Podcasts about Legitimacy

We tend to think of a nation's strength in concrete terms—the size of its military, the reach of its laws, or the stability of its economy. But this special audio documentary episode of Outrage Overload pulls back the curtain on the illusion of government permanence to reveal a terrifyingly fragile truth: what if the true foundation of state power is entirely invisible? We explore a provocative perspective on what actually holds a society together, challenging the idea that brute force or legal systems are enough to keep the peace when something deeper begins to rot.The episode dives into the unsettling moments when the official version of reality completely fractures. We look at how major, shocking events can be instantly dismissed by millions as total fiction, forcing us to ask why we can no longer agree on basic facts. Renowned scholar Dr. Sheila Jasanoff joins the conversation to turn our understanding of truth upside down, revealing a hidden prerequisite for consensus that modern society seems to have lost. It raises an urgent question: if evidence can no longer convince us, what can?We also take you to the frontlines of non-compliance, tracing the friction of the Bundy standoffs and the world of libertarian resistance with Dan Behrman. These stories expose a radical reality about where power truly resides, suggesting that authority does not flow from top-down government institutions, but from a much closer, more familiar source. When that localized compliance disappears, the levers of control may be far emptier than they appear.Our current institutions were designed for a world that no longer exists, and they are now buckling under modern pressures they were never built to sustain. This documentary explores whether we are living through the quiet expiration of the social contract, building to a haunting conclusion about what happens to a state when its core legitimacy is gone.Featured in This Episode: • Dr. Sheila Jasanoff – Pforzheimer Professor at Harvard Kennedy School and a pioneer in Science and Technology Studies who explores the intersection of technology, law, and modern democracy.• Dan Behrman – Libertarian author and advocate dedicated to promoting the philosophy that "Taxation Is Theft" through his books and political platforms.Text me your feedback and leave your contact info if you'd like a reply (this is a one-way text). Thanks, DavidSupport the showShow Notes:https://outrageoverload.net/ Contact me, David Beckemeyer by email outrageoverload@gmail.com. Follow the show on Instagram @OutrageOverload. We are also on Facebook /OutrageOverload. Check out our Subtstack https://outrageoverload.substack.comHOTLINE: 925-552-7885Got a Question, comment or just thoughts you'd like to share? Call the O2 hotline and leave a message and you could be featured in an upcoming episodeIf you would like to help the show, you can contribute here. Tell everyone you know about the show. That's the best way to support it.Rate and Review the show on Podchaser: https://www.podchaser.com/OutrageOverloadAlso check out our companion podcasts, This Week in Outrage and Outrage Science Bites.Intro music and outro music by Michael Ramir C.Many thanks to my co-editor and co-director, Austin Chen.Outrage Overload, a Conners Institute podcast, is part of The Democr...

Get access to The Backroom (100+ exclusive episodes) on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OneDimeBenjamin Studebaker joins me on 1Dime Radio for another episode in our regular series of wide-ranging conversations. This time we get into the geopolitical situations in Iran, Ukraine, and Cuba, asking whether the U.S. and Russia are both stuck in wars they cannot neatly win. We analyze how Iran's power structure has changed, what Ukraine's drone strategy signals about the war with Russia, and how North American energy business interests fit into the picture. We also touch on Cuba's demographic pressures, the influence of the “success” of the Venezuela action, and the limits of the U.S. legislative system.In The Backroom on Patreon, Studebaker and I dig into a simple, yet highly nuanced question: what is politics, actually? What does it mean to DO politics? What makes something, or someone, political? When is something politics, and when is it not? What is the difference between Politics as usual, administration, and real politics? What differentiates Politics from social justice activism? Timestamps:00:00:00 The Backroom Preview: A Better Future00:03:48 Intro00:06:07 Has Regime Change Already Occurred In Iran?00:15:00 Will Iran Spike Oil Prices?00:17:48 Israel vs America's Interests00:24:12 Trump's Gas Price Problem00:37:00 Iran's Legitimacy Crisis00:50:11 Can Cuba Survive?01:05:42 Ukraine's Drone War01:11:37 The Energy Politics Behind Ukraine01:20:00 Is America Politically Paralyzed?01:28:37 Can Ukraine Still Negotiate?01:35:00 Was Mearsheimer Right About NATO?01:40:00 China, Trade, and Global Power01:54:23 Backroom Preview: What Is Politics?GUEST:Benjamin Studebaker• Website: https://benjaminstudebaker.com/• Substack: https://substack.com/@bmstudebaker• Legitimacy in Liberal Democracies: https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-legitimacy-in-liberal-democracies.html• Political Theory 101: https://open.spotify.com/show/3JwcqFCSwC9gwR6rUXwFFQFOLLOW 1Dime:• Substack: https://1dimereview.substack.com/• X/Twitter: https://x.com/1DimeOfficial• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/1dimeman/• Check out my main channel videos: https://www.youtube.com/@1DimeeLeave a like, drop a comment, and give the show a 5-star rating on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you listen to this.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

'BradCast' 6/3/2026: Corrupt, Partisan SCOTUS Ends All Claim to Legitimacy with Mid-Election Alabama Ruling; Primary election results by Progressive Voices

Send us a Positive Review!Series Title: Religion IS Political [Part VI of VII]In this episode Val & Nathan break down what religious institutional silent is communicating in times of social unrest.  Don't miss this episode or series if you want to more deeply understand why religions are simply never neutral!  They are loudly communicating what they stand for when they choose silence over speaking truth to power.  Timestamps:00:00 Series Recap Setup02:12 Religion Meets Politics05:24 Legitimacy vs Transformation06:59 Silence Equals Complicity08:48 Why Churches Stay Quiet13:23 Truth Claims Block Reform20:05 Faith as Moral Reform26:01 Rethinking Prophets29:37 Prophetic Not Partisan31:30 Closing and Next EpisodeSupport the showSupport the showJoin The Live FellowshipListen, Share, Rate & Review EPISODESFriday Episodes Annual Access $89Friday Episodes Monthly Access $10Valerie's Support & Processing GroupsGift a ScholarshipDownload Free ResourcesVisit our Website

Brooke Warner, the founder of She Writes Press, gave a TED talk in 2017 called “Green-Lighting Yourself” that I have been thinking about for years. The argument: the traditional creative industries, publishing and film and music, have shifted toward green-lighting only artists who are already famous or who have celebrity connections. The writers and filmmakers and musicians who refused to wait for those industries to discover them, who chose to publish or produce their own work without permission, have a name. Warner calls them green-lighters.The line from her talk that I cannot let go: “Legitimacy cannot be bestowed. You have to take it.”This episode is about what that line means in 2026.There is a question every writer who has been carrying a book for a long time eventually has to face. Are you going to keep waiting for someone to greenlight your work, or are you going to greenlight it yourself.In this episode I share three of my own green-lighter moments. Co-founding C&R Press at thirty-two. Launching Crossroads at fifty-two. And the book I am writing right now, The Crisis of Being Nobody, which will publish through Crossroads because no traditional gatekeeper is going to greenlight it on my behalf.I also talk about what green-lighting actually requires, beyond the romanticized version. Four specific things. The work has to be good. The practical labor of getting the book into the world has to be done. The waiting for institutional bestowal has to end. And the writer has to return to what made them want to do the work in the first place.The episode closes with an invitation. What is the work you have been carrying that you have not yet greenlighted. Notice what happens in your body when you sit with that question. Whether something opens or something flinches. The answer the institution is not going to give you is one you have always been able to give yourself.The Founding Voice cohort, for the first three writers signing a publishing engagement with Crossroads, is open through August 31, 2026.* Submit a project: https://crossroadspublishing.group/inquire* Book a discovery call: Calendly link here. Get full access to The Descent at chadprevost.substack.com/subscribe

Alain Goudey est directeur de l’innovation numérique à Neoma Business School et co-auteur d’une étude académique à comité de lecture sur l’IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur. Cette enquête porte sur la façon dont les étudiants, les enseignants et les doyens perçoivent la légitimité de l’IA générative dans les établissements français de formation au management. Ses conclusions sont à la fois rassurantes et dérangeantes. Enseignement supérieur et IA générative : légitimité, paresse intellectuelle et la fin de l’examen traditionnel Le portrait qui se dégage d’une étude sur l’IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur évoque ces attractions foraines qu’on appelle palais des glaces, où chaque partie prenante voit un problème différent et cherche une solution qui lui est propre. Toutes les illustrations de cet article ont été réalisées avec Midjourney. Lorsqu’Alain Goudey et ses collègues ont commencé à enquêter sur l’enseignement supérieur français début 2024, ils ne cherchaient pas à trancher le débat sur l’IA générative bonne ou mauvaise. Ils voulaient comprendre quelque chose de plus précis : comment le même outil pouvait être simultanément valorisé, redouté, accepté et dénoncé, parfois par la même personne. Leur étude, publiée dans Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), s’appuie sur des enquêtes menées auprès de 668 étudiants, 204 enseignants et 29 directeurs d’établissement (les « deans » du système anglo-saxon), complétées par 22 entretiens approfondis avec des enseignants ayant adopté l’IA en avance de phase. Ce qui en ressort évoque ces attractions foraines qu’on appelle palais des glaces : chaque partie prenante voit un problème différent et cherche une solution qui lui est propre. Le point de départ est un chiffre qui aurait dû clore le débat. Entre 80 et 92 % des étudiants, selon l’établissement, utilisent déjà des outils d’IA générative dans leur travail universitaire. Ce chiffre a été atteint en à peine dix-huit mois après le lancement public de ChatGPT. L’outil n’a pas attendu l’autorisation des institutions. Il s’est déployé de lui-même. Et dans bien des cas, l’enseignement supérieur est encore en train de rédiger sa note de cadrage. Le piège de la productivité Alain met le doigt sur le fond du sujet d’emblée. Les étudiants apprécient l’IA générative pour sa rapidité, sa capacité à générer des idées et son rôle d’appui à l’apprentissage. Mais ils craignent aussi, et leurs établissements avec eux, ce que les chercheurs appellent la « paresse métacognitive » : l’érosion progressive de l’effort cognitif qui produit un apprentissage réel. Pour lui, ce n’est pas une contradiction à résoudre, c’est un défi de conception pédagogique. « La résolution de ce problème passe par la conception des cours, où il faut réintroduire délibérément l’effort cognitif et la réflexion dans l’usage de l’IA générative en tant qu’outil, et non en tant que substitut à la cognition humaine ». Un problème de posture Le problème n’est pas la technologie, mais la posture que l’utilisateur adopte face à elle. Celui qui formule ce qu’Alain appelle une « requête naïve » obtient une réponse naïve : bien mise en forme, parfaitement médiocre. L’outil est capable de bien davantage, à condition que l’utilisateur apporte suffisamment de connaissances métier et d’esprit critique à l’échange. « Il faut cultiver sa propre réflexion plutôt que de déléguer l’ensemble du processus à la machine ». C’est, je l’ai souligné durant notre entretien, moins une question de prompt engineering que de discipline intellectuelle de base : savoir interroger la question avant de la poser. Les départements de philosophie enseignent cela depuis des siècles, sans se soucier de la mode. IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur : les enseignants doivent former les étudiants aux outils d’IA générative et à leurs limites. Ils enseignent aussi l’Odyssée d’Homère et Frankenstein de Shelley dans le cadre du cursus de management. Image réalisée avec Midjourney. Une autre vision de la culture numérique Cette observation a conduit Alain à formuler une vision de la culture numérique qui tranche avec ce qu’on entend généralement. Le débat ne porte pas seulement sur la maîtrise technique des outils, il porte autant sur la connaissance suffisante du sujet pour juger si le résultat produit a une quelconque valeur. L’IA générative ne remplace pas l’expertise : elle amplifie celle que l’utilisateur porte déjà en lui. Ce qui soulève une question dérangeante pour les établissements qui forment des diplômés sans leur donner l’occasion de développer cette expertise. À Neoma, la réponse est délibérément double. Les enseignants forment les étudiants aux outils d’IA générative et à leurs limites. Ils enseignent aussi l’Odyssée d’Homère et Frankenstein de Shelley dans le cadre du cursus de management. L’objectif n’est pas l’enrichissement culturel pour lui-même : il s’agit de donner aux étudiants des modèles mentaux pour se représenter ce que peut être le leadership, ou ce qui arrive quand une création échappe aux intentions de son créateur. Alain appelle cela « construire une infrastructure cognitive » : « Nous devons permettre aux étudiants d’appréhender le monde à travers différents modèles, différents types de processus et cadres théoriques, afin de développer une véritable pensée critique sur ce que produit l’IA ». Une école de management qui fait l’impasse sur ces fondements produit des diplômés capables de manier l’outil, mais incapables d’en évaluer les résultats. Des examens qui mesuraient la mauvaise chose C’est dans le domaine de l’évaluation que le problème apparaît le plus clairement. Un enseignant capable de produire un examen de deux heures en trois minutes fait face à des étudiants qui peuvent y répondre en un temps tout aussi court. La valeur de diagnostic de l’exercice s’est ainsi évaporée. « Si ChatGPT ou n’importe quel outil d’IA générative peut réussir un examen, il faut repenser cet examen ». La réponse d’Alain n’est pas un retour au papier-crayon, même s’il reconnaît que l’évaluation écrite en présentiel reste la solution la plus simple à portée de main. Si un outil d’IA générative peut réussir un examen, il faut repenser cet examen. La valeur diagnostique de l’exercice traditionnel a disparu. Image réalisée avec Midjourney. Sa réponse est structurelle : évaluer les compétences tout au long du cours plutôt que de mesurer l’acquisition de contenus en fin de parcours, via des évaluations plus fréquentes et à moindres enjeux. Une solution ? La résolution de problèmes en situation réelle, l’évaluation par le processus et les examens oraux en présentiel préservent une partie de ce que l’examen traditionnel était censé mesurer. Mais Alain est honnête sur les limites : aucun format n’est totalement à l’abri. Les modèles d’IA évoluent trop vite pour qu’une solution unique reste valable durablement. La bonne réponse n’est pas de trouver une formule définitive, mais de considérer la refonte des évaluations comme un travail permanent. La conclusion de l’article va plus loin : ce que l’enseignement supérieur vend réellement devra peut-être changer. Si des contenus peuvent être récupérés, synthétisés et restitués à coût quasi nul par un outil accessible à quiconque dispose d’un navigateur, un diplôme qui certifie la maîtrise de ces contenus certifie quelque chose dont la valeur s’érode. Ce qui résiste à cette érosion, ce sont les compétences que l’IA ne peut pas encore reproduire de façon crédible : le jugement contextuel, le raisonnement éthique, la capacité à construire des cadres d’analyse et à les confronter à la réalité. C’est aussi, en substance, la manière dont j’aborde l’enseignement de l’IA, que ce soit avec des étudiants d’écoles d’ingénieurs ou de commerce, notamment dans le cadre de mon cours à Omnes Education (qui en est désormais à sa quatrième année consécutive). IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur : une institution fragmentée La réponse institutionnelle de l’enseignement supérieur à l’IA générative a été, pour le dire avec ménagement, inégale. Sciences Po a interdit ChatGPT en janvier 2023, avant de changer d’avis. Trente-cinq universités publiques françaises se sont associées à Mistral AI. Les établissements élaborent une charte nationale. Neoma, où Alain est directeur de l’innovation numérique, a été l’une des premières écoles de commerce françaises à formaliser son approche, en lançant un programme de formation des enseignants, du personnel et des étudiants autour d’un socle commun initial, avant de passer à des ateliers spécialisés sur la conception des cursus, l’évaluation et la refonte des expériences d’apprentissage. Ce que la recherche révèle, c’est que cette activité institutionnelle ne résout pas un problème unique. Trois groupes de parties prenantes tentent chacun de résoudre leur propre version du problème sous le même intitulé. Les étudiants veulent des règles et une formation à la culture de l’IA. De leur côté, les enseignants développent leurs propres approches pédagogiques via des ateliers entre pairs. Les doyens définissent les politiques et négocient les infrastructures souveraines. Les préoccupations s’échelonnent dans une direction prévisible : la performance académique individuelle pour les étudiants, l’intégrité des évaluations pour les enseignants, la réputation institutionnelle pour les doyens. Ces trois groupes ne sont pas toujours en dialogue. L’objectif, tel que Neoma l’a mis en pratique, est de réunir les trois publics autour de la technologie sous un cadrage partagé, suffisamment tôt pour qu’aucun groupe ne puisse s’enfermer dans une position rendant toute coordination ultérieure impossible. La question de l’équité La question de l’équité traverse ces trois niveaux. L’accès aux modèles d’IA haut de gamme n’est pas gratuit. Lorsque j’ai soulevé la question de l’écart entre les abonnements de base et les offres professionnelles, la réponse d’Alain est révélatrice : le problème d’infrastructure est réel, mais secondaire. « La plus grande inégalité ne porte pas sur l’accès à l’outil, mais sur la capacité à l’utiliser correctement ». À Neoma, le partenariat institutionnel avec Mistral donne à tous les étudiants accès à un outil de niveau professionnel. Ce que montrent les données, même à accès égal, c’est un fossé important entre les étudiants qui utilisent l’IA générative pour obtenir la réponse la plus rapide possible et ceux qui s’en servent pour approfondir leur réflexion. Ce fossé ne se comble pas par l’égalisation des abonnements. Même si je partage l’essentiel de ce qu’Alain avance, je pense que la hausse des prix des modèles haut de gamme est prévisible. Elle tient à l’écart entre les investissements consentis et les retours commerciaux obtenus. Cela conduira quasi inévitablement à une fracture économique entre ceux qui ont les moyens et ceux qui ne les ont pas. Il suffit de regarder la grille tarifaire de Claude d’Anthropic pour s’en convaincre. Au-delà du modèle Pro, très limité en termes d’usage de tokens, notamment si l’on utilise le modèle Opus 4.6 plus sophistiqué, les tarifs atteignent déjà 1 200 € par an. Ce n’est pas une somme négligeable, d’autant plus préoccupante à l’heure où Claude s’impose rapidement comme la référence pour les utilisateurs soucieux de qualité. Quel sera l’impact des prix vertigineux de l’IA générative sur l’enseignement supérieur ? Le problème des « héros de l’IA » L’une des formulations les plus frappantes qui ressort des travaux d’Alain est ce qu’il appelle le phénomène des « héros de l’IA ». Dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur français, certains enseignants font un travail pédagogique excellent et innovant avec l’IA générative : ils conçoivent de nouveaux formats d’évaluation, animent des ateliers, repensent des modules entiers autour de l’apprentissage augmenté par l’IA. Ils produisent des résultats. Et ils le font en grande partie seuls, sans reconnaissance institutionnelle, sans incitations de carrière, sans aucun mécanisme pour partager ce qu’ils ont appris. Les incitations sont mal calibrées. Dans l’enseignement supérieur, c’est la production de recherche qui est récompensée, pas la conception pédagogique, du moins pas de la même façon. Un enseignant pionnier qui repense entièrement un programme autour des compétences liées à l’IA générative recevra peut-être moins de reconnaissance professionnelle qu’un collègue qui publie un seul article dans une revue. « Nous devons aider tous ces héros de l’IA à obtenir davantage de considération pour l’innovation pédagogique, ce qui n’est pas nécessairement le cas par défaut dans l’enseignement supérieur ». Le risque, si rien n’est fait, est l’émergence d’un système à deux vitesses : une minorité d’enseignants à l’aise avec le numérique qui tirent leurs étudiants vers l’avant, tandis que la majorité reste à la traîne, ni formée ni encouragée à s’engager. L’innovation de terrain est réelle et précieuse. Sans structures institutionnelles pour la reconnaître, la valoriser et la reproduire, elle reste une exception plutôt qu’un modèle. IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur : quand la légitimité s’effrite L’armature théorique de l’étude repose sur le modèle triadique de légitimité de Suchman, qui distingue la légitimité pragmatique (l’outil sert-il mes intérêts ?), la légitimité morale (est-il conforme à mes valeurs ?) et la légitimité cognitive (est-il tenu pour acquis dans la façon dont les choses fonctionnent ?). Ce modèle a été conçu pour des technologies adoptées progressivement. L’IA générative l’a mis à l’épreuve dans des conditions d’adoption massive quasi instantanée. Alain et ses co-auteurs n’y voient pas une raison de rejeter le cadre, mais une occasion de l’enrichir : ils introduisent un continuum légitimité-illégitimité plutôt qu’une simple alternative binaire. Ce que révèlent les étudiants Le résultat qu’Alain décrit comme l’asymétrie la plus notable dans les données concerne la dimension morale chez les étudiants. Les plus grands utilisateurs d’IA générative n’accordent aucune légitimité morale à ces outils dans un contexte académique. Ils les associent, avec une forte fréquence, à la triche, au plagiat, à la dévaluation des diplômes et à l’injustice. Ils utilisent un outil qu’ils considèrent comme éthiquement compromis. Ce n’est manifestement pas tenable. Sur ce point, Alain a une opinion très différente. « Utiliser l’IA générative ne constitue pas nécessairement de la triche. Cela dépend entièrement de la façon dont on l’utilise et à quelle fin ». L’échec institutionnel, selon lui, tient au fait que les établissements n’ont pas fait suffisamment pour modifier la perception que les étudiants ont de la technologie. Ce que révèlent les enseignants Les enseignants offrent un tableau plus complet. Les six dimensions de légitimité et d’illégitimité sont présentes dans leurs réponses. Ils reconnaissent l’utilité de ces outils tout en mettant en doute leur fiabilité, les jugent professionnellement nécessaires tout en trouvant leur architecture opaque, et invoquent leur potentiel inclusif tout en signalant la paresse intellectuelle et l’érosion de la pensée critique comme leur préoccupation la plus fréquemment citée : 58 occurrences dans le corpus qualitatif. Ce que révèlent les directions pédagogiques Pour les directions de ces institutions, le thème dominant est stratégique. La pression concurrentielle, la crainte de se laisser distancer et les gains d’efficacité dans les flux administratifs génèrent une légitimité pragmatique et cognitive. Ce qui introduit de l’illégitimité, ce sont les risques liés à la gouvernance : protection des données, surconfiance dans les résultats produits par l’IA, menace pour l’intégrité des évaluations à l’échelle institutionnelle. Le mouvement théorique le plus significatif de l’article consiste à traiter l’illégitimité comme une catégorie analytique à part entière, et non comme la simple absence de légitimité. L’argument, emprunté à la théorie du changement, est que les signaux d’illégitimité doivent être lus comme des signaux d’alerte qui appellent une réaction rapide. Un établissement qui interprète le malaise moral des étudiants vis-à-vis de l’IA générative comme un simple problème de communication passe à côté du signal. Ce malaise dit quelque chose sur ce que le cursus enseigne réellement, et sur ce que l’évaluation mesure effectivement. Lorsque les étudiants associent l’IA générative à la triche, à l’injustice et à la dévaluation des diplômes, ils ne sont pas irrationnels. Ils se trouvent dans les phases de déni et de résistance du modèle de changement de Scott et Jaffe. Les établissements ne peuvent pas se contenter d’étouffer ce signal : ils doivent traiter ce qu’il révèle. Source : adapté de Scott & Jaffe, « Survive and Thrive in Times of Change », tracé avec Claude. Voir : expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/05/scott-and-jaffe-change-model/ France, souveraineté et course mondiale Le contexte français ajoute une couche de complexité que la recherche saisit avec précision statistique et nuance qualitative. Sur le plan quantitatif, l’analyse n’a révélé aucune différence statistiquement significative dans la dynamique d’adoption de l’IA générative entre les universités publiques et les écoles de commerce. Sur le plan qualitatif, les choses diffèrent. Les écoles de commerce évoluant dans un marché très concurrentiel, ont avancé plus vite. Les universités publiques se sont mobilisées de façon plus systématique autour de la gouvernance, de la souveraineté et des infrastructures collectives, comme en témoigne l’alliance de 35 établissements avec Mistral AI et EdTech France. Alain n’y voit pas une contradiction, mais une division du travail qui, bien gérée, pourrait constituer un véritable atout. « Nous devons jouer collectif, parce que la compétition est mondiale ». La question de l’infrastructure d’IA souveraine, notamment la fédération ILaaS et le partenariat du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur avec Mistral, déployé dans 26 universités pilotes depuis septembre 2025, n’est pas simplement symbolique. Il s’agit de permettre aux établissements français d’exploiter, de gouverner et d’adapter leurs outils d’IA sans dépendance envers des fournisseurs dont la tarification, les conditions et les capacités peuvent évoluer à tout moment. Encore faut-il que l’effet d’entraînement vers tel ou tel outil ne devienne pas trop fort. En ce moment, il est difficile de résister à l’envie d’utiliser Claude d’Anthropic quand tout le monde loue la qualité de son code et de ses résultats. Et le reste du monde ? La comparaison internationale est difficile à ignorer. Singapour, la Corée du Sud et les Émirats arabes unis intègrent la maîtrise de l’IA comme compétence nationale fondamentale dès le secondaire. Le regard d’Alain est direct : les décideurs publics français ne sont pas encore suffisamment préparés à l’ampleur de ce qui vient. « Avoir moins de personnes compétentes en IA que dans d’autres parties du monde est très dangereux pour notre économie et pour l’ensemble de nos organisations ». Le réflexe réglementaire, profondément ancré dans la culture politique européenne, n’est pas sans fondement. Prendre le temps de réguler de façon responsable a de la valeur. Mais cela ne peut pas se substituer à la rapidité d’adoption au niveau des compétences et des cursus. La question qui encadre la recherche L’entretien se termine, comme il se doit, par la méta-question : qu’est-ce que cela signifie d’étudier la légitimité de l’IA générative en utilisant l’IA générative ? L’équipe d’Alain a utilisé ChatGPT, Perplexity, NotebookLM et OpenAI O3 dans le processus de recherche, et l’a indiqué explicitement dans la déclaration d’utilisation de l’article. Sa réponse à la question des biais est prudente. Chaque étape de l’analyse a impliqué un codeur humain. L’équipe a confronté le codage assisté par IA à une analyse indépendante préalable des mêmes données, réalisée pour un rapport institutionnel français, puis comparé les deux séries. « Il faut être transparent sur l’usage que l’on fait de ces outils, pour quel objectif, à chaque étape ». Cette déclaration était un choix délibéré, précisément parce que le sujet de l’article rendait toute autre approche intenable. Utiliser l’IA pour améliorer la qualité d’un texte et l’utiliser pour en générer un que l’on présente ensuite comme le sien sont deux choses différentes. Techniquement, c’est une question de degré. Dans les faits, c’est la différence entre un travail assumé et une abdication. L’équipe d’Alain a su naviguer entre les deux pour publier. La plupart des étudiants de son corpus cherchent encore à tracer cette ligne, dans un environnement où personne ne l’a clairement expliquée et où les outils d’évaluation n’ont pas encore été reconstruits pour lui donner du sens. Trois recommandations, une par partie prenante Lorsqu’on lui a demandé une recommandation concrète par groupe de parties prenantes, les réponses d’Alain ont été sans ambiguïté. Pour les étudiants : associer la culture technique de l’IA, comprendre le fonctionnement des outils et connaître leurs modes de défaillance, à une réflexion critique et éthique authentique sur les résultats produits. Ni l’une ni l’autre de ces dimensions ne suffit seule. Un étudiant capable de formuler des requêtes avec fluidité mais incapable d’évaluer le résultat n’a rien appris d’utile. Pour les enseignants : ces enseignants pionniers, que lui-même appelle les « héros de l’IA », ne peuvent pas être laissés à opérer seuls. Les établissements doivent créer les conditions du partage des bonnes pratiques au sein de la communauté enseignante, et accorder à l’innovation pédagogique la reconnaissance professionnelle qui lui fait actuellement défaut. Un enseignant qui repense de fond en comble son dispositif d’évaluation mérite au moins autant de crédit institutionnel qu’un collègue qui soumet une communication à un colloque. Pour les dirigeants institutionnels : un cadre politique à plusieurs niveaux n’est pas une option. Les étudiants, les enseignants et le personnel administratif n’abordent pas l’IA générative depuis le même angle, et une politique unique imposée de haut en bas ne satisfera aucun d’eux. La direction doit gérer ces trois dimensions en même temps, et ouvrir un dialogue véritable entre les groupes avant qu’une crise ne force la main. « Les doyens doivent penser à toutes ces dimensions en même temps, et c’est là la partie difficile de l’histoire autour de l’intelligence artificielle ». Des trois niveaux, Alain identifie le niveau institutionnel comme le plus urgent. Les étudiants et les enseignants s’adaptent déjà, imparfaitement, en temps réel. Les cadres institutionnels qui permettraient de donner un sens et une direction à ces adaptations restent, dans la plupart des cas, à construire. L’urgence n’est pas exagérée. La complexité non plus. Le défi d’intégrer l’IA générative de façon responsable dans l’enseignement supérieur est un défi qu’aucun établissement ne peut se permettre d’ignorer, ni de relever seul. LIRE LE DOCUMENT DE RECHERCHE SUR LE SITE CAIS Alain Goudey est professeur et directeur de l’innovation numérique à Neoma Business School. Il est co-auteur de « Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Perceptions from the French Management Context », publié dans les Communications of the Association for Information Systems. The post IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur, état des lieux appeared first on Marketing and Innovation.

Abstract: This study reinterprets the political and military upheavals of the book of Alma through the lens of dynastic competition among Nephite, Mulekite, and Jaredite lineages. It builds on the work of Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, Noel Reynolds, and more recently, Val Larsen and Lyle Hamblin, among others. Their research suggests that hereditary legitimacy and rival bloodlines shaped later Nephite history as deeply as did religious conviction or moral struggle. The merger of the Nephite and Mulekite peoples appears to have produced a fragile political order that fractured when traditional royal authority was replaced by the reign of judges. Alma2's abdication, the apparent weakness of Nephihah and Pahoran as executives, and the appointment of Captain Moroni are examined as deliberate efforts to stabilize a government suffering from dynastic instability. Tracing the intersection of lineage, legitimacy, and divine favor illuminates how the Book of Mormon frames its wars not merely as moral conflicts but as struggles to preserve righteous authority amid inherited divisions. The post Dynastic Dynamics: Competing Bloodlines and Political Legitimacy in the Book of Mormon first appeared on The Interpreter Foundation.

Cutting Through the Chaos with Wallace Garneau – Gerrymandering becomes more than a mapmaking dispute as Americans lose faith in elections, courts, and democratic rules. Partisan redistricting exposes a deeper legitimacy crisis, where each side sees defeat as existential and the nation drifts toward tribal politics, mistrust, and a cold civil war that threatens the republic itself today...

Send us a Positive Review!Series Title: Religion IS Political [Part V of VII]In this episode exploring the intersection of religion and politics, Val & Nathan explore several specific areas where politics and religion are addressing the exact same fundamental questions around human dignity & worth; justice & injustice; and the appropriate use of power.  They then compare how these fundamental issues are confronted in real time on a world stage as Politician Donald Trump and Religious Leader Pope Leo XIV prove powerfully that politics and religion cannot be dissociated but must dialogue in order to find common ground in questions of human value, safety, and basic dignity.  They also each demonstrate (through their respective approaches and value systems) two very different levels of human moral & consciousness development.  Timestamps:00:00 Welcome and Setup 00:33 Religion Meets Politics 02:33 Same Core Questions06:21 Human Dignity and Rights 11:22 Consciousness Development and Political Behavior 13:35 When Laws Protect the Wrong Values14:40 Christian Nationalism and the LDS Church's Silence 20:42 LDS Shadow History and the Epstein Files 22:52 Justice and Accountability 26:07 Power Morality and Resistance 28:18 Rosa Parks and Inner Authority 30:03 Early Faith vs Transformation 33:08 Follow the Leader vs Follow the Divine Within 33:21 Elder Gilbert, ICE Raids, and LDS Silence 35:07 Legitimacy as the Highest Value in Mormonism 41:45 Pope Leo vs Trump 51:33 Episode Wrap and Next StepsSupport the showSupport the showListen, Share, Rate & Review EPISODESFriday Episodes Annual Access $89Friday Episodes Monthly Access $10Valerie's Support & Processing GroupsGift a ScholarshipDownload Free ResourcesVisit our WebsiteJoin Valerie in Italy 2026

What if the future legitimacy of artificial intelligence depends not on how powerful it becomes, but on whether it helps sustain life itself? In this new podcast episode, Marc Gopin explores the growing crisis of atmospheric CO₂, the astonishing chemistry of fossil fuels, and the possibility that future engineering may increasingly imitate biology itself—transforming machines from extractive systems into regenerative ones. Drawing on reflections inspired by thinkers such as Brian Greene and Yuval Noah Harari, this episode asks whether AI can become a life-giving partner in humanity's future rather than a destructive burden on the planet. From giant “leaf-like” technologies and artificial photosynthesis to the moral responsibilities of AI corporations and the future of civilization on Earth and beyond, this conversation brings together science, ethics, ecology, engineering, and Compassionate Reasoning in a deeply hopeful exploration of what intelligent life must become if it is to survive and flourish.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/making-change--4113720/support.

Full details on wickedproblems.earth! Professor Federica Genovese of Oxford, Professor Lorenzo Crippa of Strathclyde, and veteran journalist Dave Vetter join host Richard Delevan to discuss Magnifica Humanitas, the papal encyclical being published Monday 25th May 2026. In an unprecedented step, Pope Leo will personally launch the encyclical, joined by theologians, ethicists, and Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah. Genovese and Crippa discuss their research paper, Papal Dividends, which looked at past encyclicals including Laudato Si: Care for our Common Home released by Pope Francis in 2015 and how they affected the market value of companies in sectors mentioned by the encyclical. The Vatican has worked on AI ethics issues for years, but this will be a defining moment of Leo's year-old papacy, tying in concerns about the place of humans in the economy and society, the climate impacts of data centres, the use of AI in warfare including current conflicts in Ukraine, Russia, Lebanon, Gaza, and Iran. At a time when the backlash against AI is building, Eric Schmidt and others booed at commencement addresses when mentioning AI, and Peter Thiel going to Rome to accuse anyone trying to slow AI down as 'the antichrist', how will Magnifica Humanitas be received?00:00 AI as Defining Issue00:38 Pope Leo's AI Encyclical02:21 Can Encyclicals Move Markets06:04 Media Backlash and Polarization11:06 Measuring the Market Impact13:46 AI Bubble and Investor Stakes16:11 How Leo XIV Might Land20:28 Legitimacy and Public Trust28:00 Thiel Rome and AI Warfare34:12 What to Watch Next WeekRead Genovese and Crippa's research, Papal Dividends: https://lorenzo-crippa.github.io/files/papal_dividends.pdf Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alain Goudey is Associate Dean for Digital Innovation at Neoma Business School and co-author of a peer-reviewed study on GenAI in Higher Education. The survey focused on how students, faculty, and deans perceive the legitimacy of generative AI in French management education. His findings are both reassuring and unsettling. GenAI in Higher Education, Legitimacy and Laziness, and the Exam That No Longer Makes Sense The picture that emerges from a study on GenAI in Higher Education is less a battlefield than a hall of mirrors, where every stakeholder sees a different problem and reaches for a different solution. All illustrations in text made with Midjourney When Alain Goudey and his colleagues began surveying French higher education in early 2024, they were not trying to settle the question of whether generative AI was good or bad. They were trying to understand something more precise: why the same tool could be simultaneously valued, feared, accepted, and denounced, sometimes by the same person in the same breath. Their study sits at the heart of what makes GenAI in higher education such a contested terrain. The resulting study, published in the Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), drew on surveys of 668 students, 204 faculty members, and 29 deans, completed by 22 in-depth interviews with early-adopter professors. The picture that emerges is less a battlefield than a hall of mirrors, where every stakeholder sees a different problem and reaches for a different solution. The starting point is a number that should have settled the debate. Between 80 and 92 per cent of students, depending on the institution surveyed, are already using GenAI tools in their academic work. ChatGPT's public release produced that figure within roughly 18 months. The tool did not wait for institutional permission. It deployed itself. And higher education is still, in many places, writing the policy. The productivity trap Alain identifies the central tension plainly. Students value GenAI for speed, idea generation, and study support. They also fear, and their institutions fear with them, what the research calls “metacognitive laziness”: the gradual erosion of the cognitive effort that produces real learning. He believes this is not a contradiction to resolve but a course architecture challenge. “The resolution of this problem lies in course design, where we need to deliberately reintroduce cognitive effort and reflection into GenAI as a tool, not as a replacement for human cognition.” The issue, as he puts it, is not the technology but the posture the user brings to it. Someone who submits what he calls a “naive prompt” receives a naive answer, smoothly formatted and perfectly mediocre. The tool is capable of something far more useful, if the user brings enough domain knowledge and critical intent to the conversation. “You have to nurture your own thinking process instead of delegating the whole process to the machine.” This is, as I noted during our conversation, less a matter of prompt engineering than of basic intellectual discipline: the capacity to question the question before asking it, something philosophy departments have been teaching for centuries under less fashionable names. GenAI in Higher Education: faculty should train students in GenAI tools and their limitations. They also teach Homer's Odyssey and Shelley's Frankenstein as part of the management curriculum. Image made with Midjourney That observation prompted Alain to make a point about AI literacy that differs from what is generally proffered. The debate is not simply about knowing how the tools work technically. It is, equally, about knowing enough about the subject matter to judge whether the output is any good. The observation that AI is most powerful in the hands of people who already know the business resonates here. GenAI does not replace expertise. It amplifies whatever expertise the user already brings. Which raises an uncomfortable question for institutions producing graduates who may never have had the chance to develop that expertise in the first place. At Neoma, the response has been deliberately dual. Faculty train students in GenAI tools and their limitations. They also teach Homer's Odyssey and Shelley's Frankenstein as part of the management curriculum. The goal is not cultural enrichment for its own sake. It is to give students mental models for envisioning what leadership looks like, or what happens when creation escapes the intentions of its creator. Alain describes this as “building cognitive infrastructure”: “We need students to be able to envision the world through different models, different kinds of processes and theoretical frameworks, in order to develop genuine critical thinking about what AI generates.” A degree in management that skips that foundation produces graduates who can operate the tool but cannot judge its output. Exams that assessed the wrong thing The structural challenge shows up most sharply when it comes to assessments. A professor who can produce a two-hour exam in three minutes is facing students who can answer that exam in equally little time. The diagnostic value of the exercise has vanished. “If ChatGPT or any GenAI tool can pass an exam, you need to redesign the exam.” Alain's prescription is not a retreat to pen and paper, though he acknowledges that supervised handwritten assessment is the simplest available defence. The structural challenge shows up most sharply when it comes to assessments. A professor in Higher Education who can produce a two-hour exam in three minutes with GenAI is facing students who can answer that exam in equally little time. The diagnostic value of the exercise has vanished. Image made with Midjourney His more substantive response is a structural shift. He believes one should refrain from just assessing content acquisition at the end of a course, favouring the assessment of competencies as the course progresses. This implies more frequent, lower-stakes evaluations embedded in the process itself. Live problem-solving, process-based assessment, and in-person oral examinations all preserve some of what the traditional exam was supposed to measure. The caveat he adds is honest: no format is fully immune. AI models are evolving too quickly for any single solution to remain adequate for any length of time. The appropriate response is not to find a permanent answer but to treat redesign as an ongoing practice. The deeper implication, which runs through the paper's conclusion, is that what higher education is actually selling may need to change. If content can be retrieved, synthesised, and presented at negligible cost by a tool available to anyone with a browser, the degree that certifies mastery of content is certifying something of diminishing value. What retains value are the competencies that AI cannot yet credibly replicate: contextual judgement, ethical reasoning, the ability to construct and test frameworks against reality. This, in essence, is also how I tend to approach AI teaching, be it with engineering or business school students, especially within the framework of my course at Omnes Education (now in its fourth consecutive year). GenAI in Higher Education: The Fragmented Institution Higher education's institutional response to GenAI in higher education has been, to put it gently, uneven. Sciences Po banned ChatGPT in January 2023, then changed its mind. Thirty-five French public universities have partnered with Mistral AI. Institutions are drafting a national charter. Neoma, where Alain is Associate Dean for Digital Innovation, was among the first French business schools to formalise its approach, launching a programme to train faculty, staff, and students with a shared initial curriculum before moving to dedicated workshops on curriculum design, assessment, and the redesign of learning experiences. What the research reveals is that this institutional activity is not solving a single problem. There are three different stakeholder groups each attempting to solve their own version of the problem under the same label. Students want rules and AI literacy training. Faculty are developing their own teaching approaches through peer-led workshops. Deans are setting policy and negotiating sovereign infrastructure. The concerns escalate in a predictable direction: individual academic performance for students, assessment integrity for faculty, institutional reputation for deans. They are not always in conversation with each other. Alain's framework for addressing this fragmentation involves working simultaneously at three levels: infrastructure, course design, and governance. What he advocates for, and what he argues Neoma attempted, is to bring all three audiences into contact with the technology under a shared framing, early enough that no single group can entrench itself in a position that makes later coordination impossible. The equity question The question of equity cuts across all three levels. Access to premium AI models is not free. When I raised the issue about the gap between basic and professional subscription tiers, Alain's response was characteristic: the infrastructure problem is real but secondary. “The biggest inequity is not about accessing the tool, but being able to use it in the right way.” At Neoma, the institutional partnership with Mistral provides all students with access to a professional-grade tool. What the data shows, even with equal access, is a large gap between students who use GenAI to get the fastest possible answer and those who use it to deepen their thinking, and that gap is not closed by equalising subscriptions. Even if I tend to agree with most of what Alain is stating, I do think that the rise of prices for premium models is predictable. This is due to the gap between investments and business returns. This will almost inevitably lead to an economic divide between the haves and the have-nots. Looking at Anthropic's Claude pricing structure is indeed revealing in that sense. Beyond the Pro model, which is very limited in token usage, especially if you use the more sophisticated Opus 4.6 model, prices already amount to €1,200 per annum. That is not a negligible sum, which is especially worrying at a time when Claude is rapidly becoming the norm for users who care about quality. What will be the impact of towering prices of GenAI on Higher Education? God only knows… The “AI heroes” problem One of the most striking formulations to emerge from Alain’s research is what he calls the “AI hero” phenomenon. Across French higher education institutions, there are faculty members doing excellent, innovative instructional work with GenAI, designing new assessment formats, running workshops, rethinking entire modules around AI-augmented learning. They produce results. And they do it largely alone, without institutional recognition, without career incentives, and without any mechanism for sharing what they have learned. The incentives are wrong. In higher education, research output is rewarded. Course design is not, or at least not in the same way. An “AI hero” who redesigns an entire programme around GenAI competencies may receive less professional recognition than a colleague who publishes a single journal article. “We need to help all these AI heroes to gain more consideration for educational innovation, which is not necessarily by design the case within higher education.” The risk, if this is not addressed, is a two-tier system: a minority of digitally confident faculty pulling their students forward, while the majority are left behind, neither trained nor incentivised to engage. The grassroots innovation is real and valuable. Without institutional structures to recognise, reward, and replicate it, it remains an exception rather than a model. GenAI in Higher Education, Where legitimacy breaks down The theoretical backbone of the study is Suchman's triadic model of legitimacy, which distinguishes between pragmatic legitimacy (does the tool serve my interests?), moral legitimacy (does it align with values I hold?), and cognitive legitimacy (is it taken for granted as part of how things work?). The model was built for technologies adopted gradually. GenAI tested it under conditions of near-instantaneous mass adoption, which Alain and his co-authors treat not as a reason to discard the framework but as an opportunity to extend it, introducing a legitimacy-illegitimacy continuum rather than treating it as a simple either/or. What students reveal The finding he describes as the most noticeable asymmetry in the dataset concerns the moral dimension among students. Students who are among the heaviest users of GenAI express no moral legitimacy for those tools in academic contexts. They associate them, at high frequency, with cheating, plagiarism, degree devaluation, and unfairness. They are using a tool they consider ethically compromised. This is plainly not sustainable. However, Alain's opinion diverges greatly. “Using GenAI is not necessarily cheating. It depends entirely on how it is used and for what purpose.” The institutional failure, in his view, is that institutions have not done enough to reframe how the technology is perceived by students. What faculty reveal Faculty present a more complete picture. All six dimensions of legitimacy and illegitimacy are present in their responses. Faculty recognise these tools as useful yet question their reliability, consider them professionally necessary while finding their black box architecture suspicious at best, and invoke their inclusive potential even as they flag intellectual laziness and the erosion of critical thinking as their highest-coded concern, at 58 occurrences in the qualitative dataset. What deans reveal For deans, the dominant theme is strategic. Competitive pressure, the fear of falling behind, and practical efficiency gains in administrative workflow all generate pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy. What introduces illegitimacy is governance risk: data protection, overconfidence in AI-generated results, and the threat to assessment integrity at institutional scale. The paper's most significant theoretical move is the treatment of illegitimacy as an analytic category in its own right, rather than simply the absence of legitimacy. The argument, borrowed from change management theory, is that illegitimacy signals should be read as early warnings requiring proactive response. An institution that treats student moral unease about GenAI as a communication failure misses the signal entirely. That unease is telling something about what its curriculum actually teaches, and what its assessment actually measures. When students associate GenAI with cheating, unfairness, and degree devaluation, they are not being irrational. They are in the Denial and Resistance phases of the Scott and Jaffe change model. These are illegitimacy signals in Suchman's sense: early warnings that the technology lacks moral legitimacy. Institutions must act on them, not suppress the signal, but address what it reveals. Source: adapted from Scott & Jaffe, “Survive and Thrive in Times of Change”, plotted with Claude. See: expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/05/scott-and-jaffe-change-model/ France, sovereignty, and the global race The French context adds a layer of complexity that the research captures with statistical precision and qualitative nuance. Quantitatively, the analysis found no statistically significant differences in GenAI adoption patterns between public universities and business schools. Qualitatively, the dynamic differs. Business schools, operating in a highly competitive market, have moved faster. Public universities have engaged more systematically around governance, sovereignty, and collective infrastructure, reflected in the alliance of 35 institutions with Mistral AI and EdTech France. Alain reads this not as a contradiction but as a division of labour that, if managed well, could represent a genuine asset. “We need to play collectively, because the competition is worldwide.” The sovereign AI infrastructure question, including the ILaaS federation and the French Ministry of Higher Education's partnership with Mistral rolling out across 26 pilot universities from September 2025, is not merely symbolic. It is an attempt to ensure that French institutions can operate, govern, and adapt their AI tools without dependency on providers whose pricing, terms, and capabilities are subject to change. This is only sustainable, however, as long as the peer pressure to use this or that tool, based on model performance, is not too strong. At the moment, it is hard to resist the urge to use Anthropic's Claude when everybody else is praising the quality of its code and results. The global comparison is difficult to ignore. Singapore, South Korea, and the UAE are embedding AI fluency as a core national competency from secondary education upward. Alain's view is direct: French public decision-makers are not yet adequately prepared for the scale of what is coming. “Having less AI-competent people than in other parts of the world is very dangerous for our economy and for all our organisations.” The regulatory instinct, which runs deep in European policy culture, is not wrong. Taking time to regulate responsibly has value. But it cannot be a substitute for speed of adoption at the level of skills and curriculum. The question that frames the research The interview ends, as it probably should, with the meta-question: what does it mean to study the legitimacy of GenAI using GenAI? Alain's team used ChatGPT, Perplexity, NotebookLM, and OpenAI O3 in the research process, and said so explicitly in the paper's disclosure statement. His answer to the bias question is careful. Every step of the analysis involved a human coder. Alain's team checked the AI-assisted coding against a prior independent analysis of the same data, conducted for a French institutional report. The team compared the two rounds. “You have to be transparent about your use of these tools, for what purpose, at each step.” The disclosure was a deliberate choice, precisely because the paper's subject made any other approach untenable. The line between using AI to improve the quality of writing and using it to generate writing you then present as your own is, technically, a matter of degree. In practice, it is the difference between a craft and an abdication. Alain's team navigated it carefully enough to publish. Most of the students in his dataset are still trying to locate that line, in an environment where nobody has explained it clearly and assessment instruments have not yet been rebuilt to make it matter. Three recommendations: one for each stakeholder When pressed for a concrete policy recommendation per stakeholder group, Alain’s answers were unambiguous. For students: combine technical AI literacy, understanding how the tools work and knowing their failure modes, with genuine critical and ethical thinking about the outputs they produce. Neither dimension alone is sufficient. A student who can prompt fluently but cannot evaluate the result has learned nothing useful. For faculty: the “AI heroes” cannot be left to operate alone. Institutions need to create the conditions for sharing best practices across the teaching community, and to give educational innovation the professional recognition it currently lacks. A faculty member redesigning assessment from the ground up deserves at least as much institutional credit as a colleague submitting a conference paper. For institutional leaders: a multi-level policy framework is not optional. Students, faculty, and administrative staff are not thinking about GenAI from the same vantage point, and a single top-down policy will satisfy none of them adequately. The task of leadership is to hold all three dimensions simultaneously, and to open genuine dialogue between groups before a crisis forces the issue. “Deans have to think about all these dimensions at the same time, and that’s the hard part of the story around artificial intelligence.” Of the three, Alain singles out the institutional level as the most urgent. Students and faculty are already adapting, imperfectly, in real time. The institutional frameworks that would give those adaptations coherence and direction are still, in most places, a work in progress. The urgency is not overstated. Neither is the complexity. The challenge of integrating GenAI in higher education responsibly is one that no institution can afford to ignore, or to solve alone. Alain Goudey is Professor and Associate Dean for Digital Innovation at Neoma Business School. He is co-author of “Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Perceptions from the French Management Context,” published in the Communications of the Association for Information Systems. The post GenAI in Higher Education, Legitimacy and Laziness appeared first on Marketing and Innovation.

Send us a Positive Review!Series Title: Religion IS Political [Part IV of VII]In this episode Val & Nathan continue to build a case that it is impossible for religious systems to be "neutral" on political issues. They explore how society evolves as religions & political systems engage in the dance of shaping and being shaped by one another and how in every era brave individuals lead out in inviting social change & can come from either spiritual realm as both politics & religions confront how to dignify human life.  They also talk about how some churches lead the charge of social justice (confronting longstanding dominator hierarchies) and some churches are society's great "feet draggers" (defending dominator hierarchies). Why the feet-dragging?  And why do the "feet draggers" often finally begrudgingly jump on the enlightenment train?  Timestamps:00:00 Welcome and Series Setup01:44 Legitimacy vs Transformation Religions05:43 Silence and Power Structures09:42 Why Churches Cannot Condemn11:37 Article of Faith 12 Obedience13:54 Moral Consequences and Neutrality18:38 Religion and Politics Interwoven19:55 Civilizational Development Framework22:50 Center of Gravity in Mormonism24:13 Leading Edge Reformers25:54 Civil Rights Awakening27:52 Laws Versus Hearts30:17 Legitimacy Church Trap31:19 Pressure Forces Change37:06 BYU And Wyoming Seven39:27 Social Capital And Attrition42:47 Patriarchy Next Frontier44:17 God Beyond Hierarchy47:18 Why Churches Catch Up48:03 Spiraling Toward Transformation49:00 Next Episode PreviewSupport the showSupport the showListen, Share, Rate & Review EPISODESFriday Episodes Annual Access $89Friday Episodes Monthly Access $10Valerie's Support & Processing GroupsGift a ScholarshipDownload Free ResourcesVisit our WebsiteJoin Valerie in Italy 2026

Circle's Dante Disparte on regulatory wins, its own Arc blockchain, agentic payments and tokenized money's place in the global financial system.

Political rhetoric increasingly targets the Supreme Court's legitimacy, moving away from historic "comity" toward venomous attacks on nominees, as seen in the treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and recent term-limit legislative proposals. (3/16)1920 CA

A group of Rochester teachers and retired educators is preparing to host an event with a mission: to rally the public against standardized testing. They describe the exams as “high stakes” and will make the case for different ways to assess students. We discuss how they would change student assessment. In studio: Dan Drmacich, coordinator of the Rochester Coalition for Public Education, retired principal of School without Walls, consultant for the NYS Performance Standards Consortium, and member of the RASE Education Committee Ed Donnelly, member of the Rochester Coalition for Public Education, retired special education, elementary and high school teacher with the Hilton Central School District, and member of the Rochester International Academy Advisory Council ---Connections is supported by listeners like you. Head to our donation page to become a WXXI member today, support the show, and help us close the gap created by the rescission of federal funding.---Connections airs every weekday from noon-2 p.m. Join the conversation with questions or comments by phone at 1-844-295-TALK (8255) or 585-263-9994, email, Facebook or Twitter. Connections is also livestreamed on the WXXI News YouTube channel each day. You can watch live or access previous episodes here.---Do you have a story that needs to be shared? Pitch your story to Connections.

In this episode of the Cannabis Accounting Podcast, host Raymond Guns sits down with Mark Waller, Director of Client Accounting Services at SAX and former owner of Moore & Waller CPAs. Mark has one simple belief: if you don't fix cash flow first, nothing else matters. Not 280E. Not tax strategy. Not compliance. Cash flow kills more cannabis businesses than any of those combined.Mark spent 20 years in traditional accounting before launching his own cannabis CPA firm during COVID. He merged into SAX in January 2026 and now runs their cannabis practice. He has watched operators obsess over tax optimization while their bank accounts drain to zero. And he keeps seeing the same mistake destroy businesses over and over again.He talks about:

Send us a Positive Review!Series Title: Religion IS Political [Part III of VII]In this episode Val & Nathan go more "macro" and explain how churches (just like human beings and human civilizations) go through stages of development and that a church will choose its stances of "significant moral consequence"  accordingly.  In short, if a church is focused on earlier stage legitimacy--its all about preserving its favorite form(s) of dominator hierarchy.   If the church has matured into a focus on personal transformation--it moves towards a stance of dismantling dominator hierarchies.  And it is in moments of social unrest that one can see more clearly where a church is developmentally.  Listen in and keep in mind--both type of church are necessary and serve a role in the development of the human race.  As these topics are explored, it is fundamental to the growth of our culture at large to recognize that later stages of development (in the human being and in the church) are built on earlier stages of development.  So lean into this, even if it's uncomfortable! Timestamps:00:00 Welcome and Series Setup00:46 Recap Political Neutrality02:35 Statement Versus Practice06:42 Why the Silence Now08:51 Faith Leaders Speaking Up14:20 Solidarity Over Self Preservation20:32 Legitimacy Seeking Religion27:59 Transformation Seeking Religion31:18 Jesus Versus Christian Nationalism32:43 Personal Stakes and ClosingSupport the showSupport the showListen, Share, Rate & Review EPISODESFriday Episodes Annual Access $89Friday Episodes Monthly Access $10Valerie's Support & Processing GroupsGift a ScholarshipDownload Free ResourcesVisit our Website

Send us Fan MailAfter being told that investigators are looking into 5,000 addresses in Minnesota, one concerned homeowner explains how several red flags led him to ask questions about his neighborhood—and discover some shocking answers.Support the show

Is political power built on institutions or on the stories we choose to believe?What is Islamism, and how do political narratives shape power in the Muslim world?In this episode of Thinking Islam, Dr Fatemeh Sadeghi explores Islamism, political narratives, and how storytelling shapes political power and legitimacy. Drawing on both Islamic intellectual traditions and modern social theory, Dr Sadeghi examines how narratives do more than describe reality - they actively shape it. From early Islamic history, where hadith and sīra were used to legitimise authority, to contemporary movements such as Islamism and the far right, we uncover how political stories mobilise people through promises of justice, salvation, and belonging. We also examine the decline of Islamism as a compelling narrative, and the “melancholic condition” it has left behind in many Muslim societies—a space marked by disillusionment, yet still open to new possibilities. The conversation raises a profound question: if all political and even religious commitments are mediated through stories, what kinds of narratives are needed today to sustain hope, dignity, and meaningful collective life?Dr Fatemeh Sadeghi is a sociologist and political theorist at the UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. Her research explores political imagination, gender, and the role of narrative in shaping social order and legitimacy, offering a powerful lens for understanding the moral and political crises of our time.Audio Chapters:00:00 - Highlights01:20 - What is a Narrative?03:05 - Political Narrative: Stories That Shape Power06:39 - Two Kinds of Narratives13:19 - Good vs Evil: ‘Us and Them'17:17 - Isn't the Quran doing the same thing?23:00 - Nostalgia as a Response to Colonialism30:00 - Can some Narratives Cause more ‘Legitimacy'?36:10 - Living Through a ‘Melancholic' Moment40:25 - Islamism Moved from Theology to Power43:24 - What Comes After Islamism as a New Narrative?48:30 - Who Creates Narratives when Knowledge is Democratised?56:30 - New ‘Islam' narratives are still grounded in Morality01:00:50 - Thinking Islam Question

This episode is presented by Create A Video – After 21 hours of talks over the weekend, the ceasefire negotiations ended with no deal. In response, President Trump ordered a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz to block all ships going to or coming from Iran. Josh Wikoff runs the Twitter account Inside Israel Intel and is the author of Contested Land, Uncontested Truth: The Essential Guide To Israel's Legitimacy. He argues this is an attempt by the USA to apply maximum pressure on the regime that hopes it can survive by allowing more time to pass.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast All 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  

Get access to Part 2 & The Backroom (100+ exclusive episodes) on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OneDimeIn this episode of 1Dime Radio, Benjamin Studebaker returns to lay out his case for a *supranational federation*, his answer to a problem that keeps resurfacing across both left and right politics: the limits of the nation-state in a world shaped by capital mobility, capital flight, interstate competition, and war. We break down Benjamin's six-part “Why Federalism” series, why he thinks national governments cannot meaningfully tax capital or secure lasting peace on their own, and what kind of political system he thinks would actually be necessary to move beyond today's global deadlock.In The Backroom on Patreon, Benjamin gives his take on the phenomenon of Clavicular, looksmaxxing, dating culture, and the broader social collapse behind both. Part 2 of our conversation on the Supernational federation will also be available only on Patreon, in which I challenge Studebaker on some issues I have with his proposal. Timestamps:00:00:00 The Backroom preview: looksmaxxing, Clavicular, and modern dating00:03:11  Benjamin Studebaker returns, Why Federalism, and the limits of the nation-state00:07:31  How competition makes political systems converge00:10:37  From military competition to commercial competition00:15:24  Why fear-based internationalism fails00:20:20  Why even nationalist goals now require supranational politics00:29:58  The democratic vs technocratic split00:35:18  The Chamber of Labor and the Chamber of Status00:42:25  Tribune, First Citizen, and global executive power00:45:31  How could a supranational federation actually emerge?00:51:01  Healthcare, universities, and organizing around concrete issues01:08:56  Capital mobility, tax competition, and why national solutions get undercut01:19:55  Medicare for All, capital, and the limits of monetary sovereignty alone01:25:01  Why China has to be part of the project01:30:04  Can nation-states build this, or would they sabotage it?01:40:30  Why the left needs a positive vision, not just critique01:48:24  Issue-based organizing, consumer unions, and a new political frameworkGUEST:Benjamin Studebaker, political theorist, PHD from Cambridge, author of The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy: The Way Is Shut and Legitimacy in Liberal Democracies• Website: https://benjaminstudebaker.com/• X/Twitter: https://x.com/BMStudebaker• The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy: https://link.springer.com/book/9783031950087• Legitimacy in Liberal Democracies: https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-legitimacy-in-liberal-democracies.html• Why Federalism, Part 1, The Problem that Needs to Be Solved: https://www.streitcouncil.org/post/why-federalism-the-problem-that-needs-to-be-solved• Why Federalism, Part 2, Creating the Cataracts: https://www.streitcouncil.org/post/why-federalism-creating-the-cataracts• Why Federalism, Part 3, The Unit Question: https://www.streitcouncil.org/post/why-federalism-the-unit-question• Why Federalism, Part 4, On Citizenship: https://www.streitcouncil.org/post/why-federalism-on-citizenship• Why Federalism, Part 5, On the Role of China: https://www.streitcouncil.org/post/why-federalism-on-the-role-of-china• Why Federalism, Part 6, The Conclusion: https://www.streitcouncil.org/post/why-federalism-the-conclusionFOLLOW 1Dime:• My Substack (Articles and Essays): https://1dimereview.substack.com/• X/Twitter: https://x.com/1DimeOfficial• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/1dimeman• Check out my main channel videos: https://www.youtube.com/@1DimeeLeave a like, drop a comment, and give the show a 5-star rating on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you listen to this.

9. Life in Tehran and the Hope for Regime Collapse Guest: Jonathan Sayeh and Bill Roggio Summary:Jonathan Sayeh reports on the declining legitimacy of the Iranian regime among the population. While desertions are increasing, the IRGC remains resilient, and many Iranians fear the regime surviving despite the destruction of national infrastructure.,, (9)1870 PERSIAN DERVISHES

HEADLINE: Mary Kissel Challenges Potential Castro-Led Transition in Cuba (2)SUMMARY: Former advisor Mary Kissel evaluates Cuba's potential democratic transition, questioning the legitimacy of a Castro grandson as a leader. She highlights the family's history of atrocities while discussing the complex process of national rebuilding ahead. (3)1920 CUBA

Join us on The Crypto Podcast as we delve into the intricate world of digital payments with industry veteran Joe Zahaitis. With over 30 years of experience in credit card processing, Joe brings a unique perspective to the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency. In this episode, he shares his journey from a crypto skeptic to a dabbler, exploring the philosophical challenges and exciting potential of digital assets as a payment vehicle. We discuss the current challenges of crypto exchanges, the hidden fees in traditional merchant processing, and the urgent need for simplification in the crypto transaction process. Joe also offers invaluable advice for merchants on vetting payment providers and understanding their effective rates. Tune in for a candid conversation that demystifies crypto payments and offers a glimpse into the future of finance. What we Discussed: 0:00 Welcome & Introduction 0:37 Joe's 30-Year Career in Payments 1:35 The Crypto Journey: Skeptic to Dabbler 2:58 Crypto as a Payment Vehicle 3:51 The 'Kludgy' Reality of Exchanges 5:29 Crypto as a Cash Transaction 8:04 Platform Fraud & Spammers 9:02 The Rise of 'Friendly Fraud' 10:08 Identity Fraud in Digital Assets 11:41 NFTs and Utility Scams 13:22 Fraud at the Speed of Electrons 14:05 Synthetic Identity Fraud 14:35 Card Brands' Toehold in the Market 15:21 The Responsibility Gap in Fraud 25:00 The Cost of Small Transactions 25:34 Per-Item vs. Percentage Fees 26:52 Mitigating Low-Ticket Costs 28:02 Consumer Protection & Velocity Checking 29:26 Real-Life Fraud Example: Apple Store Chicago 31:12 PIN vs. Signature Security 32:02 Saving vs. Credit Culture 41:48 Joe's 'Big Bold Statement' on Banking 42:22 The Exchange Monopoly 43:11 The Potential for 0.1% Fees 43:52 Simplifying Global Remittances 44:34 Currency Complexity & Stablecoins 45:52 The Legitimacy of the Ledger 46:42 Dues and Assessments 47:22 The 'Trading Places' Analogy 48:19 Crypto ATMs Explained 49:34 The Mad Dash to the Bottom 50:21 The Wild West: Betamax vs. VHS 51:00 The 'Fog' of Relevancy 52:08 Blocking Innovation: Stripe & New Businesses 53:36 Stripe's $250 Minimum Withdrawal 54:19 Overnight Investment & The Float 54:50 FX Trading & The 'Black Box' 55:56 Joe's New Podcast: 'Hard Currency' 56:58 Where to Find Joe: Zaidis.com 57:33 Contacting Joe's Admin: Julie 57:51 Outro & Closing Remarks How to Contact Joe Zahaitis : ⁠ ⁠https://www.zahaitis.com/ https://www.facebook.com/jzahaitis https://x.com/jzahaitis https://www.instagram.com/jzahaitis/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/joezahaitis/ All about Roy / Brain Gym & Virtual Assistants at⁠⁠⁠https://roycoughlan.com/⁠⁠⁠

Join us on The Crypto Podcast as we delve into the intricate world of digital payments with industry veteran Joe Zahaitis. With over 30 years of experience in credit card processing, Joe brings a unique perspective to the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency. In this episode, he shares his journey from a crypto skeptic to a dabbler, exploring the philosophical challenges and exciting potential of digital assets as a payment vehicle. We discuss the current challenges of crypto exchanges, the hidden fees in traditional merchant processing, and the urgent need for simplification in the crypto transaction process. Joe also offers invaluable advice for merchants on vetting payment providers and understanding their effective rates. Tune in for a candid conversation that demystifies crypto payments and offers a glimpse into the future of finance.  What we Discussed: 0:00 Welcome & Introduction 0:37 Joe's 30-Year Career in Payments 1:35 The Crypto Journey: Skeptic to Dabbler 2:58 Crypto as a Payment Vehicle 3:51 The 'Kludgy' Reality of Exchanges 5:29 Crypto as a Cash Transaction 8:04 Platform Fraud & Spammers 9:02 The Rise of 'Friendly Fraud' 10:08 Identity Fraud in Digital Assets 11:41 NFTs and Utility Scams 13:22 Fraud at the Speed of Electrons 14:05 Synthetic Identity Fraud 14:35 Card Brands' Toehold in the Market 15:21 The Responsibility Gap in Fraud 25:00 The Cost of Small Transactions 25:34 Per-Item vs. Percentage Fees 26:52 Mitigating Low-Ticket Costs 28:02 Consumer Protection & Velocity Checking 29:26 Real-Life Fraud Example: Apple Store Chicago 31:12 PIN vs. Signature Security 32:02 Saving vs. Credit Culture 41:48 Joe's 'Big Bold Statement' on Banking 42:22 The Exchange Monopoly 43:11 The Potential for 0.1% Fees 43:52 Simplifying Global Remittances 44:34 Currency Complexity & Stablecoins 45:52 The Legitimacy of the Ledger 46:42 Dues and Assessments 47:22 The 'Trading Places' Analogy 48:19 Crypto ATMs Explained 49:34 The Mad Dash to the Bottom 50:21 The Wild West: Betamax vs. VHS 51:00 The 'Fog' of Relevancy 52:08 Blocking Innovation: Stripe & New Businesses 53:36 Stripe's $250 Minimum Withdrawal 54:19 Overnight Investment & The Float 54:50 FX Trading & The 'Black Box' 55:56 Joe's New Podcast: 'Hard Currency' 56:58 Where to Find Joe: Zaidis.com 57:33 Contacting Joe's Admin: Julie 57:51 Outro & Closing Remarks                                                           How to Contact Joe Zahaitis : ⁠ ⁠https://www.zahaitis.com/ https://www.facebook.com/jzahaitis https://x.com/jzahaitis https://www.instagram.com/jzahaitis/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/joezahaitis/ All about Roy / Brain Gym & Virtual Assistants at⁠⁠⁠https://roycoughlan.com/⁠⁠⁠

CannCon and Ashe in America are joined by attorney Peter Ticktin for a wide-ranging discussion on constitutional law, executive authority, and the legal frameworks surrounding election legitimacy. The conversation explores how the Constitution is interpreted in modern legal battles, the limits of federal power, and how legal strategies are being used to challenge or defend election outcomes. Peter breaks down complex constitutional arguments into plain terms, walking through the role of the executive branch, the judiciary, and the tension between state and federal authority. The discussion also touches on legal precedent, the importance of due process, and how courts approach politically sensitive cases. Throughout the episode, the panel examines how legal narratives shape public perception and why understanding constitutional structure is critical in evaluating election-related disputes. It is a deep dive into law, power, and the ongoing debate over how America governs itself.

The Hoover Institution Center for Revitalizing American Institutions webinar series features speakers who are developing innovative ideas, conducting groundbreaking research, and taking important actions to improve trust and efficacy in American institutions. Speaker expertise and topics span governmental institutions, civic organizations and practice, and the role of public opinion and culture in shaping our democracy. The webinar series builds awareness about how we can individually and collectively revitalize American institutions to ensure our country's democracy delivers on its promise. The Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) held a webinar—co-sponsored by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center—about Judicial Importance, Independence, and Legitimacy in Polarized Times with Michael McConnell, Tom Clark, Genevieve Lakier, and Eugene Volokh on March 4, 2026, from 10:00-11:30 a.m. PT. Have federal courts been too permissive—or too obstructive—of President Trump's agenda? The answer often depends on one's political perspective. Yet across the spectrum, there's broad agreement that the courts have come under intense pressure and scrutiny in recent years. As the country has grown more politically sorted, the judiciary's role in our system of self-governance has evolved and, for some, grown more contested. Join us for a timely and thought-provoking webinar featuring scholars with diverse viewpoints who explore how the federal courts are functioning—and perceived—amid today's polarized political landscape. Panelists examine questions such as: What is the judiciary's role in safeguarding democracy? How can courts maintain legitimacy in a divided society? And how should we interpret recent high-profile rulings in the broader context of American constitutionalism?                                        

Hometown Radio 03/17/26 6p: Local teachers discuss the legitimacy of student protests

In this episode of the Young Dad Podcast, host Jey Young interviews Tommy A. Kilpatrick, who shares his transformative journey from a life of wealth to one of purpose and service. Tommy discusses his unique approach to challenging the legitimacy of bank-issued credit card debt, advocating for financial literacy and awareness. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of debt and the role of banks in perpetuating financial struggles. Through his experiences, Tommy offers insights into sustainable living practices and the importance of questioning societal norms surrounding finance.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Tommy's Journey02:13 Life Transformation and Lessons Learned04:38 From the U.S. to the Philippines08:01 Teaching Sustainable Practices09:13 Understanding Credit Card Debt11:50 Challenging the Legitimacy of Debt16:42 The Concept of Alleged Debt22:13 The Role of Banks in Debt29:31 Finding Solutions to Debt Issues35:38 The Path Forward and Resources AvailableAmazon Book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D1DV398C/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2T2J79MRKEUEU&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.G90ZVPhD0xasgrjK1S6Zav-5RWRmyKGJXLtFrEC-vmXA6jUGS2pViUpmSgWO-Ej1.kCp4IluM5LPmPjlMj27czPETspNIHPNSRAuqq-BBEgw&dib_tag=se&keywords=forgive+and+forget+by+kilpatrick&qid=1738377754&sprefix=forgive+and+forget+by+kilpatrick%2Caps%2C328&sr=8-1Landing Page https://www.diy-debtrelief.com/Email: tom.yourhelpexpert@gmail.comFB: Tommy A. Kilpatrick https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61571446316625Please don't shoot the messenger. I see myself as the accountant who discovered this massive bank fraud. Not unlike this guy:Newsweekhttps://www.newsweek.com/letitia-james-mortgage-fraud-trump-2060388Apr 24, 2025 — Sam Antar, the financial expert who accused New York Attorney General Letitia James of mortgage fraud, released new documents this week as part of his ...1. Banks don't lend money: https://www.educatedinlaw.org/2017/03/banks-dont-take-deposits-banks-dont-lend-money/#https://youtube.com/shorts/zmkLfzjMcIU?si=wU3cO42SyVcawZmb2. Banks must have a promissory note for the bank to grant a loan.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdfThe Federal Reserve says the only way a bank can make a loan is if you first sign a promissory note to pay and the bank will enter numbers in your free checking account. Page six, right column, second paragraph, second line.3. Fraud undoes all contracts.https://casetext.com/case/vokes-v-arthur-murray-incThe bank says you used the card, therefore you are contracted to our terms and conditions, but Hirschman v. Hodges, etc., (1910) In this case, the Florida Supreme Court found that a contract could be rescinded based on fraudulent misrepresentation.4. Banks match your deposits and all you have to do is to withdraw it and close the account; the same when the bank gave (GAVE YOU) a bank-issued alleged credit card that was in fact a “Gift Card” to induce you to be a customer, in this video he explains how to get free money from the bank: https://youtube.com/shorts/CbGSRvHgbKQ?si=9WOLMhxBMbKA6OtQ5. Dave Ramsey on CC Debt Relief Companies that scam you.https://youtube.com/shorts/MgEJIocyefc?si=43SEAZY4gphYPxw-

Katelyn Stauffer, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia, has an excellent new book focusing on how voters and citizens perceive the legitimacy and functionality of political institutions, especially when they think there are women elected to those institutions. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the United States (Oxford UP, 2025) weaves together a number of different threads to reach some interesting conclusions about women in elected office and the trust that voters have in those elected offices and institutions. Stauffer starts the research trajectory with a framing around representation, and how the different kinds of representation within elected bodies connects to how voters think about those bodies themselves and whether they trust them and think they are effective. This opens the path to bring in the question of gender, and how voters' or citizens' perceptions of how many women are in legislative bodies also connects with how much trust those same citizens have in those representative bodies. The Politics of Perception explores both accurate perceptions as well as misperceptions about governmental institutions, and this is also where the research is truly fascinating. Part of what the research indicates is that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the American public does not actually know a lot about politics or about how political institutions operate. At the same time, many citizens hold strong opinions or thoughts about politics, which generally are at odds with the lack of knowledge. This is also bound up with stereotypes that voters consider in terms of male and female elected officials and how they work within institutions. The Politics of Perception interrogates all of these misperceptions, unpacking the truth or reality versus the ideas that individuals hold about office holders and the political institutions in which those office holders work. Stauffer also discussed how she was able to build on a comparative politics approach, since parliamentary systems are, by their nature, collective institutions, and this approach helped to provide another theoretical framework for the analysis. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the U.S. is an important and useful book for many different scholars: those who study American government and politics; scholars of gender and politics, especially in the United States; comparative political scientists; and political theorists exploring issues of representation and democracy. We discussed the Ghost Bookstore in Athens, Georgia as a bookseller that can order The Politics of Perception for readers in Georgia or elsewhere. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social 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

Katelyn Stauffer, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia, has an excellent new book focusing on how voters and citizens perceive the legitimacy and functionality of political institutions, especially when they think there are women elected to those institutions. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the United States (Oxford UP, 2025) weaves together a number of different threads to reach some interesting conclusions about women in elected office and the trust that voters have in those elected offices and institutions. Stauffer starts the research trajectory with a framing around representation, and how the different kinds of representation within elected bodies connects to how voters think about those bodies themselves and whether they trust them and think they are effective. This opens the path to bring in the question of gender, and how voters' or citizens' perceptions of how many women are in legislative bodies also connects with how much trust those same citizens have in those representative bodies. The Politics of Perception explores both accurate perceptions as well as misperceptions about governmental institutions, and this is also where the research is truly fascinating. Part of what the research indicates is that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the American public does not actually know a lot about politics or about how political institutions operate. At the same time, many citizens hold strong opinions or thoughts about politics, which generally are at odds with the lack of knowledge. This is also bound up with stereotypes that voters consider in terms of male and female elected officials and how they work within institutions. The Politics of Perception interrogates all of these misperceptions, unpacking the truth or reality versus the ideas that individuals hold about office holders and the political institutions in which those office holders work. Stauffer also discussed how she was able to build on a comparative politics approach, since parliamentary systems are, by their nature, collective institutions, and this approach helped to provide another theoretical framework for the analysis. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the U.S. is an important and useful book for many different scholars: those who study American government and politics; scholars of gender and politics, especially in the United States; comparative political scientists; and political theorists exploring issues of representation and democracy. We discussed the Ghost Bookstore in Athens, Georgia as a bookseller that can order The Politics of Perception for readers in Georgia or elsewhere. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Katelyn Stauffer, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia, has an excellent new book focusing on how voters and citizens perceive the legitimacy and functionality of political institutions, especially when they think there are women elected to those institutions. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the United States (Oxford UP, 2025) weaves together a number of different threads to reach some interesting conclusions about women in elected office and the trust that voters have in those elected offices and institutions. Stauffer starts the research trajectory with a framing around representation, and how the different kinds of representation within elected bodies connects to how voters think about those bodies themselves and whether they trust them and think they are effective. This opens the path to bring in the question of gender, and how voters' or citizens' perceptions of how many women are in legislative bodies also connects with how much trust those same citizens have in those representative bodies. The Politics of Perception explores both accurate perceptions as well as misperceptions about governmental institutions, and this is also where the research is truly fascinating. Part of what the research indicates is that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the American public does not actually know a lot about politics or about how political institutions operate. At the same time, many citizens hold strong opinions or thoughts about politics, which generally are at odds with the lack of knowledge. This is also bound up with stereotypes that voters consider in terms of male and female elected officials and how they work within institutions. The Politics of Perception interrogates all of these misperceptions, unpacking the truth or reality versus the ideas that individuals hold about office holders and the political institutions in which those office holders work. Stauffer also discussed how she was able to build on a comparative politics approach, since parliamentary systems are, by their nature, collective institutions, and this approach helped to provide another theoretical framework for the analysis. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the U.S. is an important and useful book for many different scholars: those who study American government and politics; scholars of gender and politics, especially in the United States; comparative political scientists; and political theorists exploring issues of representation and democracy. We discussed the Ghost Bookstore in Athens, Georgia as a bookseller that can order The Politics of Perception for readers in Georgia or elsewhere. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Katelyn Stauffer, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia, has an excellent new book focusing on how voters and citizens perceive the legitimacy and functionality of political institutions, especially when they think there are women elected to those institutions. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the United States (Oxford UP, 2025) weaves together a number of different threads to reach some interesting conclusions about women in elected office and the trust that voters have in those elected offices and institutions. Stauffer starts the research trajectory with a framing around representation, and how the different kinds of representation within elected bodies connects to how voters think about those bodies themselves and whether they trust them and think they are effective. This opens the path to bring in the question of gender, and how voters' or citizens' perceptions of how many women are in legislative bodies also connects with how much trust those same citizens have in those representative bodies. The Politics of Perception explores both accurate perceptions as well as misperceptions about governmental institutions, and this is also where the research is truly fascinating. Part of what the research indicates is that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the American public does not actually know a lot about politics or about how political institutions operate. At the same time, many citizens hold strong opinions or thoughts about politics, which generally are at odds with the lack of knowledge. This is also bound up with stereotypes that voters consider in terms of male and female elected officials and how they work within institutions. The Politics of Perception interrogates all of these misperceptions, unpacking the truth or reality versus the ideas that individuals hold about office holders and the political institutions in which those office holders work. Stauffer also discussed how she was able to build on a comparative politics approach, since parliamentary systems are, by their nature, collective institutions, and this approach helped to provide another theoretical framework for the analysis. The Politics of Perception: How Beliefs About Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the U.S. is an important and useful book for many different scholars: those who study American government and politics; scholars of gender and politics, especially in the United States; comparative political scientists; and political theorists exploring issues of representation and democracy. We discussed the Ghost Bookstore in Athens, Georgia as a bookseller that can order The Politics of Perception for readers in Georgia or elsewhere. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

We are at a moment in time when your ability to tell your own story is more important than having someone else tell it for you. The real question though is what is the aim? Celebrity? Opportunity? Growth? Legitimacy? Let's talk Marcy Blum and Rishi Patel. Original Episode Number: 70 | Original Air Date: 10/5/2021 Links & Resources: Host: Sean Low of The Business of Being Creative Have your own opinion on Sean's tips and advice? Talk Back!! Email Shawn or record a voice message directly through his show's site! Link: Join Sean's Collective of Business Creatives Follow Sean on social media: Instagram: @SeanLow1 | Facebook: Facebook.com/Sean.Low.35 | LinkedIn | Twitter: @SeanLow — Podcast Network: The Wedding Biz Network Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of The Wedding Biz, LLC. 2021.

Where does peace come from?; Mt 10:34 Not peace but a sword; Lk 12:51 division; C-19 disagreements; Vaccine = peace of mind?; War; Knowing what's true; Unreliable media; Zechariah's murder; Legitimacy of The Temple; Making treaties; Rightful king at Jesus' time; Casaer's rights; Hyrcanus vs Aristobulus; Deut 17 guidelines; David vs Saul; Nature of Israel; Appointing judges; Iran; Offices of power; Seeking His kingdom and righteousness; Sophistry; Today's biggest threat to peace; Clouding history; Intervention of Holy Spirit; Persecution and torture; Injustice in court rooms; Evil claims; Humility; Who is providing for you?; Are you avoiding your responsibilities; Loving neighbors; Kingdom in our midst; Pro-Israel Christians?; Which "Israel"?; Jacob; Jurisdiction story; Rendering unto Caesar; Legal rights; Obeying Christ; Discovering the real Israel; God's nature; Wanting others to learn; Thriving Christians; Setting the tables of Christ; Testing your faith; Readiness to die?; Following the king of Israel; Seed of Abraham; Repentance; Becoming His Holy Church; Coming together in faith, hope and charity; Willingness to sacrifice for people you don't even know; Return to your Father's house willing to serve.

The Craic is back! Petesy Carroll is joined, as always, by Chuck Mindenhall and Ben Fowlkes.To kick things off, the lads dig into the surprise partnership between Tom Aspinall and Eddie Hearn (3:36).One partnership that hasn't lasted is Francis Ngannou and the PFL. The boys react to the news of Ngannou's release (32:56).With the White House card fast approaching, the crew then discuss which fights could headline the historic event (47:36).UFC 326 is this weekend too. The trio preview Max Holloway vs. Charles Oliveira and debate the legitimacy of the BMF belt up for grabs (52:01).To close the show, the lads give their Uncrowned UFC 326 picks (01:17:00), and answer your Super Chats (01:19:22).

ON part two of today' podcast, we discuss Morgan Freeman and his recent comments on the Trump Presidency. Listen now.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we begin with the strange world of high-end audio, from banana wire tests to quarter-million-dollar stereo systems, and ask whether diminishing returns eventually overtake objective performance. We then react to Barack Obama's comments about aliens before moving to our Foolishness of the Week: Australia's $40 cigarette packs and the predictable rise of black markets and bootlegging that follows heavy taxation. From there, we turn to election law and voting rights, examining who actually has the constitutional authority to regulate elections, what the SAVE Act proposes regarding proof of citizenship, whether a president can alter voting rules by executive order, and how voter ID laws intersect with legitimacy and public trust. We also discuss gerrymandering, the structural incentives of the two-party system, and a story from a group home that raises deeper questions about civic participation and what it really means to be qualified to vote. 00:00 Introduction and Overview 00:30 Audiophile Cable Myths and the Banana Wire Test 03:54 Quarter-Million Dollar Stereo Systems and Diminishing Returns 06:32 Barack Obama Says Aliens Are Real 10:14 Foolishness of the Week: Australia's $40 Cigarette Packs 12:26 Black Markets, Bootleggers, and Unintended Consequences 16:55 Who Actually Decides Who Can Vote? 18:39 The Constitutional Framework for Elections 22:31 The SAVE Act and Federal Citizenship Requirements 26:53 Voter ID, Legitimacy, and Political Signaling 31:41 The Real Electoral Problem: The Two-Party Duopoly 34:15 Gerrymandering and the Spoils of Political Victory 38:50 Can Trump Use an Executive Order on Voting? 41:30 Legitimacy, Public Trust, and Election Narratives 44:52 A Story from the Group Home: When Should People Vote? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, we discuss Ireland's decision to make its basic income program for artists permanent and what that means for government-funded creativity, cultural value, and incentives. We examine the politics of the Super Bowl halftime show, rising ticket prices, and what cultural events reveal about tribal identity and public signaling. We then explore Texas redistricting, California's response, and the Supreme Court's potential role, along with broader debates over federal control of elections, absentee voting, voter ID laws, and lingering claims about the 2020 election. We also consider what legitimacy means in a constitutional republic, why “not my president” rhetoric cuts both ways, and whether secession talk solves anything. We close with a nearly catastrophic public restroom fiasco in Rome. 00:00 Introduction and Overview 00:42 Happy Bro Day! 01:57 Ireland's Basic Income for Artists Becomes Permanent 03:21 Do Art Subsidies Create Culture or Dependency? 05:16 Super Bowl Halftime Politics: Bad Bunny vs. Kid Rock 09:40 Super Bowl Ticket Prices and Trump's Absence 12:28 Texas Redistricting and the Razor-Thin House Majority 16:58 California Pushback and Supreme Court Implications 19:14 Trump Floats Federal Control of Elections 21:49 Absentee Voting and Constitutional Authority 23:44 Was the 2020 Election Stolen? Claims vs Evidence 27:24 Voter ID Laws and Election Integrity Debates 29:12 “Not My President” and Legitimacy in Democracy 30:51 Secession Talk and the Limits of Political Division 32:26 Compromise, Constitutional Norms, and Closing Reflections 33:46 Rome Public Restroom Fiasco Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In today's show, The Right Side, we go beyond headlines and into the hidden architecture of power that shapes nations, markets, and everyday life.This episode breaks down why markets move on confidence, not just data, how the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury operate as two separate keys to the same financial system, and why **legitimacy — not force — is what ultimately holds a Republic together.We explore how money, law, and meaning interact to create stability or chaos, why unelected institutions shape daily life more than most people realize, and how global actors read America's internal signals as cues for pressure, testing, and leverage.This is a civic deep-dive for listeners who want more than talking points — a master-class in understanding how power really works inside a constitutional Republic.

Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution endorses Kevin Walsh for the Fed, arguing that while independent boards challenge executive power, long-standing institutions gain legal legitimacy through historical prescription.

In this episode of The Right Side with Doug Billings, we go beyond the headlines to explore what actually holds a free nation together when protest becomes pressure, law becomes optional, and politics starts replacing moral limits.We examine the difference between grassroots movements and engineered activism, the role of institutions in shaping legitimacy, and why ethics must come before ideology in a constitutional republic.This is a long-form, America-first civic conversation about faith, freedom, persuasion, and the quiet strength of self-governance — designed to inform, challenge, and equip listeners who care about the future of the United States, not just the next news cycle.

SEGMENT 16: THE CALMING POWER OF KINGSHIP Guest: Gregory Copley Copley offers praise for monarchical systems as stabilizing forces in nations facing discontent. Discussion examines how kingship provides continuity, national unity, and legitimacy that elected leaders often cannot muster, with examples of how constitutional monarchies successfully navigate political turbulence and maintain social cohesion during crises.

SHOW SCHEDULE1-15-25`1923 GREENLAND Rival Factions Contending for Power in Post-Maduro Venezuela. Guest: PROFESSOR EVAN ELLIS, U.S. Army War College. Following Maduro's detention, four major crime families are competing for authority in Caracas, including the Rodriguez siblings and military leadership. While Delcy Rodriguez shows cautious cooperation with the U.S. regarding oil and prisoners, the country remains unstable as criminal interests and political repression continue to stifle progress. Cuba's Collapse Amidst U.S. Oil Blockade and Economic Ruin. Guest: PROFESSOR EVAN ELLIS, U.S. Army War College. The Trump administration has halted oil shipments to Cuba, exacerbating a crisis where the electrical grid is failing and life is becoming "impossible." Despite minimal aid from Mexico, the repressive communist apparatus remains ingrained, and the regime is expected to muddle through despite massive out-migration. Regional Tensions: U.S. Pressure on Mexico and South American Shifts. Guest: PROFESSOR EVAN ELLIS, U.S. Army War College. The U.S. is pushing Mexico for joint military operations against cartels, forcing President Sheinbaum into a "delicate dance" to protect sovereignty. Meanwhile, Brazil's Lula balances leftist ties against a conservative military, and Colombia shows a potential shift to the right as Petro's policies face significant discredit. Trade Integration and Security Concerns in Mercosur and Costa Rica. Guest: PROFESSOR EVAN ELLIS, U.S. Army War College. Mercosur has achieved a historic trade deal with the European Union, potentially offsetting U.S. economic pressure and deepening ties with China. In Costa Rica, rising public insecurity has led the government to consider El Salvador's "mega-prison" model as they head into elections dominated by concerns over organized crime. The Risks of Seizing Russia's Shadow Fleet at Sea. Guest: ANATOL LIEVEN, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. The U.S. seizure of Russian-owned "shadow fleet" tankers raises the risk of a direct military clash if European nations follow suit. Russia views a maritime blockade as an act of war. Hardliners in the Kremlin may seek to escalate to terrify the West into withdrawing support from Ukraine. Russia's Role as a Stabilizing Factor in Middle East Tensions. Guest: ANATOL LIEVEN, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Russia has reportedly arbitrated between Jerusalem and Tehran to prevent preemptive strikes and maintain stability in Eurasia. While Russia lacks the power to defend Iran from a U.S. attack, it seeks to avoid regional instability. Russia's diplomatic approach contrasts with perceived universal aggression from other global actors. Economic Realities: Chinese Struggles and U.S. Consumer Strength. Guest: CHRIS RIEGEL, CEO of Stratacache. China's economy is struggling, evidenced by declining imports of raw materials and factory workers facing destitution. In contrast, the U.S. economy remains strong, with banner retail sales during the Christmasseason. However, the "K-shaped" economy shows consumer fatigue in the quick-service restaurant sector. Strategies for a Democratic Transition in Venezuela and Cuba. Guest: CLIFF MAY, Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Marco Rubio is reportedly developing a plan for a gradual transition in Venezuela by making specific demands on the remaining "gangster regime." By cutting off subsidized oil to Cuba, the U.S. hopes to cause the collapse of the Castroite regime, encouraging people to seek liberation from tyranny. Canada's Strategic Pivot to China. Guest: CONRAD BLACK. Prime Minister Mark Carney is visiting Chinato establish a "new strategic partnership" and a "new world order." This mission serves as a "Plan B" to offset potential trade losses with the United States under President Trump, specifically regarding strategic minerals and the renewal of the USMCA agreement. The Upwardly Mobile but Anxious Middle Class. Guest: VERONIQUE DE RUGY. Despite reports of a shrinking middle class, data shows many individuals are actually moving into the upper middle class. However, significant anxiety remains due to rising costs in government-regulated sectors like healthcare, housing, and education. This discontent leads to a search for scapegoats among the elite. Cosmological Mysteries: The Little Red Dots. Guest: DINESH NANDAL. The James Webb Space Telescopediscovered "little red dots"—compact, bright objects in the early universe that are not easily explained as galaxies or accreting black holes. These findings challenge the standard model of cosmology, suggesting the universe matured much earlier than previously thought by 21st-century scientists. Mapping the Future of Space Observation. Guest: DINESH NANDAL. Advancing cosmology requires a "James Webb 2.0" with larger mirrors and a successor to the Chandra X-ray telescope. Funding is also needed for researchers to develop new mathematical models. While AI can assist with pattern recognition, human physicists remain essential for creating the necessary new theoretical frameworks. Sovereignty and the Russian Identity Crisis. Guest: GREGORY COPLEY. Sovereignty is fundamentally tied to geography and identity. In the current period of "cratomorphosis," Russia exhibits defensive nationalism rather than expansionism. To the Kremlin, Ukraine remains the "cradle of Russia," making its loss a profound threat to Russian ethos, historical religious origins, and its personal identity. China's Quest for Legitimacy and Defense. Guest: GREGORY COPLEY. The Chinese Communist Partyyearns for ancient China's legitimacy while defending its modern borders. Rather than traditional imperial expansion, China employs "total war" non-military means. However, the state currently faces a crisis of sovereignty as it implodes internally under disproven totalitarian models and intensifying defensive pressures. The Reassertion of American Empire. Guest: GREGORY COPLEY. During Donald Trump's second term, the United States moved into an offensive mode to reassert dominance and energy security. Simultaneously, the European Union faces a crisis of legitimacy, with nation-states rebelling against its supra-state model. The EUlacks a cohesive vision, leading to internal distress. Lessons from the Superpower's Economic Resurgence. Guest: GREGORY COPLEY. The 21st century reveals that nations prioritizing energy security and enforced borders tend to succeed. President Trump's focus on manufacturing and cheap energy has bolstered the U.S. economy, positioning it as an unchallenged superpower. However, his dynamic approach often alienates allies while redefining grand strategy.

China's Quest for Legitimacy and Defense. Guest: GREGORY COPLEY. The Chinese Communist Party yearns for ancient China's legitimacy while defending its modern borders. Rather than traditional imperial expansion, Chinaemploys "total war" non-military means. However, the state currently faces a crisis of sovereignty as it implodes internally under disproven totalitarian models and intensifying defensive pressures.1903 QING DYNASTY DOWAGER EMPRESS

Guest: Gregory Copley. Reza Pahlavi proposes a constitutional monarchy where the crown serves as a symbolic figurehead, similar to the British system. Copley highlights Pahlavi's unique name recognition and legitimacy as the former crown prince. However, air power alone cannot decisively change the situation on the ground, requiring covert support after the clerics collapse.1970 TEHRAN