gravité de cette situation, puisque les citoyens attendent de l'État qu'il réagisse avec détermination face à des crimes aussi graves. Les mots du Premier ministre ont été justes. Les mots aussi ont un poids. L'important n'est pas seulement de parler de guerre, mais surtout de gagner durablement la bataille contre l'insécurité. Transparency International Madagascar a récemment alerté sur le concept de capture de l'État. Vous l'avez évoqué dans l'entretien, pouvez-vous nous expliquer comment la confiscation des institutions privées ou publiques aggrave l'insécurité des citoyens au quotidien ? La capture de l'État, c'est simplement le fait qu'une petite portion de l'élite, ou bien un groupe d'intérêt, utilise les institutions, mais aussi les finances publiques et l'administration en général, à des fins privées, au lieu de les utiliser à des fins d'intérêt général. L'utilisation des deniers publics, des moyens de l'État, sont tous faits à des fins de prédation, si vous voulez.  Qu'attendez-vous des autorités de la transition aujourd'hui ? À court terme, il faut évidemment mobiliser tous les moyens nécessaires aujourd'hui pour retrouver les auteurs des crimes qui ont été perpétrés et protéger la population, accompagner les familles des victimes et communiquer de manière transparente aussi. Mais il faut également profiter de cette période de refondation pour reconstruire des institutions plus fortes, plus transparentes, plus indépendantes et davantage tournées vers le bien commun. Sur le plus long terme, redonner un sens moral à l'État, rééquilibrer le pouvoir, refonder la démocratie par la base. Et puis il faut investir dans le capital humain, construire une culture de responsabilité à l'échelle nationale. C'est peut-être sur une bonne voie, je dirais sur les déclarations de principe, mais on s'attend à davantage d'actions de la part des pouvoirs publics. À lire aussiMadagascar: forte inquiétude à Antananarivo après une vague de disparitions

This week on Economic Update, Professor Wolff presents an analysis of how markets work, which parts of society they favor and serve, and which they discriminate against. He also unpacks why markets are NOT the same as capitalism, and where markets are NOT allowed to exist in the world today, including in the U.S. He wraps up today's show with an analysis of why market idolatry now functions as a kind of secular religion, especially in the U.S. but also globally.

Dr Adam Koontz and Col Willie Grills talk about why young Mormons are leaving the LDS, what trad Mormonism looks like, and the institutional structure that it was founded on. Visit our website - A Brief History of Power Thanks to our sponsors, Ad Crucem, Memento, and Gnesio Health Dr Adam Koontz - Redeemer Lutheran Church Pr. Willie Grills - Zion Lutheran Church Music thanks to Verny

On this special segment of The Full Ratchet, the following Investors are featured: David Ulevitch of Andreessen Horowitz Eric Ries author of "The Lean Startup" Larry Cheng of Volition Capital We asked guests to share the best question they've ever been asked by an allocator. The host of The Full Ratchet is Nick Moran of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in founders outside of the Bay Area. We're proud to partner with Ramp, the modern finance automation platform. Book a demo and get $150—no strings attached.   Want to keep up to date with The Full Ratchet? Follow us on social. You can learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our LinkedIn and Twitter.

If your church disappeared tomorrow, would your town even notice? In this episode of The Magistrate, Josh Howard and James Baird discuss biblical localism and what faithful Christian influence looks like in everyday life. Rather than chasing national change while neglecting what is near, Christians are called to begin with personal faithfulness, the household, the church, and the local community. From raising godly families and serving the church to attending city council meetings, building Christian networks, and strengthening local institutions, this conversation presents a practical vision for lasting kingdom influence—one faithful step at a time.Watch all of our videos and subscribe to our channel for the latest content >HereHere

Mary-Louise talks to Neil on the back of the death of Jamey Carney at the hands of a man in Killarney.

Why do some countries succeed while others remain trapped in cycles of weak institutions and slow development?In this episode of the Oxford Policy Pod, hosts Cecilia Esteche and Diego Peñaranda speak with Professor James Robinson, 2024 Nobel Memorial Prize laureate in Economic Sciences, Professor at the University of Chicago, and co-author of Why Nations Fail and The Narrow Corridor.The conversation explores Robinson's intellectual journey, his reflections on winning the Nobel Prize, and his latest research on what he calls the "Fundamental Imbalance" in Latin America—the persistent tension between ambitious institutional ideals and the realities of implementation.Together, they discuss why good policies often fail, how institutions shape development, the relationship between culture and political economy, Bolivia's current political and economic challenges, and what future policymakers can learn about building more inclusive societies.

Zack Flipse walked into Synod 2026 as a first-time delegate and came home energized. For anyone who remembers the synods of 2022 and 2023—the walkouts, the exhaustion, the open question of whether the CRCNA would survive—that's no small thing. In this first half of our post-Synod conversation, Zack and Jason compare notes across a few short but seismic years: from a denomination that felt like it might die to one that is, in Zack's words, finally "rowing in the same direction." This is the encouraging episode. Zack served on the Committee for Education and Candidacy, and he walks us through the reports, the new seminary professor, and the candidates—double last year's number—who got a standing ovation on the floor. The two of them dig into the slow, hard work of rebuilding trust in institutions, why low trust isn't a uniquely CRC problem, and the sober math behind the 150-churches-in-three-years vision: a pastor shortage that demands we get serious about raising up leaders. What carries the episode is Zack's testimony of belonging. After years of having to qualify what he meant by "Christian Reformed," he sat on the floor of Synod and realized he didn't have to anymore. "I belong in my own denomination. I love this." It's a window into what reformation actually feels like when it starts to take hold—not a victory lap, but a sigh of relief and a turn toward the work ahead. Timestamps: 0:00 — Intro: post-Synod interviews with delegates, Zack returns 2:35 — How are you feeling after Synod? Coming home energized 3:14 — A first-time delegate's glowing testimony 3:54 — Prep, the 400-page agenda, and the website struggle 5:47 — Trust in institutions: owning the gossip, the broader culture 9:50 — The Committee for Education and Candidacy and the college reports 11:40 — A new seminary professor with a heart for boots-on-the-ground ministry 14:19 — Double the candidates, and 80% of churches giving ministry shares 16:19 — Standing ovations and the question of encouragement 17:26 — Moved to tears: "I belong in my own denomination" 22:57 — The 2023 contrast: when Jason wept fearing the CRC would die 24:38 — East or west, not left or right: arguing about how, not where 26:38 — The church planting vision and a 10-year plan 29:47 — Raising up leaders: commissioned pastors and the LDN 32:48 — The hard math: 350 new pastors and classes of a hundred 34:55 — Naming gifts and the on-ramps into ministry Join and support us on Substack: https://themessyreformation.com/ Intro music by Matt Krotzer

On this episode of CoinDesk's Public Keys from the New York Stock Exchange, host Jennifer Sanasie is joined by CoinDesk Indices and Data to break down nearly $1.8 billion in weekly Bitcoin ETF outflows, Strategy's new capital plan, and whether the digital asset treasury narrative is back. SharpLink CEO Joseph Chalom joins to unpack the Ethereum Foundation's funding crisis, the launch of ETHlabs, and the company's $75 million raise, as he makes the case for an institutional supercycle in ETH. In this week's 10X, Kaizen founder Brian Jung breaks down his MicroStrategy short. Moody's Ratings Managing Director and Global Head of Digital Economy Fabian Astic explains how the firm is embedding credit ratings into tokenized securities on Solana and unveils the first-ever credit rating methodology for stablecoins. Plus, Midnight Foundation President Fahmi Syed details the partnership with Bank of England-regulated Monument Bank and why privacy is becoming the missing piece for institutional adoption. - This episode of Public Keys is brought to you by Kraken Pro. For more: https://pro.kraken.com/ - Learn more at https://www.bullish.com/. - To get market moving news delivered daily, download CoinDesk's mobile app: https://linktr.ee/coindeskapp. - Timecodes: 00:00 Welcome to Public Keys 00:52 BTC ETFs See $1.8B in Weekly Outflows 02:57 Strategy's Capital Plan and Bitcoin's Week 04:12 Is the Digital Asset Treasury Narrative Back? 06:37 Ethereum Foundation Departures and ETHlabs 07:06 SharpLink CEO Joseph Chalom Joins 08:15 Ethereum's Funding Crisis and the ETH Bull Case 10:25 Inside SharpLink's $75M Raise 13:36 ETH's Institutional Super Cycle and Price Outlook 15:19 Will the Clarity Act Pass This Year? 17:45 10X: Brian Jung's Strategy Short 19:16 Moody's Ratings Brings Credit Ratings On-Chain 19:46 Fabian Astic on the First Stablecoin Credit Rating 21:36 Do Stablecoins Need Ratings After the Genius Act? 23:17 Why launch token ratings on Solana and Canton first? 25:36 Collateral Mobility and $255T in Trapped Liquidity 28:46 Is Privacy the Missing Piece for Institutions? 29:02 Midnight's Fahmi Syed on the Monument Bank Deal 33:46 The Collateral Warehouse and Global Expansion 36:38 Thanks for Watching

A new bipartisan housing bill headed to President Trump bars large institutional investors that already own at least 350 single‑family homes from buying more, and loosens a stack of federal rules to speed up construction, modernize manufactured‑home standards and push FHA limits closer to today's prices in an effort to boost supply and stop Wall Street outbidding families.

Trump refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill, demanding the GOP first pass the election-targeting "SAVE America Act."   Members of the "Leaving MAGA" support group share their experiences. And Darializa Avila Chevalier on the scrutiny she's facing over her past statements, controversial views, and where she goes from here. Melissa Murray, Angelo Carusone, all David Noriega join Ali Velshi on The 11th Hour. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stay informed on current events, visit www.NaturalNews.com  - Introduction to Natural Abundance (0:10) - Natural Abundance in the Human Body (6:58) - Energy and Intelligence from Natural Abundance (13:47) - The Law of Substitution and Transcendence (20:33) - The Role of Human Governments and Institutions (27:00) - The Importance of Natural Abundance in Health and Wealth (33:46) - The Role of Gold and Silver in Financial Security (39:48) - The Impact of Natural Catastrophes on Earth's History (46:34) - The Role of Impact Phenomena in Natural Catastrophes (53:46) - The Importance of Studying Natural Catastrophes (1:00:37) - Comet Impact on the Sun (1:06:58) - Discussion on Comet Impact and Solar Response (1:14:01) - Periodic Flux of Comets and Historical Evidence (1:21:28) - Impact of Climate Change and Political Intervention (1:28:37) - Historical Climate Change and Its Impact (1:35:03) - The Role of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change (1:41:44) - The Tunguska Event and Its Implications (1:48:05) - The Importance of Preparedness and Respect for Uncertainty (1:54:13) - The Role of Education and Alternative Models (2:00:40) - The Future of Education and Knowledge Decentralization (2:07:15) Watch more independent videos at http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport  ▶️ Support our mission by shopping at the Health Ranger Store - https://www.healthrangerstore.com ▶️ Check out exclusive deals and special offers at https://rangerdeals.com ▶️ Sign up for our newsletter to stay informed: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html Watch more exclusive videos here: