Podcasts about institutions

Noam Dworman, Dan Naturman and Periel Aschenbrand are joined by Musa al-Garbi. They discuss the Jason Arday scandal, academic freedom, DEI, affirmative action, merit, standardized testing, grade inflation and the growing crisis of trust in elite institutions. Musa al-Gharbi is a sociologist in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University. His work has appeared in The Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Atlantic and The Nation among other publications. He is author of the book, We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. https://www.chronicle.com/article/jason-arday-and-me https://musaalgharbi.com /https://x.com/Musa_alGharbi Chapters: 02:11 Musa Al-Garbi's experience with cancellation
 12:16 The Jason Arday scandal
 16:19 Identity, victimhood and the incentives inside elite professions
23:40 Does DEI actually work?
 28:04 Race, education and standardized testing
 38:29 Grade inflation and the collapse of academic standards
 42:35 The bigger problem at Cambridge
 45:11 Nathan Cofnas and the free-speech battle
 57:06 Why academic freedom exists
 1:04:31 The decline of serious political debate

The conversation turns to a hard truth: nobody is doing anything to stop him. Hawk points to Donald Trump's second term, the harm being done to others on purpose, and the fear that Trump and Republicans will interfere with the midterm elections. He calls out the Supreme Court for gutting the Voting Rights Act in the South and names it the most racist court of his lifetime, arguing that American institutions have failed and worse is coming. Woven through it all is a national sense of grief. This week the country lost Dolly Parton, Tim Curry, and Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus Prime, bright presences who shaped decades of culture. Hawk closes on gratitude, his home, his dogs, and getting to play music with friends at 58, even with a busted knee. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Institutions confuse their own survival with the work of God. Dr. James Spencer and Dr. Ashish Varma close the diagnostic arc of this series with transaction, meaning the trade a person or an organization makes when preserving the platform becomes more important than the faithfulness the platform was built for. The anchor text is Jeroboam, who sets up worship at Dan and Bethel not to introduce a different god but to keep his people from traveling south. Varma's reading sharpens it: the question is whether Israel gathers around the presence of God or whether God is expected to gather around Israel. The conversation turns on how easily success gets read as approval. Spencer flags the language of institutions insisting that God needs them to be what they are now more than ever. Varma answers with Habakkuk, where God raises up Babylon in response to injustice and Babylon is still judged for how it behaves, and extends the point to a mission history in which the gospel genuinely spread through colonial expansion that was itself blessed by churches and was still indefensible. Being used is not the same as being approved. Spencer adds Nebuchadnezzar, named as God's servant and punished seventy years later, and the distinction holds: the exile was deserved, the brutality was not. What follows is uncomfortable for anyone who works in one of these places. Institutions may end because their course is run, or because they failed, or in spite of their faithfulness, and outcomes do not tell you which. Spencer, who consults with seminaries and Christian colleges, describes leaders trapped by buildings, accreditation, and systems, protecting a vehicle rather than the thing the vehicle was for. Nobody pursues a doctorate in order to preserve an institution. The question both men land on is whether the model has quietly been substituted for the mission. Resources The diagnosis guide: https://www.thinkingchristian.org/about/framework Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman- amazon.com Norman Wirzba on creation and nature- amazon.com Passages referenced: Genesis 6 and 11 and 15, Deuteronomy 8, 1 Kings 12 and 17, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, John 12 Follow and subscribe Subscribe to Thinking Christian: https://episodes.thinkingchristian.org Website: https://www.thinkingchristian.org Chapters 0:00 What transaction means 2:24 Jeroboam and the shortcut 3:10 Not a different god 7:18 Why it looked legitimate 10:42 Institutional inertia 13:44 In defense of the word lucky 15:36 Habakkuk and Babylon 19:52 Spread and consequence 20:19 Kahneman on luck 22:43 Nebuchadnezzar as servant 26:50 Two theological problems 31:34 Babel and human capability 33:50 The patience of God 35:51 Institutions that simply end 39:35 Ideology defines the questions 41:34 What higher ed is protecting 43:16 Substituting the vehicle 45:38 Faithful in the moment 47:56 Repentance and repudiation 50:15 Walking beside someone bigger 53:19 What comes next in the series Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

In this episode of the Crypto 101 Podcast, Seth Ginns, CIO of Franklin Crypto, joins from the Out East Summit to explain why Franklin Templeton believes traditional finance and crypto are finally converging. He shares how his background in public equities and crypto investing led him from CoinFund to Franklin, where the goal is to build institutional-grade crypto strategies for sovereign wealth funds, pensions, endowments, insurance companies, family offices, and other sophisticated allocators. Seth also explains why Ethereum's Lindy effect, stablecoins, RWAs, market infrastructure, payments, AI plus crypto, and tokenization could define the next phase of institutional crypto adoption.Check out Omaha Steaks and use my code BEEF for a great deal: https://www.omahasteaks.comCheck out Scribe and use my code scribe.how/CRYPTO101 for a great deal: https://scribe.comCheck out Quince: https://quince.com/CRYPTO101Check out Shopify: https://shopify.com/crypto101Check out ShipStation and use my code crypto for a great deal: https://www.shipstation.comGet my #1 altcoin pick for this month.Get immediate access to my entire crypto portfolio for just $1.00 today! Get your FREE copy of "Crypto Revolution" and start making big profits from buying, selling,Get immediate access to my entire crypto portfolio.. just $1.00 today! Go here to get access: https://www.crypto101insider.com/cryptnation-directm6pypcy1?utm_source=Internal&utm_medium=YouTube&utm_content=Podcast&utm_term=20250916Get your FREE copy of "Crypto Revolution: Your Guide To The Future of Money". In this book, I reveal how to make (and keep) a fortune during this crypto bull run! http://www.cryptorevolution.com/free?utm_source=Internal&utm_medium=YouTube&utm_content=Podcast&utm_term=20250916Chapters00:00 -Intro 00:45 - From public equities to crypto investing01:45 - Launching CoinFund's liquid strategy02:05 - Why Franklin Templeton acquired the team03:00 - TradFi and crypto convergence04:40 - Why Clarity Act passage is nice but not required06:55 - Franklin Crypto's active strategy focus07:40 - Institutional allocators entering crypto10:40 - Franklin's ETFs, tokenization, and product suite11:55 - How smart money values crypto assets15:55 - Ethereum, Lindy effect, RWAs, and stablecoins18:00 - Market infrastructure, payments, AI, and crypto20:05 - Why Seth is bullish on the next market phaseSubscribe to YouTube for Exclusive Content:https://www.youtube.com/@crypto101podcast?sub_confirmation=1Follow us on social media for leading-edge crypto updates and trade alerts:https://twitter.com/Crypto101Podhttps://instagram.com/crypto_101*This is NOT financial, tax, or legal advice*Boardwalk Flock LLC. All Rights Reserved  ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬Fog by DIZARO https://soundcloud.com/dizarofrCreative Commons — Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported — CC BY-ND 3.0 Free Download / Stream: http://bit.ly/Fog-DIZAROMusic promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/lAfbjt_rmE8▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬Our Sponsors:* Check out Omaha Steaks and use my code BEEF for a great deal: https://www.omahasteaks.com* Check out Quince and use my code quince.com/CRYPTO101 for a great deal: https://www.quince.com* Check out Scribe and use my code scribe.how/CRYPTO101 for a great deal: https://scribe.com* Check out ShipStation and use my code crypto for a great deal: https://www.shipstation.com* Check out Shopify and use my code shopify.com/crypto101 for a great deal: https://www.shopify.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Unleashed: The Political News Hour with Chris Cordani – The discussion begins with the WNBA, moves into Michelle Tafoya's political rise in Minnesota, and then lands on the much larger issue of election integrity, voter rolls, mail-in ballots, and the growing demand for transparency. At the center of the conversation is a simple question: How long can institutions ignore what everyone can see?

Robert P. George joins John Anderson at the ARC conference in London for a conversation that traces natural law back through Cicero and Aristotle to Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail. He also discusses his friendship with utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer on the personhood of the unborn as evidence that serious disagreement and real friendship aren't incompatible.The conversation turns to what happens when that capacity disappears: the tribalism of social media and siloed media ecosystems, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which George calls a tragedy not just for Kirk's family but for civic life in the West. He warns that the U.S. may be "one more assassination away from a civil war," and argues that the way back runs through intellectual humility — a willingness to recognise one's own fallibility and to see one's opponent as a fellow citizen rather than an enemy to be destroyed.Robert P. George is an American legal scholar, political philosopher, and public intellectual. He serves as the sixth McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Have institutions killed the tokenization trend? Plus, Northern Dynasty Minerals (NAK) vs. Coppernico Metals (CPPMF)... Walmart (WMT) vs. Target (TGT)... Will the Clarity Act finally pass this year? … And another horrible SPAC crushing retail investors. In this episode: Is Northern Dynasty Minerals (NAK) worth another look? [2:11] Coppernico Metals (CPPMF) is a great buy right now [7:045] Walmart (WMT) vs. Target (TGT): Which is the better stock? [8:28] My No. 1 pick for fantasy football [17:02] Will the Clarity Act finally pass this year? [20:46] Institutions are ruining tokenization [28:11] Another horrible SPAC crushing retail investors [33:16] Ask us anything at askcurzio.com! [49:07] Did you like this episode? Get more Wall Street Unplugged FREE each week in your inbox. Sign up here: https://curzio.me/syn_wsu Find Wall Street Unplugged podcast… --Curzio Research App: https://curzio.me/syn_app --iTunes: https://curzio.me/syn_wsu_i --Stitcher: https://curzio.me/syn_wsu_s --Website: https://curzio.me/syn_wsu_cat Follow Frank… X: https://curzio.me/syn_twt Facebook: https://curzio.me/syn_fb LinkedIn: https://curzio.me/syn_li

Natalie Brunell sits down with Alex Leishman, Founder, CEO & CTO of River. Alex shares what River's own client data reveals about who is buying and selling Bitcoin right now — and why big institutions are quietly accumulating during this downturn while everyday investors sell. In this episode: Is Bitcoin still Bitcoin if Wall Street owns a growing share of it? Why most people never move their Bitcoin off an exchange How scammers actually steal Bitcoin, and the simple habits that stop them Whether quantum computing is a real threat to your Bitcoin, and how River is preparing Why Alex has no plans to take River public, even as competitors go the other way What Alex tells people when everyone around them has turned bearish Follow Alex Leishman on X: https://x.com/Leishman  and sign up for River at https://www.river.com/natalie  ---- Order Natalie's new book "Bitcoin is For Everyone," a simple introduction to Bitcoin and what's broken in our current financial system: https://amzn.to/3WzFzfU  ---- Borrow against your Bitcoin without selling it. Ledn offers Bitcoin-backed loans built for serious holders, with rates that get lower as your loan size increases. With Ledn's custodied loan product, your Bitcoin is held in custody and not lent out. Ledn has operated through multiple market cycles without a loss of client assets and publishes Proof of Reserves so you can verify what they hold. Get 0.25% off your first loan at ledn.io/natalie. Terms apply — see the site for details. ---- Bitdeer Technologies Group (NASDAQ: BTDR) powers AI and Bitcoin mining infrastructure with 3 GW of secured global energy — and owns the entire stack, from equipment manufacturing to data centers to proprietary orchestration software. Learn more at https://www.bitdeer.com. ---- Abundant Mines is a fully-managed Bitcoin mining in the U.S. You own the miners. You keep 100% of the Bitcoin. Voted #1 mining company by peers. Get 1 month of free hosting: AbundantMines.com/Natalie ---- Natalie's Bitcoin Product Partners & Sponsors: Speed is my go-to Bitcoin Lightning wallet! Send, receive, or swap stablecoins and digital gold into Bitcoin in one app. Run a business? Speed powers Bitcoin payments for Steak 'n Shake, and it can do the same for you. Download at https://speed.app/natalie  and use code COINSTORIES10 for 5,000 free sats after your first transaction. Download Bitkey Today and use my promo code STORIES to get 10% off the new Bitkey. This episode has been sponsored by Bitkey: https://bitkey.world/STORIES Master Bitcoin self-custody and gain peace of mind with 1-on-1 training: https://www.thebitcoinway.com/natalie?utm_source=partner-natalie&utm_medium=podcast With BitcoinIRA, you can invest in bitcoin 24/7 inside a tax-advantaged IRA. Choose a Traditional IRA to defer taxes, or a Roth IRA for tax-free withdrawals later. Take control of your future with BitcoinIRA: https://www.bitcoinira.com/natalie  Kalshi is the largest prediction market in the world. Use code HODL and get $25 when you trade $25: http://kalshi.com/r/HODL   Natalie's Upcoming Events: The best time to plan for Bitcoin 2027 is right now. Early bird tickets are live — grab the lowest pricing available and use code HODL for 10% off: https://tickets.b.tc/event/bitcoin-2027?promoCodeTask=apply&promoCodeInput=HODL  Extra Services to Consider: One of the best decisions I made for both my heath and my bank account was joining CrowdHealth years ago. I never spend more than $200 on health coverage through my CrowdHealth plan and all my health events have been crowd-funded. Get started with a discounted plan at my link. : www.joincrowdhealth.com/natalie  ---- Disclaimer: The News Block and Coin Stories are for educational and entertainment purposes only and do not constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Natalie Brunell is not a financial advisor. Some content may include sponsorships or paid partnerships, which are disclosed. Always do your own research and consult a licensed professional before making financial decisions. Bitcoin and digital assets are volatile — never invest more than you can afford to lose.  

Hour 1 for 8/18/26 Drew and Dr. Mark Regnerus discuss the decline of trust in America's institutions (2:06) and what those contributing factors to the decline in trust is (15:42). Then, Drew and Msgr. Shea cover the importance of Ireland (27:40) to historical Catholicism (42:55). Links: @RegnerusMark CometoMary.Life How the Irish Saved Civilization

What if the Industrial Revolution wasn't sparked by the steam engine, but by a quiet legal revolution in how England handled property rights? Ben Southwood of Works in Progress argues that the Glorious Revolution of the 1680s unleashed British growth by empowering a Parliament composed of landowners who simplified their own tangled, inefficient property rights. Through thousands of case-by-case acts, they freed up land for investment, consolidated inefficient farm ownership, and enabled a boom in privately-built roads, canals, and navigable rivers that created national markets. Along the way you'll learn why roads once moved at 1.5 miles per hour, and how these centuries-old lessons about buying off holdouts might solve today's housing and infrastructure gridlock.

Archipelago is a book about connection and isolation as described in the essays by Vicki Goldberg and Jean Dykstra. Chovan-Dalton and Del Amo discuss Del Amo's influence from the worlds of theater and dance, they also talk about teaching and the changes to their practices through the fall and rise of film photography.Photo of Yolanda del Amo credit: Ignacio Evangelista https://www.yolandadelamo.comhttps://www.instagram.com/yolanda.delamo/Yolanda del Amo is a Spanish-born, New York-based artist who works in photography. She questions how social constructs such as class, gender and family influence community, interpersonal psychology, and identity. Her work looks at individuals through a sociological and psychological lens, exploring how we live and connect with ourselves and others, and how we shape the world around us.Solo exhibitions have been held at the Centro Cultural de la Torriente Brau in Havana, Hudson Franklin Gallery in New York City, and Light Work in Syracuse, New York, among others. Her work has been included in group exhibitions at venues such as Julie Saul Gallery in New York City, the Addison Gallery of American Art in Andover and the National Portrait Gallery in London.She has been the recipient of multiple awards, such as a commendation at the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition organized by the National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC and the second prize at the Salón Nacional de Artes Visuales in Buenos Aires. Institutions and Foundations that have supported her work through production grants include the Jerome Foundation, the John Anson Kittredge Fund and the Spanish Ministry of Culture.Del Amo has been a resident artist at the Terra Foundation for American Art in Giverny, France, the Spanish Academy in Rome, Light Work in Syracuse, New York, the Lower Manhattan Culture Council in New York City (LMCC) and the Cité Internationale des Arts in Paris.She is currently Professor of Photography and Digital Media at Ramapo College of New Jersey.This podcast is sponsored by the Charcoal Book Club - Begin Building your dream photobook library today at:https://charcoalbookclub.com

Is tough love to blame for our shame?

Guests: Seth Barron and Elizabeth Fredericks Host Scot Bertram talks with Seth Barron, editorial board member at the New York Post, who explains how the Left is moving power away from the people and into the hands of an administrative class and discusses his new book Weaponized: The Left's Capture and Destruction of America's Sacred Institutions. And Elizabeth […]

Guests: Seth Barron and Elizabeth Fredericks Host Scot Bertram talks with Seth Barron, editorial board member at the New York Post, who explains how the Left is moving power away from the people and into the hands of an administrative class and discusses his new book Weaponized: The Left's Capture and Destruction of America's Sacred Institutions. And Elizabeth Fredericks, associate professor of English at Hillsdale College, begins a series on the British literature of World War I. This week, she focuses on the emotional tone of British writing at the start of the war. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

250 years ago when the United States declared independence, Edward Gibbon across the ocean published the first volume of his magisterial series, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Immediately his text caused a storm of controversy. Many readers thought that Gibbon had implied that the rise of Christianity caused the fall of the western empire. But is that the real story? To answer that question, in Episode 1 of Season 6, I have as our guest Hugh Liebert. A Professor of Political Science at West Point, he earned his doctorate through the Committee on Social Thought at UChicago, and has written two books: Plutarch's Politics (2016), and Gibbon's Christianity (2022). Drawing on Gibbon's Christianity, we look at the historian's paradoxical views on religion, his early conversions to both Catholicism and Protestantism, and how he used those experiences to chronicle the early church as a disciplined new republic that overcame decadent Roman polytheism much as how the Roman Republic conquered aged empires. Along the way, we discuss Gibbon's ironic and elusive style, his larger essays and memoirs, and the love of literary glory that pervades his fascinating life and complex work. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on the JMP substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

250 years ago when the United States declared independence, Edward Gibbon across the ocean published the first volume of his magisterial series, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Immediately his text caused a storm of controversy. Many readers thought that Gibbon had implied that the rise of Christianity caused the fall of the western empire. But is that the real story? To answer that question, in Episode 1 of Season 6, I have as our guest Hugh Liebert. A Professor of Political Science at West Point, he earned his doctorate through the Committee on Social Thought at UChicago, and has written two books: Plutarch's Politics (2016), and Gibbon's Christianity (2022). Drawing on Gibbon's Christianity, we look at the historian's paradoxical views on religion, his early conversions to both Catholicism and Protestantism, and how he used those experiences to chronicle the early church as a disciplined new republic that overcame decadent Roman polytheism much as how the Roman Republic conquered aged empires. Along the way, we discuss Gibbon's ironic and elusive style, his larger essays and memoirs, and the love of literary glory that pervades his fascinating life and complex work. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on the JMP substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Zohran Mamdani's NYC is offering free government childcare on August 16th — four hours, five boroughs, kids 6–13, dinner included. They call it Parents' Night Out. Scripture calls parenting a charge you don't outsource to City Hall. Jason Whitlock and Chad Jackson break down why the state is not your babysitter, and why free pizza is a soft door to hard indoctrination. The government was built to get out of parents' way — not replace them. ➢ Show Outline 00:00 The City's "Parents Night Out" Program 01:00 Biblical Perspective on Parenting vs. the State 02:31 The State as a "Soft Parent" and Its Dangers 03:27 Alternatives to Government Childcare 05:05 Christian Tradition vs. State Intervention in Child Rearing 07:08 Grooming Children and Parents to Trust the State 10:03 The Impact of Institutions on Children's Development 14:52 The Mentality of Reparations and Government Dependence 21:38 Why Black Culture Has a Short-Term Mentality 24:50 Re-evaluating Suffering in Black History 35:42 Undermining Hard Work and Traditional Values ➢ Follow Our GUESTS https://www.youtube.com/@DreAllDay https://www.youtube.com/@skap_attack https://www.youtube.com/@KTVwatch  https://x.com/SteveKim323 https://www.youtube.com/@ChadOJackson  ➢ Subscribe to Jason's other channel https://www.youtube.com/JasonWhitlock?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockHarmony?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockBYOG?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockClips?sub_confirmation=1 ➢ Connect with Jason on Social Media:  https://x.com/JasonWhitlock  https://www.instagram.com/realjasonwhitlock/ https://www.facebook.com/jasonwhitlock ➢ Send Jason an Email FearlessBlazeShow@gmail.com ➢ Support The Blaze Visit https://TheBlaze.com. Explore the all-new ad-free experience and see for yourself how we're standing up against suppression and prioritizing independent journalism. Support Conservative Voices! Subscribe to BlazeTV at https://www.fearlessmission.com and get $20 off your yearly subscription. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Institutions are increasing their focus on creating inclusive environments. In this episode, Megan Kohler joins us to discuss a course design framework she developed to support neurodiverse learners. Megan is an Assistant Teaching Professor and Learning Designer in the John A. Dutton e-Education Institute at Penn State. She is the recipient of the Marion G. Mitchell Award for Innovative Teaching and is conducting research, funded by the Schreyer Institute Scholarship, on supporting neurodivergent learners in higher education. Megan is one of the co-editors of The Multi-Disciplinary Instructional Designer: Integrating Specialized Skills into Design Toolkits. A transcript of this episode and show notes may be found at http://teaforteaching.com.

250 years ago when the United States declared independence, Edward Gibbon across the ocean published the first volume of his magisterial series, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Immediately his text caused a storm of controversy. Many readers thought that Gibbon had implied that the rise of Christianity caused the fall of the western empire. But is that the real story? To answer that question, in Episode 1 of Season 6, I have as our guest Hugh Liebert. A Professor of Political Science at West Point, he earned his doctorate through the Committee on Social Thought at UChicago, and has written two books: Plutarch's Politics (2016), and Gibbon's Christianity (2022). Drawing on Gibbon's Christianity, we look at the historian's paradoxical views on religion, his early conversions to both Catholicism and Protestantism, and how he used those experiences to chronicle the early church as a disciplined new republic that overcame decadent Roman polytheism much as how the Roman Republic conquered aged empires. Along the way, we discuss Gibbon's ironic and elusive style, his larger essays and memoirs, and the love of literary glory that pervades his fascinating life and complex work. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on the JMP substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” 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

Bitwise's CIO Matt Hougan and Head of Research Ryan Rasmussen break down why institutional ETF investors kept buying through the summer's 50% drawdowns and explain why they expect the next bull market to look a lot different than previous ones. They also make the case that ETF flows are expanding, what institutional allocators really want to buy, and the long-term forecasts for top digital assets.Matt Hougan is the Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise, and Ryan Rasmussen is the Head of Research at Bitwise, one of the largest digital assets asset managers with a suite of digital asset ETFs spanning Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and beyond.The Rollup is where the leaders of digital assets and finance converge. Live from the financial capital of the world.Timestamps:00:00 Intro01:00 Market Structure Shifting03:01 Is The Four Year Cycle Compressing?08:07 Positive ETF Flows Since July 1st13:55 Why Institutions Buy Majors, Not Apps (Yet)15:21 Digital Asset Natives See A Different Opportunity18:05 Bitcoin Starting To Trade Like Gold20:42 Institutions Are Getting Sophisticated Now30:59 Hyperliquid & Zcash Bull Thesis37:04 Memes Aren't Sustainable Guest Socials:Matt Hougan X: https://x.com/Matt_HouganRyan Rasmussen: https://x.com/RasterlyRockBitwise X: https://x.com/BitwiseBitwise Website: https://bitwiseinvestments.com/Partners: If you run concentrated liquidity positions you know the grind. Price moves, you're out of range, you're rebalancing at, like, 3am. 1inch Aqua lets you take a different approach. You can stack multiple positions on the same token balance instead of babysitting a dozen pools, and your tokens never leave your wallet. Your liquidity stays awake, so you can catch up on your sleep. Check it out at https://1inch.com/aqua---Dinari - Over 230 1:1 backed tokenized stocks, ETFs & more with dividends. US-based SEC transfer agent. Available on 5+ chains & via API. https://dinari.com/---Space and Time is providing verifiable data infrastructure for onchain finance. A decentralized database, blockchain indexer, and ZK coprocessor in one, giving DeFi protocols,stablecoins, and tokenized assets accurate, provable data. ---Relay is the fastest and most reliable way to swap any token on any chain. Learn more here: https://relay.link/bridge---Zama is an open source cryptography company that builds state-of-the-art Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) solutions for blockchain.Learn more here: https://www.zama.org/---

250 years ago when the United States declared independence, Edward Gibbon across the ocean published the first volume of his magisterial series, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Immediately his text caused a storm of controversy. Many readers thought that Gibbon had implied that the rise of Christianity caused the fall of the western empire. But is that the real story? To answer that question, in Episode 1 of Season 6, I have as our guest Hugh Liebert. A Professor of Political Science at West Point, he earned his doctorate through the Committee on Social Thought at UChicago, and has written two books: Plutarch's Politics (2016), and Gibbon's Christianity (2022). Drawing on Gibbon's Christianity, we look at the historian's paradoxical views on religion, his early conversions to both Catholicism and Protestantism, and how he used those experiences to chronicle the early church as a disciplined new republic that overcame decadent Roman polytheism much as how the Roman Republic conquered aged empires. Along the way, we discuss Gibbon's ironic and elusive style, his larger essays and memoirs, and the love of literary glory that pervades his fascinating life and complex work. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on the JMP substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Topics:  History Segment, Social Media Study, Lost, Glorify God, Trust God BONUS CONTENT: Live At Peace, Mailbox Keys   Quotes: "Are you going to trust God with your life?" "Sorrow is a very legitimate response to the state of things." "The path of least resistance is to be mad."' "The postal service is not allowed to play practical jokes." . . . Holy Ghost Mama Pre-Order! Want more of the Oddcast? Check out our website! Watch our YouTube videos here. Connect with us on Facebook!

The Declaration as a “promissory note”—and what it demands now In the final discussion of The Declaration at 250 series, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, argues that the Declaration of Independence should be read in the Lincoln–King tradition: not as proof that the American project was completed in 1776, but as a promissory note that sets enduring standards for justice. He confronts the central tension head-on—slavery alongside the Declaration's equality claims—contending that the nation's gravest wrongs were never the result of too much devotion to the Declaration's ideals, but rather repeated failures to honor them. For George, the Declaration's moral architecture depends on natural law and natural rights: rights are not gifts from the state, courts, or political majorities, but are grounded in a “more-than-merely human” authority and therefore cannot be legitimately revoked by human power. He then reframes the most familiar triad—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—arguing that “liberty” is freedom for worthy ends (not license) and “happiness” is flourishing and character (not mere pleasure or desire satisfaction), which means the founding principles carry substantive moral content rather than a thin, value-neutral individualism. Jonathan Gienapp, Professor of History at Stanford University, broadens and complicates this account by bringing the Declaration's historical context into sharper focus. He emphasizes that the document's immediate purpose was political: to justify revolution and to define legitimate liberty as non-domination—being governed by laws made with genuine representation and consent rather than by an alien will. Gienapp presses George to connect moral freedom-for-flourishing to political freedom-as-self-government: what changes if we place republicanism and democracy at the center of the Declaration's promise, alongside natural rights? He also signals that the Declaration did not simply announce shared principles; it generated intense argument almost immediately over what “liberty” and “licentiousness” meant in practice, setting up a long-running contest over whose interpretation truly carried forward the Revolution's aims. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26 – 00:04:40] Chapter 1 — Series finale setup + introducing the speakers Host Michael McConnell closes out The Declaration at 250 and tees up the theme: the Declaration as a “promissory note,” then introduces Robert P. George and Jonathan Gienapp and frames the conversation as a capstone debate.[00:04:40 – 00:42:48] Chapter 2 — Robert P. George's case: natural rights, civic virtue, and “freedom for” flourishing George argues America's failures come from infidelity to the Declaration, not devotion to it, and grounds rights in a Creator and natural law. He reframes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as moral claims aimed at virtue, ordered liberty, and human flourishing—not license or pleasure.[00:43:00 – 00:47:45] Chapter 3 — Jonathan Gienapp's first question: liberty as non-domination and self-government Gienapp presses the political meaning of liberty at the founding—freedom as non-domination under representative institutions and consent. He asks how George's moral account of liberty connects to republican self-rule and the Declaration's grievance-driven justification for revolution.[00:47:45 – 01:00:19] Chapter 4 — Jonathan Gienapp's second and third questions: wealth inequality + early fights over “liberty vs. licentiousness” Gienapp adds the material foundations of republicanism—property distribution, anti-aristocracy reforms like abolishing primogeniture/entail—and asks how inequality threatens civic virtue and ordered liberty. He then argues the Declaration sparked immediate, bitter disputes (Federalists vs. Jeffersonians/Jacksonians) over what counted as true liberty and who “captured the soul” of American democracy.[01:00:27 – 01:09:09] Chapter 5 — George's replies: non-domination affirmed, inequality debated, polarization then vs. now George embraces the non-domination point and explains how founders linked freedom and republican self-government, while suggesting leading founders worried more about forced leveling than wealth gaps. He reflects on early partisan conflict but argues today's divide is deeper because Americans no longer share a common moral vocabulary or civic framework. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Crypto Podcast. You can find all our episodes on thecryptopodcast.org. My guest today spent years inside the room where crypto's rules actually get written. As a regulatory crypto attorney, he's advised leading exchanges on exactly what they could and couldn't legally offer, and he helped launch the first crypto ETFs on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Now he's on the other side of the table as CEO of Yield School and founder of New Market Trading, helping everyday investors get access to the primary markets that most retail traders never know exist. Please welcome Frank Hepworth. In this episode, Roy and Frank cover the regulatory landscape shaping crypto today, including the Genius Act, the pending Clarity Act, and why Frank believes Europe's MiCA legislation forced crypto into traditional finance and backfired. Frank explains how New Market Trading uses smart contract technology so clients retain full self-custody while still getting professional portfolio management, why institutional ETF buyers have been buying the top and selling the bottom like retail investors, and how he evaluates which crypto assets are worth investing in using a commodity-versus-business framework. The conversation closes with a detailed, refreshingly honest breakdown of why real estate tokenization is far less advanced than people assume, and why native on-chain companies, not tokenized off-chain assets, are where Frank believes the space is actually heading. ⏱️ TIMESTAMPS 0:02 - Welcome to The Crypto Podcast, intro to Frank Hepworth 0:48 - Frank's path into crypto and law simultaneously, starting in 2017 3:03 - Getting hired by a top law firm during the 2020-2021 bull run 4:53 - The Genius Act, the Clarity Act, and why Frank thinks MiCA backfired 11:47 - How Yield School teaches DeFi investing vs. how New Market Trading manages it 13:44 - How the smart contract investment account makes theft technologically impossible 17:45 - Helping US clients set up checkbook IRAs for tax-exempt crypto investing 24:56 - Why big institutions have been buying the top and selling the bottom 27:42 - How Frank decides which crypto assets are worth investing in: commodity vs. business framework 31:00 - Where NFTs are headed, and why early blue-chip collections may hold value 32:12 - Why real estate tokenization is far less advanced than most people assume 37:17 - Cypherpunks who operate entirely outside the fiat system 41:20 - Frank's honest take on his role in launching the first Toronto Stock Exchange crypto ETF 41:38 - Where to find Frank Hepworth and connect with his team About Frank Hepworth Frank Hepworth is a former crypto regulatory attorney who advised leading exchanges on legal compliance and contributed to the listing documentation for the first crypto ETFs on the Toronto Stock Exchange. He is now CEO of Yield School, which teaches investors how to navigate decentralized finance directly, and founder of New Market Trading, which uses ERC-4337 smart contract technology to give clients professional portfolio management while retaining full self-custody of their crypto. Frank currently serves primarily US-based clients. Connect with Frank Hepworth

Bitcoin is still stuck in its long sideways range, but the buyers underneath the market are getting harder to ignore. Matt covers roughly $1.2 billion in Bitcoin whale accumulation and about $750 million in U.S. spot ETF inflows this week, while also looking at continued pressure on Bitcoin miners and another delay to the CLARITY Act until at least September. The episode also covers Coinbase losing another prediction-market court fight, Coldcard losses climbing above $116 million across more than 5,200 wallets, BIP-110 continuing to struggle for miner support, and XRP weakening as regulatory clarity gets pushed further out. Bitcoin is back near $65,000 and the Fear & Greed Index has moved to neutral, but Matt remains cautious about calling a true breakout. Happy Hodling, Everyone. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us Fan MailI am your host, Neo Griot. Welcome to Rational Black Thought, a podcast where we discuss news, politics, religion, and culture from a Black, progressive, secular humanist perspective.This week's episode is titled after a lyric by Dame D.O.L.L.A.:Used to call us monkeys and slaves and we overcame. Still, our work is just beginnin'. Protests look like parades.That bar carries three truths in two lines.First: we overcame. Slavery. Jim Crow. Redlining. Mass incarceration. Voter suppression. A country that called us property and then called us criminals. And we are still here.Second: the work isn't finished. Overcoming isn't the same as arriving. Winning a battle isn't winning the war. Getting in the room isn't controlling the room.Third: our protests look like parades. That's not just a flex — it's a strategy. We have learned to organize. We have learned to mobilize. We can fill the streets, fill the polls, fill the rallies. The question is what happens after the parade goes home.Because here's the thing about parades: they're beautiful, they're loud, they prove we exist. But parades don't govern. Parades don't draw district lines, confirm judges, staff election boards, or write legislation. Parades show power. Institutions wield power.And that's the tension heading into the 2026 midterms.Americans are taught that elections are simple. Vote. Count. Winner governs. That's the civics-book version — clean and comforting and mostly fiction.In the real system, your vote travels through congressional districts, state legislatures, election boards, federal courts, and constitutional compromises before it becomes governing power. At every stop, some votes get amplified and others get diluted. A voter in one state can have dozens of times more Senate influence than a voter in another. A party can lose the popular vote and still win more seats — because it drew the lines. And when any of that gets challenged, the final word often comes from judges appointed by a president who didn't win the popular vote himself.None of that means voting doesn't matter. It means voting isn't the whole game.Black political participation has been reduced to turnout. Every two or four years, we're told this is the most important election of our lifetime. Register. Stand in line. Cast your ballot. Save democracy. Then go home while politicians, consultants, lobbyists, judges, and party officials decide what our votes actually produce. We're treated as an electoral resource instead of an organized constituency. Our votes are demanded. Our loyalty is assumed. Our interests are negotiated.We overcame. That part is real. The civics-book version of democracy is not.The difference between participation and power is the ability to impose consequences. A community has political power when it can select candidates, finance campaigns, shape policy, monitor elected officials, protect the vote, and remove representatives who fail to deliver. A community has political dependency when it waits for national leaders to tell it who to support and what compromises to accept.Winning an election and controlling the political battlefield aren't the same thing. One counts votes. The other decides what those votes are worth. And our work is just beginning.  Intro: Quote of the Week: Ella Baker Unmasking the News: Democracy Watch: Trump Wants to Rewrite the Election Rules Before the Election Defrauded Student Borrowers Finally Receive Debt Relief Christian Nationalism Moves Into Election Administration Good News: Korry Sessoms Earns a Perfect SAT Score   Strategies for Black Power: The 2026 Midterms and the Structural Battlefield  Reflections and Call to Action:Closing/Outro: Power Concedes Nothing without a Demand...

Greg Kelly discusses the role of the Constitution in relation to federal agencies, weighs in on a public dispute involving Senator Bernie Moreno and Congressman Max Miller, and examines ongoing debates surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. The program also features criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci's handling of vaccine-related risks, listener calls on government accountability and public policy, and commentary on New York politics, American history, and cultural topics. Tune in to hear more!

Join Bram Kanstein, Brandon Quittem, Fernando Nikolic & Cole Walmsley as they discuss what is next for Bitcoin after the COLDCARD hack, social tensions around BIP110, and what the impact is on Bitcoin culture. Is the early adopter phase done?› https://x.com/Bquittem› https://x.com/basedlayer› https://x.com/Cole_WalmsleyPARTNERS

Civic friendship is not a nicety. For self-governing people, it is a necessity. What happens to a democracy when citizens stop seeing each other as citizens at all? Robert P. George is Princeton's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions (and known for his enduring friendship with Cornel West) argues that “the collapse of civic friendship is a catastrophic threat to public life.” In this bonus segment from his November 2020 conversation with Evan Rosa, Robert George presents the difference between civility and mere ‘politesse; the habit of wrapping our emotions so tightly around our convictions that we assume a posture of infallibility; and the intellectual humility it takes to consider that a political enemy might have something to teach us as a civic friend. They also discuss the courage required to break ranks—George recounts how he and West, from opposite political poles, each found themselves treated as heretics in 2016 for declining to back their respective party's nominee—and why he urges his students and his own children to cultivate humility, open-mindedness, and courage, knowing exactly what it can cost to stand by a conscientious belief. Episode Highlights ”Civic friendship is actually important for all sorts of policies, but for a self-governing people, for a democratic people, civic friendship is really critically important.” ”But if we do, as we are prone to do, wrap our emotions too tightly around our convictions, then we become dogmatists. Then we become unwilling to consider the possibility that we might be wrong and that a critic might be right.” ”This is hard, but it takes humility to recognize that I might be wrong, not merely about the less important superficial and more trivial things of life, but I might be wrong even about the most important things.” ”Civic friendship, civility is not just politesse … Civility is something deeper. It is genuinely listening to the guy who disagrees with you … listening with an openness to learning, considering whether in fact he might be right.” ”You can't have an open mind unless you have intellectual humility.” ”You can become a heretic very fast by breaking ranks, even on a single issue, if the issue was even moderately important.” ”So I really encourage my young people … to try to develop the virtues of intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and courage, because sometimes courage is going to be needed.” About Robert P. George Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. A legal philosopher and public intellectual, he has chaired the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and served on the President's Council on Bioethics and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. His books include ”Making Men Moral,” ”In Defense of Natural Law,” and ”Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth,” and, with Cornel West, ”Truth Matters,” a dialogue on fruitful disagreement. A West Virginia native, he plays bluegrass banjo and guitar. Helpful Links and Resources Civic Friendship, Courageous Humility, and Seeking Truth Together, Episode 38 and the full interview for this clip: https://faith.yale.edu/media/civic-friendship-courageous-humility-and-seeking-truth-together Robert P. George's website: https://robertpgeorge.com/ Robert P. George on X: https://twitter.com/McCormickProf Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth: Law and Morality in Our Cultural Moment, George's most recent book: https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/seeking-truth-speaking-truth/ Truth Matters: A Dialogue on Fruitful Disagreement in an Age of Division, by Robert P. George and Cornel West: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Truth-Matters/Robert-P-George/9798888451700 Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality, George's best-known scholarly book: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/making-men-moral-9780198260240 Election of 1800, from the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia at Monticello: https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/election-1800 Show Notes Civic friendship: indispensable and necessary for a self-governing people Fellow citizens recast as enemies to be defeated and destroyed Are elections as existential contests?—with the losing side expecting retaliation, the winning side claiming the norms Breakdown near the founding of the Republic The election of 1800, incumbent John Adams against Thomas Jefferson: https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/election-1800 Federalists seeing Jeffersonians as carriers of the French Revolution; Jeffersonians seeing Federalists as would-be British monarchists Antebellum America: North and South unable to imagine sharing one republic Is our identity constructed around belief? Emotional investment in conviction as a good thing in itself Wrapping emotions too tightly, and the slide into dogmatism A practical posture of infallibility Disagreement recoded as moral defect, and friendship ruled out Intellectual humility as the missing virtue Being wrong about the most important things, not just the trivial ones Civility as more than politesse Listening with an openness to learning, not waiting for a turn to speak Honoring the other as a rational creature with something to teach Open-mindedness without paralysis A conservative and a democratic socialist as frequent interlocutors: https://www.cornelwest.com/about/ Courage as a civic virtue Tribalism in formal institutions and informal friend circles alike Becoming a heretic by breaking ranks on a single issue Excommunication, suspicion, and the social cost of independent thought Two friends at opposite poles, both out of step in 2016 Counsel to students and to his own children: humility, open-mindedness, courage #CivicFriendship #IntellectualHumility #Civility #Polarization #RobertPGeorge #CornelWest #FaithAndCulture #ForTheLifeOfTheWorld Production Notes This podcast featured Robert George Hosted and Produced by Evan Rosa Production assistance and editing by Noah Senthil A Production of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture at Yale Divinity School https://faith.yale.edu/about Support For the Life of the World podcast by giving to the Yale Center for Faith & Culture: https://faith.yale.edu/give

The death of a student can be a traumatic event on campus. Registrars play an important role in the necessary administrative actions following a student's death, and can be instrumental in providing support and institutional outreach to the grieving family. In today's episode, we talk with Kim Barber, University Registrar at Florida State University about some of the practices employed at FSU to navigate these sensitive situations.       Key Takeaways:The posthumous degree policy at your institution can apply in specific, but narrow, cases. Institutions might consider other ways to recognize and celebrate the life of a student who dies prior to being eligible for recognition under the posthumous policy.  Student deaths affect the community in many ways. Institutions need to be sensitive to the feelings of students, faculty, staff, and the decedent's family when making decisions about public recognitions at ceremonies like commencement. Working with your Dean of Students office (and others) is recommended to best reflect the culture and values of your institution.Dealing with student death is emotionally challenging. Make sure that you're taking care of yourself and your staff, even as you conduct the necessary record-keeping work.   Host:Doug McKenna, Ph.D.University Registrar George Mason Universitycmckenn@gmu.edu   Guests:Kim Barber, Ph.D.Assistant Vice Provost & University RegistrarFlorida State Universitykabarber@fsu.edu References and Additional Information:Service ExcellenceLeadershipStudy Finds Depression, Suicidal Ideation Among College Students Increased Over Past 15 YearsConsequences | College Drinking PreventionCauses of Mortality Among American College Students: A Pilot Study - PMC

In this episode:Why we imitate the visible “tree” without seeing the seeds, sacrifices, and choices that produced itHow individual values spread through imitation until they become culture, institutions, and systemsWhy Jesus says not to pull the weeds—and what this reveals about the limits of human judgmentHow certainty, the crowd, and our unexamined lenses can make us believe we see the whole fieldWhy humility means recognizing that seeing something clearly does not mean seeing everythingThe Parable of the Weeds raises an unsettling question: If we can see evil growing, why not simply pull it out? This episode follows the seed from the individual outward, exploring how what we become becomes visible, gets imitated, and eventually shapes cultures and systems. Through Jesus, Jung, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, psychology, and the biblical image of the knowledge of good and evil, we examine why human beings are so confident in judging the entire field when we are standing inside it ourselves. We may recognize wheat and weeds, truth and deception, good and evil—but wisdom requires understanding the limits of what we can see, examining the lens through which we see it, and asking what we are imitating, cultivating, and passing on to others.Elevate How You Navigate with Len & a free call https://elevatehowyounavigate.comMAYU Water, use "autism" for 10% off at https://mayuwater.comDaylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off at https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismDaylight Kids (!!!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.com/autism ‪Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount at https://getchroma.co/?ref=autism00:00 From Seed to System; What Happens When Becoming Spreads?01:54 We Imitate Trees, Not Seeds; What Success Hides03:52 From Person to Culture; How Values Become Systems04:43 Nietzsche & Kierkegaard; Where Did Your Values Come From?06:33 The Parable of the Weeds; Why Does God Allow Evil to Grow?07:16 Why Not Pull the Weeds?; The Limits of Human Judgment10:00 Everyone Thinks They Are the Wheat; The Danger of Certainty13:03 Humility; Seeing Something Doesn't Mean Seeing Everything14:14 The Knowledge of Good & Evil; Who Gets to Administer the Field?16:43 The Crowd; Confidence Is Not the Same as Truth18:06 Imitation, Institutions & How Seeds Survive Generations19:11 Final Reflections; What Are You Imitating & Becoming?21:48 MAYU Water, Daylight, Chroma & Len ArcuriX: https://x.com/rps47586YT: https://www.youtube.com/@FromTheSpectrumemail: info.fromthespectrum@gmail.com

"I mean, it is a bit rich watching a BBC reporter act shocked and offended by somebody saying they think Jewish lives are worth more than Palestinian lives." Reading by Tim Foley.

Patrick Deneen's 2018 book, Why Liberalism Failed, was by the standards of most academic works of political philosophy, wildly successful.  It struck a chord with some of the broader Right and gave a voice to a growing movement skeptical of the promises of classical liberalism and looking for an alternative.  This burgeoning New Right, however, is anything but new.  The kind of postliberalism often advocated by the New Right has been attempted in nations across Europe and South America.  And each time it has been tried, it has failed.   Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is James Patterson and Thomas Howes to talk about their new book, Why Postliberalism Failed.  The trio unpackage the wild, conspiratorial, and gruesome history of postliberal regimes of the past and explore what it might tell us about how similar efforts might play out today.   About James Patterson James M. Patterson, Ph.D. is an associate professor of politics at Ave Maria University. He received his B.A. in Political Science and Media Studies at the University of Houston in 2002 and his Ph.D. in American Politics from the University of Virginia in 2012. His areas of research include race, religion, and American political development. He has held research positions at the Program for American Values and Institutions at Duke University and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, as well as teaching positions at Hampden-Sydney College and Gettysburg College. He has published academic research in Perspectives in Political Science, American Political Thought, Anamnesis, and Journal of Church and State. He has published more popular essays and book reviews for Modern Age, Society, Library of Law and Liberty, and Public Discourse.   About Thomas Howes Thomas Howes is currently a Lecturer in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He has a PhD in philosophy at Catholic University of America. He is also a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University. He has a healthy and general curiosity, but his academic emphases are in the fields of Thomistic virtue ethics and natural law theory, political ethics, political philosophy, political economy, and the philosophy of religion. His dissertation was a political-ethical defense of religious liberty. He is also happily married with two daughters.  

Lindsay Poelman returns to reintroduce the show as a brand new season and open a new series on betrayal. Drawing from her own story, a high-demand Mormon upbringing, a check-the-box life, and the turning point when her husband disclosed longstanding lies about his porn use, Lindsay names betrayal trauma out loud and explains why it lives underneath so much of the pain women carry and cannot name.Using Jennifer Freyd's definition of betrayal trauma, Lindsay walks through the many places betrayal shows up: religion and faith transitions, family systems that silence the victim to protect the family's image, institutions and medical gaslighting (including women dismissed around perimenopause), partnership and infidelity, and the self-betrayal we learn young in order to survive. Across almost a decade of coaching, she has seen the same pattern again and again, and the same way through: rebuilding self-trust, reconnecting to the body's felt sense and intuition, and using community to dissolve shame.She closes with the heart of her work: your body is not the problem, it is the solution. Learn more inside The Fluent Human course and certification, her live community calls, and her limited one-on-one coaching.What you'll learn in this episodeWhat betrayal trauma actually is, defined through the research of Jennifer FreydWhy betrayal is not only about marriage, and the shape it takes underneath religion, family, institutions, and partnershipHow medical gaslighting works, and why so many women (especially around perimenopause) were told it was all in their headsWhat self-betrayal and self-abandonment are, why they were once a survival strategy, and how to tell if the pattern is still running your lifeWhy rebuilding self-trust and reconnecting to your intuition is the difference between staying stuck and moving forwardHow the body holds truth, keeps score, and can sense when something is off, even when everything looks fine on the outsideWhy community and being witnessed dissolve shame faster than trying to heal aloneKey concept: What is betrayal trauma?Betrayal trauma, as defined by Jennifer Freyd, is the deep emotional and psychological injury that happens when a person you trust, love, or depend on for safety and survival breaks that trust in a major way. Lindsay expands it into a working definition for everyday life: betrayal is being told to trust something that was not safe. Once you see it that way, you start to notice how many places you were told exactly that.Chapters and timestamps00:00 Welcome back, season reset00:28 Why betrayal, again01:11 My background: the checklist life02:16 The first betrayal story03:51 Coaching patterns and hope04:54 Self-trust and The Fluent Human06:43 What betrayal trauma is (Jennifer Freyd)08:22 Betrayal in religion09:50 Betrayal in family10:55 Institutions and medical gaslighting12:04 Partnership betrayal13:05 Boundaries and relationships15:27 Self-betrayal and self-abandonment18:20 Body wisdom and intuition19:03 Work with me: options21:15 Final encouragement and next episodesLindsay's current program offerings:Feeling the pull towards a new career? Ready to layer these tools into your already existing one? Become a Certified Trauma-Informed Coach through The Fluent Human Method™... the certification that teaches you to hold the whole human: nervous system, neuroscience, body, intuition, and soul. Join now to be a part of our upcoming LIVE cohort! Not here to get certified, here to learn about yourself? The Fluent Human Course™ walks you through all 8 pillars at your own pace, with live debrief calls every fall and spring. Get the course.New to all of this? Start free. 10 Things to Know About Trauma is ten short videos that will change the way you see yourself... and everyone around you. Send it to me.Want a certification above + PRIVATE MENTORSHIP from yours truly? I have limited spaced available. Apply here.Check out her website here: Website.Find me on Instagram : @lindsaypoelmancoaching---Meet Lindsay:...

durée : 01:13:54 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda - En 1978, à l'occasion des 20 ans de la Constitution de 1958, Michel Debré et André Chandernagor étaient invités à débattre du bilan de cette dernière dans l'émission "Dialogues", tout en abordant également les problématiques essentielles des circonscriptions et de la décentralisation. - équipe : Mathias Le Gargasson, Antoine Dhulster, Rafik Zénine, Vincent Abouchar, Emily Vallat, Hassane M'Béchour, INA Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

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.

Liberals increasingly treat politics as religion. They may have abandoned traditional faith, but they have not abandoned devotion. They possess saints, heretics, rituals, taboos, pilgrimages, and a vision of salvation. That political faith has given progressives the commitment required to capture institutions, build machines, and shape the future. Conservatives often respond with mockery, but progressives are having the last laugh. Support me and this channel by subscribing to BlazeTV Today and Get $20 off your annual subscription: https://blazetv.com/Auron Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/auronmacintyre/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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 

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

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.

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!”

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.