Podcast appearances and mentions of Jay Caspian Kang

The country's first measles death in a decade was recorded Wednesday in Texas. Health and Human Services head Robert F. Kennedy Jr said Wednesday that the outbreak is not "unusual," something disputed by infectious disease experts such as Dr. Peter Hotez, who joins us. Then, the Trump administration says it's cutting 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts, according to a White House internal memo and court filings first reported by the Associated Press. Bloomberg's Iain Marlow joins us to explain what's going on with the Agency for Foreign Development. And, the U.S. Agency for International Development providing food and humanitarian aid in Africa and other places is one example of U.S. soft power. Now that it has been dismantled by the Trump administration, some see a soft power void that China may fill. The New Yorker's Jay Caspian Kang tells us more. Plus, as February comes to an end, Here & Now's James Perkins Mastromarino shares the latest and greatest from the gaming world.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The Eaton and Palisades fires continue to wreak destruction across Los Angeles. They are predicted to become the most expensive fire recovery in American history. As the fires have burned, a torrent of right-wing rage has emerged online. Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Charlie Kirk have attacked liberal mismanagement and blamed D.E.I. programs and “woke” politics for the destruction. Meanwhile, California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has expressed concerns that the future Trump Administration may add conditions to federal financial-assistance relief for California, something that Republican Congress members have already floated. The New Yorker staff writer Jay Caspian Kang joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss what happens when disaster relief is swept up in the culture war. This week's reading: “The Insurance Crisis That Will Follow the California Fires,” by Elizabeth Kolbert “On the Ground During L.A.'s Wildfire Emergency,” by Emily Witt “An Arson Attack in Puerto Rico,” by Graciela Mochkofsky “Elon Musk's Latest Terrifying Foray Into British Politics,” By Sam Knight “The Pressure Campaign to Get Pete Hegseth Confirmed as Defense Secretary,” by Jane Mayer To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

A bunch of you requested that we un-paywall this recent bonus episode, which features some highly practical insights for organizers, volunteers, and public servants. So we have! (All the other bonus episodes are good too; please subscribe.)—Right wing movements thrive by cultivating fears of disorder. Conservatives depict blue cities as sites of rampant crime, chaos, and iniquity. And often enough, it is progressives — with their overdeveloped empathy and concern for the poor and criminalized — who take the blame. Recently, a rising chorus of voices on the center-left, including figures like Ezra Klein, have embraced the thesis that perceptions of disorder in cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have contributed to America's rightward turn. But is that accurate? And can anything be done about it?In this episode, Sam is joined by organizer, writer, and podcaster Hayes Davenport to discuss his experiences fighting against this sort of backlash in Los Angeles. As soon as Hayes had helped his friend Nithya Raman get elected to the LA City Council in 2020 and joined her staff, conservative forces in city government mobilized to thwart her pro-tenant agenda and blame the tiny faction of progressives on the council for rising crime and homelessness. How did they respond? What can the past few years in LA politics teach the American left? And can we imagine a leftist politics that short-circuits the right's effort to use disorder to undermine our efforts to address its underlying causes: government neglect, poverty, and exploitation. We discuss! Further Reading:Hayes Davenport, "Ezra Klein is wrong about this," Big City Heat, Dec 9, 2024.— "Violent crime is down. Why are so many people mad about it?" Big City Heat, Dec 16, 2024.— "Sects on the Beach: The 2024 Santa Monica City Council Race," Big City Heat, Nov 1, 2024.—  "The Last LA Election When Crime Was Going Up For Real," Big City Heat, Nov 11, 2024.Emily Badger & Alicia Parlapiano, "Is the Urban Shift Toward Trump Really About Democratic Cities in Disarray?" NY Times, Dec 6, 2024.Jill Cowan, Serge F. Kovaleski, & Leanne Abraham, "How a New City Council Map of L.A. Turned Into a Political Brawl," NY Times, Sept 3, 2023.Koko Nakakjima & Phi Do, "California and Los Angeles County are getting tougher on crime. Here are the maps that show it," LA Times, Dec 30, 2024.Jay Caspian Kang, "Who Really Controls Local Politics?" NY Times, Oct 11, 2021.— "How Homeowners' Associations Get Their Way in California," NY Times, Oct 14, 2021.— "A Leader They Didn't Choose," NY Times, Oct 18, 2021.Subscribe to Hayes's podcast: Hollywood Handbook and Friends.

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemyRight wing movements thrive by cultivating fears of disorder. Conservatives depict blue cities as sites of rampant crime, chaos, and iniquity. And often enough, it is progressives — with their overdeveloped empathy and concern for the poor and criminalized — who take the blame. Recently, a rising chorus of voices on the center-left, including figures like Ezra Klein, have embraced the thesis that perceptions of disorder in cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have contributed to America's rightward turn. But is that accurate? And can anything be done about it?In this episode, Sam is joined by organizer, writer, and podcaster Hayes Davenport to discuss his experiences fighting against this sort of backlash in Los Angeles. As soon as Hayes had helped his friend Nithya Raman get elected to the LA City Council in 2020 and joined her staff, conservative forces in city government mobilized to thwart her pro-tenant agenda and blame the tiny faction of progressives on the council for rising crime and homelessness. How did they respond? What can the past few years in LA politics teach the American left? And can we imagine a leftist politics that short-circuits the right's effort to use disorder to undermine our efforts to address its underlying causes: government neglect, poverty, and exploitation. We discuss! Further Reading:Hayes Davenport, "Ezra Klein is wrong about this," Big City Heat, Dec 9, 2024.— "Violent crime is down. Why are so many people mad about it?" Big City Heat, Dec 16, 2024.— "Sects on the Beach: The 2024 Santa Monica City Council Race," Big City Heat, Nov 1, 2024.—  "The Last LA Election When Crime Was Going Up For Real," Big City Heat, Nov 11, 2024.Emily Badger & Alicia Parlapiano, "Is the Urban Shift Toward Trump Really About Democratic Cities in Disarray?" NY Times, Dec 6, 2024.Jill Cowan, Serge F. Kovaleski, & Leanne Abraham, "How a New City Council Map of L.A. Turned Into a Political Brawl," NY Times, Sept 3, 2023.Koko Nakakjima & Phi Do, "California and Los Angeles County are getting tougher on crime. Here are the maps that show it," LA Times, Dec 30, 2024.Jay Caspian Kang, "Who Really Controls Local Politics?" NY Times, Oct 11, 2021.— "How Homeowners' Associations Get Their Way in California," NY Times, Oct 14, 2021.— "A Leader They Didn't Choose," NY Times, Oct 18, 2021.Subscribe to Hayes's podcast: Hollywood Handbook and Friends.

The New Yorker staff writer Jay Caspian Kang joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss efforts by the U.S. government to rein in social media, including the latest attempt to ban TikTok. While Kang agrees that society should be more conscientious about how we, especially children, use social media, he argues that efforts to ban these apps also violate the First Amendment. “Social media has become the public square, even if it is privately owned,” he says. This episode was originally published in March, 2024.This week's reading:“The Misguided Attempt to Control Tiktok,” by Jay Caspian KangTo discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Four years after refusing to accept defeat and encouraging a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Donald J. Trump has once again been elected President of the United States. The former President, who in the past year alone has been convicted of a felony and has survived two assassination attempts, campaigned largely on a platform of mass deportations, trade wars, and retribution for his detractors. On Tuesday, he secured the Presidency thanks to a surge of rural voters, high turnout among young men, and unprecedented gains with Black and Latino populations. What does a second Trump term mean for America? Clare Malone and Jay Caspian Kang, who've been covering the election for The New Yorker, join Tyler Foggatt to discuss how we got here, and the uncertain future of the Democratic Party.This week's reading: “Donald Trump's Revenge,” by Susan B. Glasser The Americans Prepping for a Second Civil War, by Charles Bethea What's the Matter with Young Male Voters?, by Jay Caspian Kang  Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comMusa is a sociologist and writer. He's an assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University. His first book is We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. He also has a great substack, Symbolic Capital(ism).For two clips of our convo (recorded on October 9) — how “elite overproduction” fuels wokeness, and the myth of Trump's support from white voters — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in a military family; a twin brother who died in Afghanistan; wanting to be priest; his stint as an atheist; converting to Islam; how constraints can fuel freedom; liquid modernity; going to community college before his PhD at Columbia; becoming an expert on the Middle East; getting canceled as a professor because of Fox News; his non-embittered response to it; engaging his critics on the right; my firing from NY Mag; the meaning of “symbolic capitalism”; how “white privilege” justifies the belittling of poor whites; deaths of despair; the dilution of terms like “patriarchy” and “transphobe”; suicide scare tactics; fairness in sports; books on wokeness by Rufo, Kaufmann, Caldwell, and Hanania — and how Musa's is different; Prohibition and moralism; Orwell's take on cancel culture; the careerism of cancelers; the bureaucratic bloat of DEI; “defund the police”; crime spiking after June 2020; the belief that minorities are inherently more moral; victim culture; imposter syndrome and affirmative action; Jay Caspian Kang's The Loneliest Americans; Coates and Dokoupil; Hispanic and black males becoming anti-woke; Thomas Sowell; and the biggest multi-racial coalition for the GOP since Nixon.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Damon Linker on the election results, Anderson Cooper on grief, David Greenberg on his new bio of John Lewis, Christine Rosen on humanness in a digital world, and Mary Matalin on anything but politics. Sadly Peggy Noonan can't make it on the pod this year after all. We tried! And a listener asks:Is Van Jones still coming on the show? You said he was going to, and now his upcoming interview hasn't been spoken about for the last few episodes.He said he would but his PR team put the kibosh on it. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com. Our episode with Sam Harris last week was a smash hit, driving more new subs than any other guest in a while. A fan writes:I always really like your conversations with Sam Harris. You always seem to bring out the best in each other.A listener dissents:On your episode with Sam Harris — besides the fact that it was an “interview” of you, not him — your insistence that Harris and Biden haven't done anything about immigration needs more investigation. For example, see this new piece in the NYT:The Opinion video above tells the little-known story of how Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris worked behind the scenes to get the border crisis under control. I found that they acted strategically, out of the spotlight, since the earliest days of the administration. They even bucked their own party and fulfilled Republican wishes, though they've gotten little credit for it. Their hard work finally paid off when illegal crossings dropped significantly this year.Sam said toward the end of the episode, “I hope we haven't broken the Ming vase here. … We both want a Harris presidency. … It's the least bad option.” I listen to Kamala all the time, and your rants against her are warranted and should be done, but honestly, the two of you have done more to smash the bloody vase than carry it!I tried to make it through that NYT op-ed video. It's an absurdist piece of administration spin. There was nothing to stop Biden enforcing his 2024 executive order in 2021. He didn't because his core policy is expediting mass migration, not controlling it. As for Harris, it's not my job to be her campaign spokesman. I know a lot of legacy journalists seem to think it's their job to push her over the finishing line. But that has never been my thinking. I'd like both Trump and Harris to lose. But if I had to pick one, it would be Trump. The idea of four years of Harris is soul-sucking.Sam is also putting the episode on his own podcast, so the conversation was intended to be a two-way “interview” — though the Dishcast in general is always meant to be a conversation. On the following clip, a listener writes:You're absolutely right. But this is so obvious, and the fact that Harris can't articulate what would clearly be advantageous to her indicates she is incapable of clearly articulating positions. She's turned out to be the same horrid candidate she was in 2019. Unfortunately.Another writes about that clip, “As a prosecutor she makes a great case against voting for Trump, but she doesn't have the defense attorney skills needed to make the case for herself.” This next listener has an idea for a Sister Souljah moment:Sam asked you what Harris could do in the final stretch, and you both agreed that she needed to show some independence from Biden and also distance herself from the craziness of the woke left. I want to point you to my latest Substack post, which points out an opportunity she currently has to do both in one press conference.In the past couple of weeks, the Biden Justice Department has sued the Maryland State Police, the Durham Fire Department, and the South Bend Police Department over “racially disparate”  employment tests. They are testing skills such as literacy, basic math, and the ability to communicate, all in the context of doing the actual job. The DOJ is calling it discrimination because black people do worse on the test than white people. There is also a physical test where you have to prove you have the minimum level of fitness to do the job, and the DOJ calls that sexist because fewer women are able to pass.This is obviously complete insanity. Anyone but the wokest of the left understand that these jobs require standards, and that implementing any objective standards is likely to have a disproportionate impact on race and gender. While Maryland and Durham quickly settled the suits and signed consent decrees, South Bend is fighting it. South Bend is, of course, the hometown of former mayor Pete Buttigieg. Harris could schedule a campaign event in South Bend with Mayor Pete where she defends the South Bend police and pledges that a Harris administration will drop this suit and not prosecute any similar cases. This could be a “Sister Souljah moment,” as Sam called for. It would also show independence from Biden, since his DOJ has been filing these suits. It could bring the last few undecideds over to her side. Dream on, I'm afraid. This kind of race discrimination and abandonment of objective standards in hiring is at the heart of Harris' leftism. She hasn't renounced it. Au contraire. Here's another clip from the Sam pod:Another listener writes:I happen to subscribe to both the Dishcast and Sam's podcast, so I know you both well. I'm so surprised that you two can't understand the appeal of Trump to one half of the country. Let's be honest and clear: Trump voters care LESS about preserving the system as-is (the peaceful transfer of power) than about RESCUING the nation from the cancer of woke. It is almost completely cultural.Trump supporters despise the anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian hatred that has been so deeply ingrained into our daily lives. We all live in terror for wrong thought and wrong speech. We feel disgust for being called racist, misogynist, xenophobic — with the knowledge that woke progressives control the apparatus of power in our media, corporations, entertainment, and education. It is cancer when our entire body politic has been so thoroughly invaded by this malignant force.We are sick of this cancer. Sick. Sick. Sick. Kamala is a shill of this force. Her tepid disavowals (and convenient pivot to the center) are not genuine. We know who she is. She protects and metastasizes this cancer into every touchpoint of our lives. Sam says she is “no woke Manchurian candidate,” but he is wrong. Even if he IS right, why should we trust her when she so clearly made her wokeness clear in 2019? We shouldn't.The left is cancer. Trump is radiation. No one wants cancer and no one wants the radiation, but that's where we are.I feel you. I do. It's what makes this election so painful for me. Another listener comments on “the subject of why the Democrats and Harris can't say what the majority of Americans want to hear on issue after issue”:Isn't the fundamental problem very simply that the Overton window of the Democratic Party doesn't allow it? Harris may know that Americans want to hear a defense of fracking, but can a Dem really speak in favor of fracking at a San Francisco dinner party and expect to be invited back? Can a Dem really speak against the trans activist position? Against DEI? Against abuse of asylum rules at the Southern border? Of course not. Those are not acceptable positions in Dem activist and donor circles. Contra what Michelle Goldberg tried to say when she was on your podcast, or what Rahm Emanuel told Sam Harris, the activist position sets the limits of acceptable discourse among Democrats.All of us who live in NPR-listening land know this. I would never say what I actually think about gender revolutionaries at a social gathering in my left-liberal community, because it'd be the last social event I'd ever attend. It might be safe to talk about the need for some actual policing these days — that issue might get a few cautious nods — but everyone in the room would be nervous, because who knows if one of these guests we've never met before who works at a nonprofit is going to turn out to be a social justice activist and trot out “systemic racism” and the carceral state and all the rest of it. Maybe Rahm and Michelle are right that most Democrats don't actually buy most of far-left activist thinking, but that doesn't mean it's okay to disagree. And remember, most Democrats are riddled with guilt about everything: climate change, systemic racism, patriarchy, theft of land from Indigenous peoples … it's all our fault, isn't it? So we need to be humble, check our privilege, and listen to the activists and their moral truths.By the way, I listened to your podcast with Sam only a week after finishing Tom Holland's Dynasty — about Caesar Augustus and his heirs through Nero. I know comparisons between America and ancient Rome can get tiring, but holy s**t: an elite appealing to the masses not as one of them, but as their tribune? Check. Entertainment value winning the day every time over serious speeches by humorless patrician elites? Check. Amusing the plebs by publicly humiliating the most esteemed senators, reducing them to flattery and groveling? Check.  I'm not saying Trump is knowledgeable enough to copy a Caesar's playbook intentionally, but he seems to have stumbled on a remarkably similar (and similarly effective) approach.I have explored the Roman parallels myself. One more listener on the episode:The conversation with Sam Harris was really what we need right now: insightful and often humorous in light of the grave situation we face. It's not Trump I'm afraid of; it's everyone else. If Trump does not win, I fear there will be violence — and he won't even have to call for it this time. Whether it's business or politics, the leader sets the tone, and Trump's tone is angry and permissive of trampling perceived enemies. I don't think it's a stretch to predict self-formed Trump militias springing up as a pretense to defend election integrity, hunt down illegal migrants, or generally “keep order” where another organization has failed to do so. I pray that I'm wrong. Another thing to consider is that if Trump loses, we won't be rid of him. He's controlled the Republican Party and influenced the culture wars for the last four years, and we won't see that endSam brought up Nixon, and it's something I've been thinking a lot about in the Trump years. Watergate — the foolish break-in itself — was nothing compared to what Trump has said and done since 2016, but the scandal took down the president because the public perceived that the president's behavior was reprehensible to the office. Nixon KNEW he lied and had enough integrity to actually resign over it. I was a kid then and can remember how appalled people were by Watergate and thought of Nixon as a disgrace. How things have changed in 50 years.I'm also worried about leftist violence if Trump wins. Another writes, “I thought your episode with Tina Brown was tremendous”:She's an exceptionally astute and admirable woman. I immediately took out a full year to her new substack. It was touching to listen to the account of her model marriage to Harold Evans (I think the Sunday Times was at its greatest when he was the editor). And the description of her autistic son and their time together shows her to be a beautiful, loving mother, as well as a towering intellect.I particularly appreciated the comparison you both made of US to UK politicians:Like you, Andrew, I studied at Oxford in the mid-1980s and always felt that institutions like the Oxford Union (where I saw you, Boris, and Micheal Gove perform, amongst others), and later Prime Minister's Question Time, toughened up UK politicians to a degree that is unheard of in the US. I actually had the pleasure of witnessing Question Time live when Thatcher was PM. What struck me was not only the substantive issues raised during those sessions, but also the sheer brilliance of the repartee. Thatcher gave as good as she got, and she made mincemeat of the Labour opposition. Question Time compared to the deliberations of the fatuous Congress is like comparing Picasso's work to that of a 5-year-old finger painter. It doesn't even bear thinking about how Biden would cope in an environment like that, let alone Trump. Both you and Tina come from that glorious UK debating tradition, and it shines through consistently throughout the episode.My massive disappointment when I first watched the US House and Senate was related to this. So unutterably tedious. Another on the Tina pod:If not too late, perhaps this will offer some help to Tina Brown, as your other listeners have suggested communities for adults with special needs: Marbridge in Austin, TX. Our daughter is only 12 and she has a rare genetic condition that basically means she will not be able to fully integrate into society. We are in the process of learning about opportunities for her to have some level of independence as she ages, if she so desires.Here's a suggestion for a future guest:I'm glad you are gaining new subscribers, but I think it may be time to cull the herd and have on someone who will make the smugs' blood boil. The brilliant and caustic Heather Mac Donald — one of a few prominent conservatives to excoriate Trump for January 6th — is scrupulously honest yet merciless in attacking left-wing hypocrisies on topics ranging from race and policing to the DEI takeover of classical music.She sure is. Amy Wax anyone? Another rec:I know you have quit Twitter somewhat, so I am not sure if you know who Brianna Wu is, but I strongly suggest looking her up. Bari Weiss just interviewed her:I think you and Wu would be absolutely fantastic, and I think you would really like her — as would Dishheads.Yep, great rec — we're already planning to reach out to Wu. Another plug for a trans guest:In case you didn't see it, here's an interesting interview with a trans man, Kinnon MacKinnon, who researches detransition. I found it refreshing to hear someone speak about detransition from an empirical perspective. It's a real phenomenon that to date has either been denied by trans activists or turned into red meat for the right-wing. A fact of logic so often forgotten is that two things can be true at the same time. Thus, adults who are truly trans should be allowed to live the lives they want; AND society should protect children against fervent trans activists who would rush them into radical “gender-affirming care.” The reality of sex (as opposed to gender) needs to be more firmly established in the public's understanding. In short, we need more honest brokers in the discussion about trans issues if we are ever going to find the proper balance between allowing adults to make their own life decisions and respecting biological females on issues where sex (not gender) should be the overriding variable on which to make public policy and healthcare decisions. I don't know if Kinnon MacKinnon is truly an honest broker, but he seems to have potential. Perhaps you could consider him for a Dishcast.I passionately defend the right of trans adults to do whatever they need to make their lives as fruitful as possible. It's children — and children alone — I'm concerned with. On the topic of sex-changes for kids, a frequent dissenter writes:When confronted with evidence that only a minuscule percentage of kids in the US are being prescribed puberty blockers and hormones in the late 2010s, it's an artless dodge to try to reframe the discussion around the experiences of 124 kids who presented at a UK gender clinic in the 1990s, the vast majority of whom never transitioned at all. You cannot use that data to imply that the majority of kids being prescribed puberty blockers in America today are actually gay kids destined for detransition and regret. You are distorting the facts to fit your narrative.Time and time again, the evidence shows that there is no epidemic of “transing” gay youth.

The Democratic National Convention continued Wednesday night as Tim Walz formally accepted the nomination for Vice President. He went full "coach mode," whipping supporters into a frenzy as Vice President Kamala Harris prepares to receive the nomination as the Democratic Presidential candidate on Thursday. Meanwhile, protestors outside the convention center continue to challenge Democrats from the left on issues like the war in Gaza, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ freedom. Chicago journalist Shawn Allee brings us the perspectives of young voters from the convention as they share which issues matter most to them at the ballot box.In anticipation of Vice President Kamala Harris' nomination, we talked to Jay Caspian Kang, a staff writer for the New Yorker, about the Harris campaign's lack of details on policy proposals. With just over two months remaining until election day, we asked him what people want to hear from Harris as she gives her much-anticipated acceptance speech this evening. Show Notes:Check Out Jay's work – https://tinyurl.com/53rbte4nSubscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

Vice President Kamala Harris' ascent to presumptive Democratic nominee has upended the presidential contest and energized Democratic voters — but what's the policy behind the vibes?On Friday, Harris unveiled a series of economic policies, including a proposed federal ban on grocery price gouging and plans to lower prescription drug and housing costs. It was a good step, but one that came after Harris faced pressure and criticism for not having a more robust policy platform.But amid viral trends like “coconut tree summer” and Harris' “brat” era, do voters really care about what Harris actually wants to accomplish in office? Today on Lever Time, David Sirota and Arjun Singh sit down with Semafor's Max Tani and The New Yorker's Jay Caspian Kang to unpack why Harris' great-taste-less-filling campaign has garnered the traction it has. Despite her twenty years as an elected official, it's been surprisingly difficult for journalists to know what Harris wants to do with the presidency. In her 2019 presidential bid, Harris ran as a supporter of Medicare for All and an opponent of fracking — two positions her campaign has now renounced. And her approach to foreign policy and antitrust enforcement, cornerstones of the Biden administration, remains a mystery.

Former President Donald Trump derided Vice President Kamala Harris' multiracial identity during an interview at the National Association of Black Journalists convention earlier today. It reveals how some Republicans are trying to make Harris' gender and racial identity a liability in the race. As the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, how will Harris talk about her personal biography as she reintroduces herself to voters? Scott talks with New Yorker writer Jay Caspian Kang who argues that Harris shouldn't shy away from talking about her parents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Media Show hears from journalists who were witness to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Gary O'Donoghue was reporting live on the BBC World Service when the shots were fired, and Hadriana Lowenkron was at the rally for Bloomberg. Anna Moneymaker, a photographer for Getty Images, describes how she managed to capture what has become a defining image of the event. Some in the US have since accused the media of fostering a hostile environment for politicians, and Ros and Katie discuss the nature of political discourse with Jay Caspian Kang of The New Yorker and Megan McArdle, a columnist at The Washington Post. Presenters: Katie Razzall and Ros Atkins Producer: Simon Richardson

We talk to three journalists who were there when a gunman tried to assassinate Donald Trump. The attack has brought renewed attention on the nature of America's political discourse and the media's role. We discuss this too. Katie has been reporting on Strictly Come Dancing as new claims about contestants' experiences emerge. We talk with an agent whose clients have appeared on the show. Also in the programme, now that Euros are over we hear about the relationship between Gareth Southgate's team and the journalists covering the campaign. Guests: Anna Moneymaker, Photographer, Getty Images; Gary O'Donoghue, Senior North America Correspondent, BBC; Hadriana Lowenkron, White House Reporter, Bloomberg; Jay Caspian Kang, Saff Writer, The New Yorker; Megan McArdle, columnist The Washington Post; Katie Hind, Showbiz Consultant Editor, The Mail on Sunday; Sue Ayton, Co-Founder, Knight Ayton; John Cross, Chief Football Writer, The Mirror; Jacob Steinberg, Football Reporter, The GuardianPresenters: Katie Razzall and Ros Atkins Producer: Simon Richardson

Guests: Tim Miller, Jay Caspian Kang, Jamelle Bouie, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Harry Litman, Mary McCordThe Supreme Court delivers for Trump as concern over the President continues. Tonight: the stakes of the election after the Supreme Court's roadmap for abuse of power. Then, Congressman Jamie Raskin on the autocratic threat of Donald Trump. Plus, why the convict candidate's sentencing date was moved to the end of the summer.  Want more of Chris? Download and subscribe to his podcast, “Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes podcast” wherever you get your podcasts.

Jay Caspian Kang is a staff writer for The New Yorker and a co-host of Time to Say Goodbye. “At some point, you have to kick it out the door, and it's never finished to the degree that you would finish a magazine piece. But it, in some ways, is more interesting because it is produced in a short amount of time, and it's read as something that is not supposed to be complete. It's just meant to provoke or to provide thought or whatever, to provide some sort of context on a certain issue or not. And I actually like that a lot better than the magazine writing. I respect the magazine writers—obviously, I was one—but for my disposition now, in my lifestyle, I actually enjoy having to produce this thing every week.” Have a question for the mailbag? Email the show or leave a voicemail at (929) 333-2908. Show notes: @jaycaspiankang Kang on Longform Kang on Longform Podcast (Oct 2021) Kang on Longform Podcast (Aug 2017) Kang on Longform Podcast (Apr 2013) Kang's New Yorker archive 06:00 Coin Talk 08:00 Tyler Austin Harper's Atlantic archive 10:00 Serial 12:00 The Daily 20:00 “The High Is Always the Pain and the Pain Is Always the High” (The Morning News • Oct 2010) 28:00 James (Percival Everett • Doubleday • 2024) 34:00 “American Son” (ESPN • July 2024) 35:00 Kang's VICE archive 42:00 “Mike Francesa Still Believes in the Power of Radio” (New York Times • Aug 2018) 43:00 Kang's Grantland archive 43:00 Kang's New York Times archive Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Brian Lehrer Show observes the Memorial Day holiday with a selection of favorite interviews:Eric Klinenberg, professor in the social sciences and director of the Institute for Public Knowledge at New York University and the author of 2020: One City, Seven People, and the Year Everything Changed (Knopf, 2024), tells the story of New York in 2020 through the lens of seven New Yorkers, and talks about the ongoing effect of that traumatic year.George Takei, actor, activist and writer, discusses his debut picture book, My Lost Freedom: A Japanese American World War II Story (Crown Books for Young Readers, 2024).Jon Meacham, Pulitzer Prize-winning presidential historian and the author of And There Was Light: Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle (Random House, 2022), talks about the real lessons to learn from the life and work of Abraham Lincoln.Jay Caspian Kang, staff writer for The New Yorker, documentary film director, and the author of The Loneliest Americans (Crown, 2021), shares his thoughts on what he calls the "ideology of the internet," and the tangible effects it has on culture, democracy, institutions and our day-to-day lives.While Hart Island has a reputation for being the burial grounds of New York's unwanted, those laid to rest on the island each have stories and loved ones. Joe Richman, founder and executive producer of Radio Diaries, discusses the Radio Diaries series "The Unmarked Graveyard: Stories from Hart Island" and Susan Hurlburt, shares stories of her son Neil Harris Jr., also known as Steven, who was buried on the island. These interviews were lightly edited for time and clarity and the original web versions are available here:How 2020 Changed Us (Feb 16, 2024)George Takei on 'My Lost Freedom' (Apr 16, 2024)What We Should Learn from Lincoln (Oct 19, 2022)Jay Caspian Kang on 'The Ideology of the Internet' (Mar 15, 2024)Stories from Hart Island (Nov 8, 2023) 

The New Yorker staff writer Jay Caspian Kang joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the tension between protecting children from the effects of social media and protecting their right to free speech. Kang considers the ways in which social-media companies have sought to quell fear about misinformation and propaganda since Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, and why those efforts will ultimately fail. “The structure of the Internet, of all social media,” he tells Foggatt, “is to argue about politics. And I think that is baked into it, and I don't think you can ever fix it.”Read Jay Caspian Kang's latest column.To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com.

On the Final Edition, Bryan has two guests for you! First, he speaks with his former teammate Jay Caspian Kang of The New Yorker. They kick off the show by discussing the gambling story involving Shohei Ohtani and his interpreter Ippei Mizuhara (1:32). Then they talk about LeBron's ventures into the podcasting space with JJ Reddick (15:17). Last, they discuss the first round of March Madness and the reaction from Oakland's head coach Greg Kampe after their upset win over Kentucky (38:40). Then Bryan talks with Ellie Hall, who discusses the royal family and how they are covered by the British press (40:34). This podcast was recorded before the announcement that Princess Kate Middleton has been diagnosed with cancer. Then, David Shoemaker Guesses the Strained-Pun Headline. Host: Bryan Curtis Guests: Jay Caspian Kang and Ellie Hall Producer: Brian H. Waters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a preview of a bonus episode. Listen to the full episode on Patreon at www.patreon.com/10kpostspodcast. -------- Hussein talks to the writer and podcaster Jay Caspian Kang about his early memories of being on the internet, and how its shaped his thinking about life today. Jay talks about spending time on hip hop forums and participating in text-based rap battles, and how the New York blog culture of the 90s and 2000s took him from writing novels into long-form journalism. Jay also talks about his recent article in the New Yorker, which examines how an obscure surfing spot near his house became on online phenomena among amateurs, and how this change can explain the way online culture has subsumed political discourse, to the point where its now just people yelling at each other for reasons they can't quite explain. Read Jay's article in the New Yorker, here: https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/arguing-ourselves-to-death Listen and subscribe to  the Time To Say Goodbye podcast, here: https://goodbye.substack.com/ -------- PALESTINE AID LINKS As the humanitarian crisis continues to unfold in Gaza, we encourage anyone who can to donate to Medical Aid for Palestinians. You can donate using the links below. https://www.map.org.uk/donate/donate https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/how-you-can-help/emergencies/gaza-israel-conflict -------- PHOEBE ALERT Can't get enough Phoebe? Check out her Substack Here! -------- This show is supported by Patreon. Sign up for as little as $5 a month to gain access to a new bonus episode every week, and our entire backlog of bonus episodes! Thats https://www.patreon.com/10kpostspodcast -------- Ten Thousand Posts is a show about how everything is posting. It's hosted by Hussein (@HKesvani), Phoebe (@PRHRoy) and produced by Devon (@Devon_onEarth).

Jay Caspian Kang, staff writer for The New Yorker, documentary film director, and the author of The Loneliest Americans (Crown, 2021), shares his thoughts on what he calls the "ideology of the internet" and its tangible effects on culture, democracy, institutions and our day-to-day lives. → Arguing Ourselves to Death

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.houseofstrauss.comJay Caspian Kang is a great writer and astute observer of Media Culture. Today, the genesis of our conversation is his podcast on whether politics has a place in sports anymore. Jay and I both agree that the Trump Era politics in sports moment has ended for now (I'm more in favor of it ending than he is). We also get into his contention that NBA media is unusually soft/cheerleading among media sectors. Jay might even be more critical of NBA media culture than I am, so naturally we get into this. Enjoy and Happy New Year…

We found the guy who kicked Mark Zuckerberg's a$$ on viral video — and the trainers who might've tried to overturn the ref's decision. But did the most powerful unelected man in America really get choked unconscious? And how did Silicon Valley fall in love with Brazilian jiu-jitsu? PTFO correspondent Jay Caspian Kang reports. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We found the guy who kicked Mark Zuckerberg's a$$ on viral video — and the trainers who might've tried to overturn the ref's decision. But did the most powerful unelected man in America really get choked unconscious? And how did Silicon Valley fall in love with Brazilian jiu-jitsu? PTFO correspondent Jay Caspian Kang reports. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We found the guy who kicked Mark Zuckerberg's a$$ on viral video — and the trainers who might've tried to overturn the ref's decision. But did the most powerful unelected man in America really get choked unconscious? And how did Silicon Valley fall in love with Brazilian jiu-jitsu? PTFO correspondent Jay Caspian Kang reports. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.houseofstrauss.comJay Caspian Kang of the New Yorker drops by and we revisit his tremendous Barstool Sports New York Times article from 2017. Jay was around the Barstool operation during the infamous blowup of what was to be a merger with ESPN/Disney. Now, there's a new connection point between the companies as Barstool's main gambling sponsor leaves to join ESPN. We look back on the article and ask the following: Did Barstool win in the end?But that's merely a jumping off point. Many topics were covered in this pod, as outlined by the astute Sam Schuette. Those topics include but aren't limited to…* Revisiting Kevin Durant's exit from Golden State* Why Ethan has sympathy for Durant* The NBA Dark Web* The group of fans who love Monta Ellis and call Kevin Durant's rings fraudulent* The race to be the most normie* The James Harden Daryl Morey Duel* Why Jay wanted Harden to be in the right* Harden's Chinese wine selling* Barstool's Big Move* Revisiting Jay's Barstool article six years later* Why Barstool's broad political reach worked in their favor* Why content doesn't drive gambling as much as people think* Penn leveraging Barstool's gambling-eager audience still couldn't compete with the gambling titans* The importance of authenticity on betting apps* How BetMGM made bad PR because they didn't want to pay a teacher $200k* The difficulty and ethicality of sports betting* Being good isn't one big secret, it's 1,000 little secrets* How many people actually win big?* Jay's move to Berkeley* Why he enjoys it despite weird residents and stressed out students* Ethan thinks Berkeley is a “spiritually dark place.”* Self-segregation at UC Berkeley* The illusion of shared understandings* What drives people to choose who they hang out with?* The lack of interest surrounding Asian-Americans* Why do Asians get overlooked in cases like Affirmative Action which concern them?* The controversy surrounding Jay's book* Understanding why people disliked it but not understanding why they didn't * Getting less hostile on Twitter* Jay's history of “bullying” on Twitter * How not being the underdog anymore makes him argue less* The “Redhead Beard Guy Song”* How the right uses music to own the libs* Why it's effective because the left gives it attention

A wide ranging interview with The New Yorker writer, NPR correspondent, and author of “The Loneliest Americans.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How Jay's position on affirmative action changed ... Jay: I can't see the virtue in affirmative action as it's practiced ... Why did so many Asian students defend policies that discriminated against Asians? ... The hidden cultural argument in the California Mathematics Framework ... Is the “people of color coalition” coming apart? ... Why so little outrage over the SCOTUS affirmative action decision? ... When students internalize artificial trauma narratives ... America can't economically decouple itself from China. Will anti-China rhetoric wane? ... What will and won't change in the wake of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ... Isn't there some value to diversity in education? ...

How Jay's position on affirmative action changed … Jay: I can't see the virtue in affirmative action as it's practiced … Why did so many Asian students defend policies that discriminated against Asians? … The hidden cultural argument in the California Mathematics Framework … Is the “people of color coalition” coming apart? … Why so […]

How Jay's position on affirmative action changed ... Jay: I can't see the virtue in affirmative action as it's practiced ... Why did so many Asian students defend policies that discriminated against Asians? ... The hidden cultural argument in the California Mathematics Framework ... Is the “people of color coalition” coming apart? ... Why so little outrage over the SCOTUS affirmative action decision? ... When students internalize artificial trauma narratives ... America can't economically decouple itself from China. Will anti-China rhetoric wane? ... What will and won't change in the wake of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ... Isn't there some value to diversity in education? ...

This conversation was recorded ahead of the Supreme Court's expected decision on affirmative action. As of publishing, no decision has been issued.The Supreme Court is expected to rule on affirmative action sometime this month. Most of us understand that some colleges use race as a factor in college admissions. But journalist Jay Caspian Kang argues that this focus is too narrow, and that it avoids harder conversations we need to have as a culture. In his view, focusing on the admissions practices of a select few universities creates "a fight for spots in the elite ranks of society" — and blinds us to the bigger problems plaguing American democracy. On today's episode, we talk with Kang about affirmative action's origins in the civil rights era, what it does and doesn't achieve, and what a more equitable education system could look like.

Brady Dale covers cryptocurrency for Axios. His new book is SBF: How The FTX Bankruptcy Unwound Crypto's Very Bad Good Guy. “I am a fast writer. I've always been fast. I just sat down and did the math on it and I was like, If I can write 1,500 words a day, I can write this book. And I can do that.” Show notes: @BradyDale bradydale.com Dale's Axios archive 00:00 SBF: How The FTX Bankruptcy Unwound Crypto's Very Bad Good Guy (Wiley • 2023) 09:00 Dale's Observer archive 09:00 Dale's CoinDesk archive 14:00 Money: The True Story of a Made-Up Thing (Jacob Goldstein • Hachette • 2020) 16:00 Coin Talk (Aaron Lammer and Jay Caspian Kang) 16:00 Techmeme Ride Home (Ride Home Media) 24:00 "#127: Sam Bankman-Fried on taking a high-risk approach to crypto and doing good" (80,000 Hours • Apr 2022) 28:00 Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon (Michael Lewis • Norton • 2023) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On April 4th, Bob Lee, a multimillionaire tech founder, was found stabbed to death in San Francisco, at 2:30 in the morning. Even before concrete details of the crime were revealed, some residents blamed Chesa Boudin—the former D.A., who was ousted last summer—for a general sense of lawlessness in the city. Boudin was one of the more high-profile district attorneys elected in a wave of candidates running on platforms of criminal-justice reform. But he became associated with rising crime and disorder, leading to his eventual recall. Where has that left the progressive-prosecutor movement? Jay Caspian Kang, who wrote about Lee's murder and the suspect, joins Tyler Foggatt to talk about perception versus reality in the battle over crime and homelessness, and how they affect attempts to fix a broken system.

Jay Caspian Kang, staff writer for The New Yorker, documentary film director, and the author of The Loneliest Americans (Crown, 2021), offers thoughts about pressure, rejection and teen unhappiness in the context of college admissions in the TikTok age. → The Particular Misery of College-Admissions TikTok

Last weekend, a man shot and killed eleven people at a ballroom-dance studio in Monterey Park, California, an Asian enclave outside of Los Angeles. Then, less than forty-eight hours later, in Half Moon Bay, California, another man shot and killed seven Chinese farmworkers. Notably, both alleged killers were older men with Asian backgrounds. While mass shootings take place with mind-boggling regularity in America, these attacks also happened amid an alarming rise in hate crimes targeting people of Asian descent. Jay Caspian Kang, a New Yorker staff writer and the author of “The Loneliest Americans,” joins Michael Luo, the editor of newyorker.com, to discuss how these two types of American violence shape our understanding of such disturbing events.

Sharon Kleinbaum, senior rabbi and spiritual leader of Congregation Beit Simchat Torah in New York City, Jay Caspian Kang, staff writer for The New Yorker, documentary film director, and the author of The Loneliest Americans (Crown, 2021), Eddie Glaude, Jr., chair of Princeton's African-American studies department and the author of Begin Again: James Baldwin's America and Its Urgent Lessons for Our Own (Crown, 2020), on the verbal and physical expressions of hate in 2022, and how to combat it.

After a year with so much hate-motivated politics and violence, we take a step back with three perspectives on bigotry and hate movements, and on responding with love. On Today's Show:Sharon Kleinbaum, senior rabbi and spiritual leader of Congregation Beit Simchat Torah in New York City, Jay Caspian Kang, staff writer for The New Yorker, documentary film director, and the author of The Loneliest Americans (Crown, 2021), Eddie Glaude, Jr., chair of Princeton's African-American studies department and the author of Begin Again: James Baldwin's America and Its Urgent Lessons for Our Own (Crown, 2020), on the verbal and physical expressions of hate in 2022, and how to combat it.

New LA City Council President Paul Krekorian says he supports having more members on the council and creating an independent redistricting commission. Identity politics is almost inevitable in LA, says writer Jay Caspian Kang, but it's important to appeal to people beyond race and consider all backgrounds, including socioeconomic. Black Eyed Peas member will.i.am grew up in Boyle Heights, and this Friday, he'll be performing at the half-time show during the East LA Classic.

Alex Wong is joined by Jay Caspian Kang to chat about his book “The Loneliest Americans,” discovering your Asian identity growing up, Linsanity vs. MC Jin's “Freestyle Friday” run, LL Cool J. vs. Canibus, the Raptors fan base, and how online conversations about basketball have changed over the past decade. Later, the two dive into their Western Conference tiers and chat about the Warriors' chances of repeating, if the Pelicans or Wolves can be a surprise team, and Jay's newfound Sacramento Kings fandom.  The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Sports & Media or any affiliates.

Today we're bringing you an episode from our friends at The Argument, about cultural appropriation in creative work. In recent years, book written by white authors like “American Dirt” and “The Help" have been criticized for their portrayals of characters of color. Artists' job is to imagine and create, but what do we do when they get it wrong?To discuss, Jane Coaston is joined by the Opinion writers Roxane Gay and Jay Caspian Kang. In their work, both have thought deeply about the thorny issues of writing across identities — including what makes work authentic, the pressure of representation for writers of color and the roles social media and the publishing industry play in literary criticism. “I don't think it's that complicated,” Roxane says. “It's not that we divorce identity from the conversation. It's that we treat it as inherent because we can't separate out parts of ourselves.”Mentioned:“White Fever Dreams” by Roxane Gay in Gay Magazine“The Pity of the Elites” by Jay Caspian KangThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com. You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones and Pat McCusker; mixing by Pat McCusker; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. 

Hello from our summer hiatus! While we're away, the pod squad is thrilled to share episodes from podcasts we love and admire. This week, we have an episode from Time to Say Goodbye, a podcast about Asia, the Asian diaspora, politics, and international solidarity. Thank you to hosts E. Tammy Kim, Jay Caspian Kang, and (formerly) Andy Liu for letting us cross post this episode. Kudos to our podcast co-host Cindy Gao, for introducing this cross post and briefly emerging from dissertation work.  (Description below courtesy of TTSG. Episode was originally aired on February 1, 2022.) "This week Andy talks with the director (Jessica Kingdon) and producer (Kira Simon-Kennedy) of the new film Ascension, a documentary about working life in contemporary China. Ascension has received critical acclaim and garnered major awards and nominations, including being shortlisted for the Academy Awards!The film features scenes of quotidian working life in a period when the government has begun to promote the “Chinese Dream,” spanning textile and sex doll factories to etiquette school and social media influencers all the way to luxurious water parks and tropical vacation resorts. Together, these scenes raise provocative questions about China's blindingly rapid development, the uneven pace of upward mobility, and whether China is an exotic outlier or a recognizably modern society, comparable with life in the US and other societies worldwide (all to music by Dan Deacon)."

When does creative license become cultural appropriation? Take “American Dirt” and “The Help,” two books by white authors that drew criticism for their portrayals of characters of color. Artists' job is to imagine and create, but what do we do when they get it wrong?To discuss, Jane Coaston is joined by the Opinion writers Roxane Gay and Jay Caspian Kang. Roxane is an author of multiple books, including “Hunger” and “Bad Feminist.” Jay is a contributor for The New York Times Magazine and writes a twice-weekly newsletter. In their work, both have thought deeply about the thorny issues of writing across identities — including what makes work authentic, the pressure of representation for writers of color and the roles social media and the publishing industry play in literary criticism. “I don't think it's that complicated,” Roxane says. “It's not that we divorce identity from the conversation. It's that we treat it as inherent because we can't separate out parts of ourselves.”Mentioned in this episode:“White Fever Dreams” by Roxane Gay in Gay Magazine“The Pity of the Elites” by Jay Caspian Kang(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)

Two years ago, the murder of George Floyd sparked protests across America, gathering an estimated 15 million people into the streets during the summer of 2020. Since then, Americans of all political persuasions have taken to the streets to make their views known, on everything from mask mandates to abortion rights. But did protesting result in any real change? And looking back, where does that moment of collective outrage fit in the broader history of dissent in America?This week, host Jane Coaston wants to know whether there is a “right” way to protest, and what makes a protest successful. To talk it through, she's joined by the conservative writer David French of The Dispatch and the Times Opinion columnist Charles Blow. “I think a lot of times what the protest does is that it crystallizes and defines the parameters of morality on an issue,” Blow says. “It is a narrative-setting or -changing event.” But French argues that sometimes, in pursuit of raising awareness, protests can go too far. “If a group of people can menace a public official with enough ferocity that they can undermine the will of the people, you're really beginning to undermine the notion of democracy itself,” he says.Mentioned in this episode:“Leave the Justices Alone at Home” by the Washington Post editorial board“Protests Might Not Change the Court's Decision. We Should Take to the Streets Anyway” by Jay Caspian Kang in The New York Times“Do Protests Even Work?” by Zeynep Tufekci in The Atlantic(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)

Last week we talked about the senseless loss of life in Buffalo. This week, we recorded before Uvalde happened. We open with a few minutes devoted to that awful event, before moving on to our regularly scheduled nonsense. We jump around to a bunch of smaller topics this week, include SCOTUS news, primary results in Pennsylvania and predictions in Georgia, Senator Bill Cassidy steps in it, and a piece of new technology that we actually like. Listen, if you must! Has something we said, or failed to say, made you FEEL something? You can tell us all about it on Facebook or Twitter, leave a comment on the show's page on our website, or you can send us an email here. Enjoy!Show RundownOpen — Some unorganized thoughts on what happened in Texas on Tuesday11:49 — Actual show starts! Did you know the FDA is back on their “let's ban menthol-cigarettes” thing?15:50 — Some very important corrections22:57 — SCOTUS rules that death row inmates cannot introduce new evidence in federal appeals, and that “innocence isn't enough”30:00 — Some Texas lawmakers want to ban corporations from their state if they help employees access abortions in other states, and a discussion about primary votes in various states50:16 — Senator Bill Cassidy puts his foot in various of his own orifices55:58 — NPR doesn't even listen to NPR, why are we?1:01:17 — Grub Hub reaffirms that there is no such thing as a free lunch1:10:46 — Jay Caspian Kang in the NYT: cars have too many screens!1:19:01 — The future is good, actually!1:24:46 — Sam Neill and Laura Dern had a scandalous fake relationship in 19931:33:20 — Taylor Lorenz being silly in the Washington Post again1:42:48 — Strassmann!1:47:12 — The USMNT did something selfless, Bob disapproves1:54:48 — A very brief new segment1:55:35 — Wrap-up! Twitter, Joe Biden and Taiwan, COVID surging, “MEN,” Top Gun, Love on the Spectrumhttps://www.timesxbob.com/home/2018/2/15/on-the-gun-or-mustard-gas-and-rosesPlease head to the website for links to most everything mentioned in this episode, ready by Wednesday afternoon.https://www.brainiron.com/podcast/episode0096

Big Wos and Nando Vila are joined by journalist Jay Caspian Kang of the New York Times. They touch Roe v Wade, Jay's recent NYT's opinion pieces about elites monopolizing empathy and his book The Loneliest Americans Jay: https://twitter.com/jaycaspiankang The Loneliest Americans: https://www.amazon.com/Loneliest-Americans-Jay-Caspian-Kang/dp/0525576223 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Big Wos and Nando Vila are joined by journalist Jay Caspian Kang of the New York Times. They touch Roe v Wade, Jay's recent NYT's opinion pieces about elites monopolizing empathy and his book The Loneliest Americans Jay: https://twitter.com/jaycaspiankang The Loneliest Americans: https://www.amazon.com/Loneliest-Americans-Jay-Caspian-Kang/dp/0525576223 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Haley and Jordan are joined by New York Times Opinion staff writer (and founder of the NBA Dark Web) Jay Caspian Kang! They talk basketball morals, if the Celtics will always be villains, and the guiding principles of the NBA Dark Web. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on the Handsell, Amanda recommends The Loneliest Americans by Jay Caspian Kang. Follow the podcast via RSS, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Stitcher. This content contains affiliate links. When you buy through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Rob Mahoney to discuss the playoff seeding for the Western Conference, the increasingly scary Mavericks, the steady Suns, the stumbling Warriors, Clippers rumors, and more (7:26). Then Bill talks with Jay Caspian Kang of the New York Times about the upcoming Final Four showdown between Duke and UNC (31:49). Finally Bill is joined by Warren Sharp to discuss the current NFL landscape for the 2022 season, the wide-open NFC, the super-competitive AFC, big trades and free-agent signings, the top five easiest and hardest 2022 schedules, what to look for in NFL futures bets, and more (56:10). Host: Bill Simmons Guests: Rob Mahoney, Jay Caspian Kang, and Warren Sharp Producer: Kyle Crichton Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

(Part 1 of 2) Doug Kim joins Teen to talk about being at the center of Jay Caspian Kang's chapter on MRAsians in his book 'The Loneliest Americans'. From his HS friendship with Mark Zuckerberg, to winning millions in poker at 22, to being wrung through the Hollywood grinder as an Asian guy on the spectrum, Doug is an open book when it comes to the 'angry asian guy'. Join us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/planamag Check out the new Plan A merchandise shop: plan-a-4.creator-spring.com/ TWITTER: Doug (@TheMakerRevenge) Teen (@mont_jiang) SUBMISSIONS & COMMENTS: editor.planamag@gmail.com EFPA Theme: "Escape From Plan A" by Ciel (@aerialist)

In Episode 2, hosts Matteo Wong and Olivia Oldham rewind 40 years to the story of the 1980 report, “A Study of Race Relations at Harvard College,” and ask why it seems to have been forgotten in recent University climate survey efforts.Further reading on the model minority myth:“‘Model Minority' Myth Again Used As A Racial Wedge Between Asians And Blacks,” 4/19/2017, by Kat Chow on NPR's Code Switch, https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/524571669/model-minority-myth-again-used-as-a-racial-wedge-between-asians-and-blacksThe Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority by Ellen D. WuFor Asian American history that goes beyond the model minority myth, The Making of Asian America: A History by Erika Lee.Further reading on SFFA:“Where Does Affirmative Action Leave Asian-Americans?”, 8/28/2019, Jay Caspian Kang, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/magazine/affirmative-action-asian-american-harvard.html“The Uncomfortable Truth About Affirmative Action and Asian-Americans,” 8/10/2017, Jeannie Suk Gersen, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans“The Harvard Admissions Lawsuit, Explained,” 11/7/2016, Brittany N. Ellis, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/11/7/harvard-admissions-lawsuit-explainer/“The Harvard Admissions Lawsuit Decision, Analyzed,” 10/3/2019, Camille G. Caldera and Delano R. Franklin, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/3/admissions-decision-explained/“How SFFA Is Trying to Convince SCOTUS To Hear Its Suit Against Harvard,” 3/5/2021, Vivi E. Lu and Dekyi T. Tsotsong, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/3/5/sffa-petitions-supreme-court/Links for the “I, Too, Am Harvard Campaign”: https://itooamharvard.tumblr.com/https://www.ahsantetheartist.com/diversity-at-harvardhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIsd5gDuEBGIKLSa_vcJFlg

10 de febrero | Nueva YorkHola, maricoper. Segunda vuelta.El podcast de La Wikly también está disponible en iTunes, Spotify y iVoox.Añade el podcast a tu plataforma favorita haciendo click en el botón “Listen in podcast app” que aparece justo debajo del reproductor.Si te haces suscriptor premium, recibirás dos newsletters extra. Los viernes, el maricóctel, una serie de enlaces recomendados para ponerte al día de algún tema destacado. Y los lunes, el maricoffee, un repaso de cuatro titulares para empezar la semana bien informado (y un test de actualidad para ponerte a prueba).Leer esta newsletter te llevará 15 minutos y 27 segundos.“Era un perro que hablaba, ¿sabes a lo que me refiero?”. Bienvenido a La Wikly.🧑 Vuelve Trump, vuelve el impeachmentLo importante: Este martes, el Senado dio comienzo al segundo juicio de impeachment contra Donald Trump en poco más de un año. Esta vez, por supuesta “incitación a la insurrección”.Aparte del futuro político del expresidente, que podría ser condenado y no poder volver a presentarse a un cargo público, hay mucho más en juego en las probables dos semanas que durará el juicio.Pero lo primero es lo primero.QUÉ ES EL IMPEACHEMNTEl impeachment es un proceso en el cual la Cámara de Representantes presenta cargos criminales contra un cargo oficial a nivel federal (judicial o ejecutivo), o su equivalente a nivel estatal si el estado lo prevé en su constitución.Posteriormente, se celebra un juicio en el Senado, el cual determina la culpabilidad o no de la persona que ocupa el cargo y las consecuencias legales que se le aplican en caso afirmativo.A pesar de lo que se cree en el imaginario popular, este proceso no solo afecta al cargo del presidente de los EEUU. La Constitución prevé este proceso también para el vicepresidente y cualquier otro cargo público (Artículo 2, Sección 4).Si bien es cierto que el impeachment presidencial constituye el caso más reseñable de cuantos existen por su poca frecuencia, el proceso parlamentario específico que tiene y la amplia cobertura mediática que recibe.La Constitución de los EEUU prevé el impeachment por los delitos de traición, soborno “y otros delitos o faltas graves”. Este último constituye un término amplio cuya interpretación última ha dependido de lo que ha determinado el Congreso para cada caso.¿Cómo funciona un impeachment presidencial en la práctica? Solo tres presidentes han sufrido el proceso de impeachment, con un cuarto, Richard Nixon, dimitiendo del cargo poco antes de iniciarse uno contra él. Estos son:Andrew Johnson (1868).Bill Clinton (1998-1999).Donald Trump (2019-2020 y 2021).El impeachment a Andrew Johnson no prosperó al no alcanzar por un voto la mayoría de dos tercios en el Senado necesaria para destituirlo.No obstante, tuvo importantes implicaciones en la época porque frenó el uso abusivo del impeachment contra presidentes en ejercicio simplemente porque el poder legislativo estuviese en desacuerdo con él.Pero los tres impeachments más actuales, y en virtud de los cuales el proceso ha alcanzado su actual fama, son los relativos a Clinton y a Trump.Bill Clinton (1998-1999): perjurio y obstrucción a la justicia.Los dos artículos de impeachment que se presentaron contra Clinton fueron aprobados por la Cámara de Representantes, dominada por republicanos, a raíz de la actuación del expresidente en torno a dos relaciones extramaritales.Una de estas acusaciones terminó en un juicio civil por acoso sexual, el caso Paula Jones. Y otra de ellas derivó en el ya conocido como caso Monica Lewinsky.Los republicanos acusaban a Clinton de mentir bajo juramento y de obstruir las investigaciones en torno a ambos casos.El Senado acabó absolviendo a Clinton de ambos cargos por 45 a favor/55 en contra y 50 a favor/50 en contra, respectivamente, muy lejos de los 67 que hubiesen sido necesarios para aprobar la destitución.Donald Trump (2019-2020): abuso de poder y obstrucción al Congreso.Tras la filtración de la llamada de Trump al presidente ucraniano Volodímir Zelenski, la Cámara de Representantes, dominada por demócratas desde las elecciones de medio mandato de 2018, inició una investigación que culminó con la votación de dos artículos de impeachment contra Trump.El Senado absolvió a Trump de ambos cargos por 48 a favor/52 en contra y 47 a favor/53 en contra, respectivamente.Mitt Romney votó a favor del artículo del abuso de poder, convirtiéndose en el primer senador en la historia en votar a favor de la destitución de un presidente de su propio partido.Donald Trump (2021): incitación a la insurrección.El asalto al Capitolio del pasado 6 de enero motivó el inicio de un nuevo proceso de impeachment contra Trump por parte de la mayoría demócrata en la Cámara de Representantes.Como ya cubrimos desde La Wikly en distintas entregas del Maricoffee (accesible cada lunes para suscriptores premium), el proceso ha generado distintas reacciones tanto en el seno del GOP como en el equipo legal de Trump.Incluso se hipotetizó con la idea de que el ya expresidente pudiese fundar su propio partido como medida de presión contra aquellos senadores republicanos que tuviesen la tentación de votar a favor de condenarle.Si bien Trump ya no es presidente, una condena por impeachment aún podría resultar en su inhabilitación para volver a postularse a cargo público alguno, eliminando sus esperanzas de un nuevo asalto a la Casa Blanca en 2024.Sea cual sea el resultado del juicio en el Senado que comienza esta semana, Trump ya ostenta el dudoso récord de ser el único cargo público en la historia de los EEUU a nivel federal en ser sometido a dos procesos de impeachment.Pero entonces, ¿cuáles son las posturas de los bandos?LA ACUSACIÓN: LOS DEMÓCRATASEl argumento central que esgrimen los demócratas es la influencia que ejerció Trump desde su cargo para arengar a la multitud de manifestantes a irrumpir violentamente en el Capitolio e interferir con la labor parlamentaria de la certificación de votos.A diferencia del juicio político anterior, la intervención del expresidente en este suceso fue de carácter público: no sólo hay muchos testigos del hecho, sino también videos y declaraciones del presidente realizadas por redes sociales.Llevar adelante este proceso responde a tres objetivos generales:Garantizar desde el gobierno una respuesta punitiva a un atentado contra las instituciones nacionales; es decir, que el evento tenga consecuencias tangibles para sus auspiciadores.Prohibir que Trump vuelva a ocupar el cargo (es decir, impedirle que se presente nuevamente a elecciones) y remover los beneficios que recibe como expresidente.Salario público y seguridad del Servicio Secreto, entre otros.Desmotivar el apoyo del electorado a la figura de Trump.Respecto a la estrategia querellante, varios de los gestores del juicio político en la Cámara querían un testimonio de primera mano para ayudar a probar que Trump incitó los disturbios. Algunas de las ideas fueronLograr que los oficiales de la policía del Capitolio cuenten sus historias sobre la lucha contra los asaltantes.Invitar a los funcionarios republicanos de Georgia que fueron presionados por Trump para que anularan el conteo electoral del estado.Sin embargo, figuras como Chuck Schumer y Nancy Pelosi se han manifestado a favor de que el proceso avance rápidamente, argumentando que no necesariamente se necesitan testigos ya que los crímenes de Trump están a la vista y documentados.Cabe recordar que los demócratas no tienen mucho tiempo que perder ya que la agenda presidencial demanda espacio en el Congreso y presentar testigos ralentizaría el proceso.Además, 45 republicanos del Senado ya se han decidido a apoyar la inconstitucionalidad del juicio tanto en los prolegómenos del juicio como en el primer debate del juicio celebrado este martes.En principio, no está previsto que el juicio dure más de una semana y hay una gran improbabilidad de conseguir el apoyo bipartidista necesario para aprobar el impeachment y las sanciones derivadas de una condena.LA DEFENSA: TRUMPLa defensa asienta sus argumentos en dos pilares:La negación de que Trump incentivó a sus partidarios a la violencia."Se niega que el presidente Trump haya puesto en peligro la seguridad de Estados Unidos y sus instituciones de gobierno", escribieron sus abogados en un escrito para el juicio. “Se niega que amenazara la integridad del sistema democrático, interfiriera con la transición pacífica de poder o pusiera en peligro un rama de gobierno equiparable”.También sostienen que estaba protegido por la Primera Enmienda para "expresar su creencia de que los resultados de las elecciones eran sospechosos".Libertad de expresión, vaya.La supuesta inconstitucionalidad del juicio político debido a que Trump ya no se encuentra en ejercicio de sus funciones como presidente.Esto es muy controvertido ya que, en primer lugar, la Cámara demandó a Trump cuando este todavía se encontraba desempeñando su cargo.Además, varios juristas coinciden en que la destitución del cargo es solo la sanción mínima aplicable al funcionario encontrado culpable, lo que no lo exime de recibir otras sanciones.Chuck Cooper, un veterano y respetado abogado constitucional conservador, escribió este artículo de opinión en The Wall Street Journal donde desarrolla ese argumento.EL JUEGO POLÍTICODemócratas y republicanos se juegan mucho crédito político en las próximas semanas conforme el nombre de Trump vuelve a acaparar la atención mediática que había perdido en los primeros pasos de la administración de Biden.Poco se habla de la efectividad que ha tenido el bloqueo de Trump en plataformas como Facebook y Twitter, le parezca a uno bien o mal.Y lo que tienen que valorar los partidos es cómo de expuestos quieren quedar tras este juicio de impeachment:Los demócratas se arriesgan a apartar el foco de Biden y de las primeras medidas políticas de su presidencia, incluido el paquete de estímulo de 1.9 billones de dólares que ahora avanza por reconciliación presupuestaria por el Capitolio.Del lado contrario, pocas figuras como Trump han conseguido aunar al electorado demócrata de la forma en la que lo ha logrado el expresidente.Las encuestas están de su lado: una mayoría de estadounidenses apoyan condenar a Trump por incitación a la insurrección.Los republicanos se arriesgan a convertirse en antagonistas del electorado republicano, que sigue teniendo una alta lealtad hacia Trump. Al mismo tiempo, un voto en contra del impeachment quedará grabado en la historia si los demócratas logran presentar un muy buen caso contra el expresidente.Del lado contrario, apoyar a Trump puede servir como retrato de un partido demócrata incapaz de pasar página de cara a las elecciones de medio mandato de 2022 en las que necesitan una base republicana activa: enfadada y dispuesta a arrasar a los demócratas.Claro que mantener en el mismo partido político a las Liz Cheney (establishment moderado proimpeachment) y las Marjorie Taylor Greene (trumpismo reaccionario) promete dejar una bomba de relojería en medio del GOP.La gran pregunta, por tanto, será ver cuánto dura el juicio.Si no se presentan más pruebas o se cita a testigos, es posible que la votación se celebre este mismo fin de semana y el próximo lunes el juicio de impeachment sea solo otra página en la historia reciente de EEUU.En el podcast, hablamos de la primera jornada del juicio y lo que cabe esperar de los próximos días ahora que acusación y defensa ya han mostrado sus primeras cartas.¿Desea saber más? The Washington Post tiene un conteo de whip de los senadores que ya se han posicionado casi definitivamente sobre su voto. Y The New York Times tiene un genial reportaje gráfico de los diferentes pasos del impeachment, los ya dados y los que se podrían dar en los próximos días.🤓 Qué están leyendo en…Washington D.C.: ‘El paquete de estímulo de Biden es admirablemente ambicioso. Pero también plantea algunos grandes riesgos’ por Lawrence H. Summers en The Washington Post. (en inglés; 6 minutos).Larry Summers fue Secretario del Tesoro durante dos años en la era Clinton y director del Consejo Económico Nacional de la Casa Blanca durante otros dos de la era Obama. La columna que firmó esta semana para el Post generó mucho ruido en D.C. porque ponía en duda la ambición del paquete de estímulo de Biden, valorado en 1.9 billones de dólares, por los problemas que podría acarrear en el futuro; a grandes rasgos: inflación e inestabilidad económica. La respuesta ha sido contundente. La gente de Biden, incluida la Secretaria del Tesoro actual Janet Yellen, han contestado a Summers argumentando que este no es el momento de quedarse cortos, algo que ya le pasó a Obama en 2009 tras la crisis económica de 2008 cuando dejó guiarse por la presión republicana y aprobar un estímulo que a todas luces se quedó corto. Summers alega que el momento es distinto, y que el paquete es excesivamente caro, pero Yellen asegura que la inflación es un riesgo que están dispuestos a correr porque tienen las herramientas para controlarla. La otra pregunta es: ¿están los demócratas gastando demasiado crédito político cuando en unos meses van a querer aprobar otro paquete de infraestructura trillonario? Este explainer de Vox lo analiza todo detenidamente.Silicon Valley: ‘El nuevo consejero delegado de Amazon, Andy Jassy, puede o ayudar a los trabajadores y vendedores —o automatizarlos a todos’ por Christopher Mims en The Wall Street Journal. (en inglés; 8 minutos).He estado leyendo mucho sobre el relevo de Andy Jassy en Amazon estos días. Me gustaron mucho las columnas de Ben Thompson sobre Jeff Bezos y la de Casey Newton sobre los retos de Jassy, pero he querido destacar esta de Mims en el WSJ porque me parece que Amazon se enfrenta a un reto diferente al que tienen por delante compañías Big Tech como Apple, Facebook y Google, menos dependientes del mundo físico (y en territorio estadounidense). Piensa: empleados de almacenes, transportistas, vendedores en su plataforma. Amazon puede automatizarlo todo en una transición de no demasiados años y Jassy será muy probablemente el encargado de lidiar con la supervisión de ese proceso. Salvo que quiera optar por otro camino. Lo que es evidente es que el escrutinio sobre la compañía no va a dejar de crecer, con lo que la relación entre megaconglomerado y sus cientos de miles de empleados va a ser uno de los grande focos del debate en torno al futuro del trabajo. Y con votos sindicales y audiencias de comités congresuales de por medio, la guerra promete volverse muy cruda.Hollywood: ‘Las muchas vidas de Steven Yeun’ por Jay Caspian Kang en The New York Times. (en inglés; 32 minutos).Es difícil encontrar estos días buenos perfiles de actores de Hollywood porque se están estrenando pocas películas, pero Caspian King hace un gran trabajo diseccionando la que para mí es una de las figuras más fascinantes de los actores asiático-americanos (¡junto con John Cho! ¡Y Awkwafina!). Yeun es más conocido por interpretar a Glenn en The Walking Dead, pero también hemos visto al actor nacido en Corea en cintas independientes como Orígenes y en largometrajes de cineastas de su país de origen como Okja y la más reciente, y brutalísima, Burning. Este año despunta con Minari, una semiautobiografía del cineasta estadounidense Lee Isaac Chung sobre una familia coreana que se muda a la Arkansas rural de los años 80. Caspian King aprovecha ese contexto para una radiografía verdaderamente emotiva sobre la identidad asiático-americana, las familias inmigrantes y el retrato que se hace de todo ello en el cine. Muy top leerlo hasta el final.😆 Quitándole la graciaLa Super Bowl dejó un partido poco emocionante (qué pesaos son Gronk y Brady) y un Half Time Show algo descafeinado por culpa de un The Weeknd que quiso todo el protagonismo para sí mismo —aunque es probable que tuviera limitaciones de espectáculo con motivo de la pandemia. Pero lo que sí quedaron fueron algunos memes, y eso siempre se agradece.El más viral, aunque pasajero y casi que ya anticuado, es el que usa un pequeño extracto en el que The Weeknd entra en una especie de laberinto de espejos y parece estar realmente perdido. Mis favoritos son este de cuando te pierdes en el parque de atracciones porque has entrado en la tienda de golosinas a por una bolsa de chuches:Y este otro de cuando te cierran el museo en unos minutos y tienes que darte prisa para ver lo mucho que te queda pendiente:De lo demás, me quedo con este otro meme sobre los bailarines que acompañaron al artista (“Esta es la vez que más mascarillas se han usado en Florida desde hace meses”):Y con este otro sobre lo que la pizza rolls ven cuando se están haciendo en el microondas:Y en vídeos e imágenes que te alegrarán el día:Jack Black haciendo de Thor.Un juicio gatuno inesperado.Otro buen meme de The Weeknd perdido, pero NSFW.Un complejo meme con final triste.Un buen meme de acento británico.Un buen meme sobre lo viejo-meme que eres.Un gran vídeo de mascotas.Un gran meme de historia de conquistas rusas infructuosas:🤩 Un vídeo para celebrar la vuelta del hijo pródigo de YouTubeDavid Dobrik ha vuelto a YouTube y eso debe celebrarse. Ni en Twitch ni en esta newsletter he escondido jamás la devoción que siento por este chaval, quizá el youtuber más divertido y buena hente con el que jamás me he topado. El tipo llevaba alejado de los ruedos de la plataforma desde el comienzo de la pandemia, un drama solo superado por el cierre de las salas de cine neoyorquinas. Y pese a que sí ha dedicado más atención a su podcast, lo que muchos queríamos era que nos actualizara sobre su vida con un vídeo.Eso sí, su nueva aparición es en su canal secundario: David Dobrik Too. Es decir, no es uno de sus vídeos intensamente bien editados que siempre duran 4:20, en homenaje a la cultura del cannabis. En esta ocasión Dobrik enseña su nueva increíble mansión, le regala dos coches a dos de sus asistentes e inaugura el estudio donde desde ahora rodarán las entrevistas de su podcast Views. El primer episodio con Halsey ya está disponible.Es posible que hasta que Los Ángeles no vuelva a la normalidad prepandemia, Dobrik tampoco lo haga con las publicaciones semanales de su canal, pero cabe agradecer que al menos él y su tropa de pirados seguirán en YouTube de forma forma algo más contenida. Entre cuatro paredes, vaya.👋 Y para terminar...Una recomendación.[Esta sección ha sido asaltada por Anita Pereyra]Mientras esperamos que Emilio termine de ver Bridgerton (yo sugiero que tomen asiento y se pongan cómodos para esperar), les traigo una recomendación de miniserie histórica que vale mucho más la pena: El bazar de la caridad.Está basada en un evento que solía organizarse en París en 1885, tristemente conocido por un incendio que consumió el edificio y se cobró la vida de más de cien personas (la mayoría mujeres pertenecientes a la aristocracia). La historia sigue el hilo de tres mujeres que sobreviven a la tragedia y luego deben afrontar las consecuencias.Los guiños de época alcanzan una amplia variedad de ámbitos: política, valores sociales, novedades tecnológicas, moda. Tiene personajes femeninos memorables, expuestos a debates morales muy interesantes, y el guión dramático está tejido cual telaraña: impecable. La clave es sobrevivir al primer capítulo.Hasta la semana que viene, This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.lawikly.com/subscribe