Podcasts about McGill University

Ophira Eisenberg! Comedian! Writer! Story-teller! Host! Friend! Delight! More! Ophira is taping her next 1-hour comedy special, produced by Lewis Black, at The Comedy Cellar on Nov 9, 2025 at 5pm and 7pm.  You can follow me @ophirae everywhere except for TikTok where she is @ophiranyc. We have a great chat! You can have a great listen! Also, this is only the first HALF of our chat. For part two, subscribe via Apple Podcasts OR merely click on over here to Patreon! PS Below is more about Ophira, from the bio on her website. Enjoy that as well! Ophira Eisenberg is a Canadian-born standup comedian, writer, and host. She hosted NPR's comedy trivia show Ask Me Another for 9-years, where she interviewed and played silly games with hundreds of celebrities including Sir Patrick Stewart, Awkwafina, Rosie Perez, Yo-Yo Ma, Bob The Drag Queen, Nick Kroll, Chelsea Handler, Jim Gaffigan, Michael C. Hall, and so many others. As a comic and a parent to a 6-year-old, Ophira is the host of the new comedy podcast Parenting Is A Joke co-produced by iHeart Radio and Pretty Good Friends Productions. The show launches on October 18th. She can be seen live, regularly headlining across the United States, Canada, and Europe delivering her unique blend of standup and storytelling to a loyal fan base of smart, irreverent comedy lovers. She has appeared at Montreal's Just for Laughs Festival, The New Yorker Festival, The New York Comedy Festival, Moontower Comedy Festival, Bumbershoot, The Nantucket Film Festival, Women in Comedy Festival and more. Her new comedy album at special Plant-Based Jokes is available on iTunes and is streaming now on YouTube. Lauded as “hilarious, high risk, and an inspiration,” Ophira filmed her comedy special Inside Joke, when she was 8½ months pregnant. The show's material revolves around how she told everyone that she was never going to have kids, and then unexpectedly found herself expecting at “an advanced maternal age.” Her other comedy albums, Bangs! and As Is She has appeared on Comedy Central, This Week at The Comedy Cellar, Kevin Hart's LOL Network, HBO's Girls, Gotham Live, The Late Late Show, The Today Show, and VH-1. The New York Times called her a skilled comedian and storyteller with “bleakly stylish” humor. She was also selected as one of New York Magazine's “Top 10 Comics that Funny People Find Funny,” and hailed by Forbes.com as one of the most engaging comics working today.  Ophira is a regular host and teller with The Moth and her stories have been featured on The Moth Radio Hour and in two of The Moth's best-selling collections, including the most recent New York Times Bestseller: How To Tell A Story: The Essential Guide to Memorable Storytelling from The Moth.  Ophira's first book, Screw Everyone: Sleeping My Way to Monogamy (Seal Press), is a comedic memoir about her experiments in the field as a single woman, traveling from futon to futon and flask-to-flask, gathering data, hoping to put it all together and build her own perfect Frankenmate. It was optioned for a feature film.  She is also sought after as a brilliant interviewer and moderator, and has interviewed dozens of celebrities, writers, and actors including Neil Gaiman at New York's Town Hall; Jane Curtain, Anne Beatts, Heather Gardner, Sudi Green, Alysia Reiner, Jeanne Tripplehorn, David Crane, Jeffrey Klerik at The Nantucket Film Festival; Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Daniel Levy and Annie Murphy at the 92nd Street Y; and Nell Scovell and Sloane Crosley at The Mark Twain House.  Originally from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Ophira graduated with a Cultural Anthropology and Theater degree from McGill University. She now lives in Brooklyn, NY where she is a fixture at New York City's comedy clubs including the Comedy Cellar, Gotham Comedy Club, New York Comedy Club and Carolines, as well as Brooklyn's famed performance venues The Bell House, Union Hall, and Littlefield. She resides with her husband and son where she can regularly be seen drinking a ton of coffee.

Atrial fibrillation raises stroke risk fivefold. But what if blood thinners are too dangerous after a brain bleed or major fall?A new monthly injection, abelacimab, may prevent strokes without the bleeding risk of traditional anticoagulants.Is this the future for AFib patients who can't take blood thinners? Cardiologist Dr. Alain Bouchard discusses this groundbreaking drug with Dr. Charles V. Pollack, a consultant clinical scientist and professional educator with Novartis, owner of abelacimab.About the TeamDr. Alain Bouchard is a clinical cardiologist at Cardiology Specialists of Birmingham, AL. He is a native of Quebec, Canada and trained in Internal Medicine at McGill University in Montreal. He continued as a Research Fellow at the Montreal Heart Institute. He did a clinical cardiology fellowship at the University of California in San Francisco. He joined the faculty at the University of Alabama Birmingham from 1986 to 1990. He worked at CardiologyPC and Baptist Medical Center at Princeton from 1990-2019. He is now part of the Cardiology Specialists of Birmingham at UAB Medicine.Dr. Philip Johnson is originally from Selma, AL. Philip began his studies at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, where he double majored in Biomedical and Electrical Engineering. After a year in the “real world” working for his father as a machine design engineer, he went to graduate school at UAB in Birmingham, AL, where he completed a Masters and PhD in Biomedical Engineering before becoming a research assistant professor in Biomedical Engineering. After a short stint in academics, he continued his education at UAB in Medical School, Internal Medicine Residency, and is currently a cardiology fellow in training with a special interest in cardiac electrophysiology.Medical DisclaimerThe contents of the MyHeart.net podcast, including as textual content, graphical content, images, and any other content contained in the Podcast (“Content”) are purely for informational purposes. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read or heard on the Podcast!If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or 911 immediately. MyHeart.net does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, products, procedures, opinions, or other information that may be mentioned on the Podcast. Reliance on any information provided by MyHeart.net, MyHeart.net employees, others appearing on the Podcast at the invitation of MyHeart.net, or other visitors to the Podcast is solely at your own risk.The Podcast and the Content are provided on an “as is” basis.

The story of how Geoffrey Hinton became “the godfather of AI” has reached mythic status in the tech world.While he was at the University of Toronto, Hinton pioneered the neural network research that would become the backbone of modern AI. (One of his students, Ilya Sutskever, went on to be one of OpenAI's most influential scientific minds.) In 2013, Hinton left the academy and went to work for Google, eventually winning both a Turing Award and a Nobel Prize.I think it's fair to say that artificial intelligence as we know it, may not exist without Geoffrey Hinton.But Hinton may be even more famous for what he did next. In 2023, he left Google and began a campaign to convince governments, corporations and citizens that his life's work – this thing he helped build – might lead to our collective extinction. And that moment may be closer than we think, because Hinton believes AI may already be conscious.But even though his warnings are getting more dire by the day, the AI industry is only getting bigger, and most governments, including Canada's, seem reluctant to get in the way.So I wanted to ask Hinton: If we keep going down this path, what will become of us?Mentioned:If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: The Case Against Superintelligent AI, by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate SoaresAgentic Misalignment: How LLMs could be insider threats, by AnthropicMachines Like Us is produced by Mitchell Stuart. Our theme song is by Chris Kelly. Video editing by Emily Graves. Our executive producer is James Milward. Special thanks to Angela Pacienza and the team at The Globe and Mail.Support for Machines Like Us is provided by CIFAR and the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

With Allan Sniderman, McGill University, Montreal - Canada.  Link to European Heart Journal Editorial, by Allan Sniderman, Michael J. Pencina and George Thanassoulis Link to European Heart Journal Paper

In this episode:L-theanine is found in tea leaves and promises to help you be calm and focused. Does it work and is there evidence it can help you perform better? We look in to it on the Medical Mailbag. Then, we're diving headfirst into the wild world of wellness disinformation in this episode, where we tackle the absurdity of trusting health influencers like Dr. Joseph Mercola, who somehow manages to make a fortune peddling questionable advice. Our guest, Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator from McGill University, spills the tea (pun totally intended) on Mercola's bizarre reliance on a psychic medium for guidance on health matters. You heard that right—this guy's taking medical advice from someone channeling a spirit named Balon. We chat about how this all ties into the larger trend of seeking simple answers to complex health questions, and why people are so easily duped by flashy claims. As we dissect the ludicrousness of it all, we'll arm you with some tools to cut through the nonsense and hopefully make better choices in your health journey. So buckle up, because this rollercoaster of ridiculousness is about to get real!Segments:[06:49]- Medical Mailbag: L-theanine[28:57]- Interview: Jonathan Jarry LinksJonathan's Website The Mercola Tapes on YouTube

Are busy lifestyles and convenience foods quietly reshaping our health? Cardiologist Dr. Alain Bouchard talks with dietitian and researcher Dr. Amy Goss about the impact of ultra-processed foods on children, families, and communities. From school lunches to quick weeknight dinners, they share tips for identifying hidden risks on food labels and creating healthier meals...even on a budget.About the TeamDr. Alain Bouchard is a clinical cardiologist at Cardiology Specialists of Birmingham, AL. He is a native of Quebec, Canada and trained in Internal Medicine at McGill University in Montreal. He continued as a Research Fellow at the Montreal Heart Institute. He did a clinical cardiology fellowship at the University of California in San Francisco. He joined the faculty at the University of Alabama Birmingham from 1986 to 1990. He worked at CardiologyPC and Baptist Medical Center at Princeton from 1990-2019. He is now part of the Cardiology Specialists of Birmingham at UAB Medicine.Dr. Philip Johnson is originally from Selma, AL. Philip began his studies at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, where he double majored in Biomedical and Electrical Engineering. After a year in the “real world” working for his father as a machine design engineer, he went to graduate school at UAB in Birmingham, AL, where he completed a Masters and PhD in Biomedical Engineering before becoming a research assistant professor in Biomedical Engineering. After a short stint in academics, he continued his education at UAB in Medical School, Internal Medicine Residency, and is currently a cardiology fellow in training with a special interest in cardiac electrophysiology.Medical DisclaimerThe contents of the MyHeart.net podcast, including as textual content, graphical content, images, and any other content contained in the Podcast (“Content”) are purely for informational purposes. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read or heard on the Podcast!If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or 911 immediately. MyHeart.net does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, products, procedures, opinions, or other information that may be mentioned on the Podcast. Reliance on any information provided by MyHeart.net, MyHeart.net employees, others appearing on the Podcast at the invitation of MyHeart.net, or other visitors to the Podcast is solely at your own risk.The Podcast and the Content are provided on an “as is” basis.

How can running a student painting business set you on the path to becoming a corporate lawyer at one of the top firms in Canada?In this episode of the Leaders of Tomorrow Podcast, host Chris Thomson speaks with Elyse Ardiel, a Student Works Management Program alumna who went on to graduate from McGill, attended law school, started her legal career in New York, and returned to Toronto to become a corporate lawyer and partner at a leading Bay Street firm.Elyse reflects on the lessons she learned as an operator (from setting clear expectations and building systems to working with clients and teams) and how those skills helped her succeed in law school and her career. She shares advice for students considering law school, how to build a strong application, and why staying open to opportunities can lead to a career path you never imagined.Learn why sales, systems, and setting expectations matter just as much in law as they do in business. Enjoy!Key takeaways:How Student Works helped Elyse discover her entrepreneurial spiritWhy running a business taught Elyse to love working with motivated peopleThe importance of setting clear expectations with clients, teams, and yourselfHow to stay organized, communicate effectively, and perform under pressureWhy keeping an open mind can lead to unexpected career opportunitiesPractical tips for law school applications and building a strong resumeWhy sales skills and understanding people's needs translate into any careerAnd much more...Guest Bio:Elyse Ardiel is a partner at Fasken, working within the firm's Private Equity Group and Capital Markets & Mergers and Acquisitions Group. She focuses on private M&A with an emphasis on private equity and cross-border transactions, as well as corporate reorganizations, commercial law, and general corporate matters. A graduate of McGill University and law school in Canada, Elyse began her legal career in New York before returning to Toronto. As an alumna of the Student Works Management Program, she credits her experience as an operator with shaping the entrepreneurial mindset, organizational skills, and leadership qualities that helped her excel in law and business.Resources:Student WorksConnect with Elyse on LinkedInDisclaimer:The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily represent those of Leaders of Tomorrow podcast or its affiliates. The content provided is for informational and entertainment purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice. We make no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this podcast and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. Listeners should consult with a professional for specific advice tailored to their situation. By accessing this podcast, you acknowledge that any reliance on the content is at your own risk.

Sept. 28 marks the fifth anniversary of the death of Joyce Echaquan, an Indigenous woman who livestreamed the racist and degrading comments she endured from hospital staff in Joliette just before she passed away. Today, as part of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Alex McComber, Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University, talks to Ken Connors. Photo Credit: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz

Sept. 26, 2025: Guest host Robin Gill in for Jas Johal The latest on Canada Post's sudden workers strike (0:00) Guest: Jennifer Savage, CUPW's National Director for the Pacific Region (Canadian Union of Postal Workers) Are small businesses left in limbo amidst the current postal strike? (9:14) Guest: Dan Kelly, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) Will the U.S. reconsider pre-clearance checks in Canadian airports? (22:52) Guest: Colin Robertson, former Canadian diplomat, Vice President and Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and hosts its regular Global Exchange podcast Trump slams more tariffs on pharmaceutical drugs, kitchen cabinets, and heavy trucks (32:27) Guest: Julian Karaguesian, Lecturer at McGill University's Department of Economics Why can't Canada Post and its workers find a middle ground? (41:06) Guest: Rafael Gomez, Professor and Director of the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources at the University of Toronto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guest host Robin Gill talks to Julian Karaguesian, Lecturer at McGill University's Department of Economics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After a hiatus, we've officially restarted the Uncommons podcast, and our first long-form interview is with Professor Taylor Owen to discuss the ever changing landscape of the digital world, the fast emergence of AI and the implications for our kids, consumer safety and our democracy.Taylor Owen's work focuses on the intersection of media, technology and public policy and can be found at taylorowen.com. He is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications and the founding Director of The Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University where he is also an Associate Professor. He is the host of the Globe and Mail's Machines Like Us podcast and author of several books.Taylor also joined me for this discussion more than 5 years ago now. And a lot has happened in that time.Upcoming episodes will include guests Tanya Talaga and an episode focused on the border bill C-2, with experts from The Citizen Lab and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.We'll also be hosting a live event at the Naval Club of Toronto with Catherine McKenna, who will be launching her new book Run Like a Girl. Register for free through Eventbrite. As always, if you have ideas for future guests or topics, email us at info@beynate.ca Chapters:0:29 Setting the Stage1:44 Core Problems & Challenges4:31 Information Ecosystem Crisis10:19 Signals of Reliability & Policy Challenges14:33 Legislative Efforts18:29 Online Harms Act Deep Dive25:31 AI Fraud29:38 Platform Responsibility32:55 Future Policy DirectionFurther Reading and Listening:Public rules for big tech platforms with Taylor Owen — Uncommons Podcast“How the Next Government can Protect Canada's Information Ecosystem.” Taylor Owen with Helen Hayes, The Globe and Mail, April 7, 2025.Machines Like Us PodcastBill C-63Transcript:Nate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:43Welcome to Uncommons, I'm Nate Erskine-Smith. This is our first episode back after a bit of a hiatus, and we are back with a conversation focused on AI safety, digital governance, and all of the challenges with regulating the internet. I'm joined by Professor Taylor Owen. He's an expert in these issues. He's been writing about these issues for many years. I actually had him on this podcast more than five years ago, and he's been a huge part of getting us in Canada to where we are today. And it's up to this government to get us across the finish line, and that's what we talk about. Taylor, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me. So this feels like deja vu all over again, because I was going back before you arrived this morning and you joined this podcast in April of 2020 to talk about platform governance.Taylor Owen00:43-00:44It's a different world.Taylor00:45-00:45In some ways.Nate Erskine-Smith00:45-01:14Yeah. Well, yeah, a different world for sure in many ways, but also the same challenges in some ways too. Additional challenges, of course. But I feel like in some ways we've come a long way because there's been lots of consultation. There have been some legislative attempts at least, but also we haven't really accomplished the thing. So let's talk about set the stage. Some of the same challenges from five years ago, but some new challenges. What are the challenges? What are the problems we're trying to solve? Yeah, I mean, many of them are the same, right?Taylor Owen01:14-03:06I mean, this is part of the technology moves fast. But when you look at the range of things citizens are concerned about when they and their children and their friends and their families use these sets of digital technologies that shape so much of our lives, many things are the same. So they're worried about safety. They're worried about algorithmic content and how that's feeding into what they believe and what they think. They're worried about polarization. We're worried about the integrity of our democracy and our elections. We're worried about sort of some of the more acute harms of like real risks to safety, right? Like children taking their own lives and violence erupting, political violence emerging. Like these things have always been present as a part of our digital lives. And that's what we were concerned about five years ago, right? When we talked about those harms, that was roughly the list. Now, the technologies we were talking about at the time were largely social media platforms, right? So that was the main way five years ago that we shared, consumed information in our digital politics and our digital public lives. And that is what's changing slightly. Now, those are still prominent, right? We're still on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook to a certain degree. But we do now have a new layer of AI and particularly chatbots. And I think a big question we face in this conversation in this, like, how do we develop policies that maximize the benefits of digital technologies and minimize the harms, which is all this is trying to do. Do we need new tools for AI or some of the things we worked on for so many years to get right, the still the right tools for this new set of technologies with chatbots and various consumer facing AI interfaces?Nate Erskine-Smith03:07-03:55My line in politics has always been, especially around privacy protections, that we are increasingly living our lives online. And especially, you know, my kids are growing up online and our laws need to reflect that reality. All of the challenges you've articulated to varying degrees exist in offline spaces, but can be incredibly hard. The rules we have can be incredibly hard to enforce at a minimum in the online space. And then some rules are not entirely fit for purpose and they need to be updated in the online space. It's interesting. I was reading a recent op-ed of yours, but also some of the research you've done. This really stood out. So you've got the Hogue Commission that says disinformation is the single biggest threat to our democracy. That's worth pausing on.Taylor Owen03:55-04:31Yeah, exactly. Like the commission that spent a year at the request of all political parties in parliament, at the urging of the opposition party, so it spent a year looking at a wide range of threats to our democratic systems that everybody was concerned about originating in foreign countries. And the conclusion of that was that the single biggest threat to our democracy is the way information flows through our society and how we're not governing it. Like that is a remarkable statement and it kind of came and went. And I don't know why we moved off from that so fast.Nate Erskine-Smith04:31-05:17Well, and there's a lot to pull apart there because you've got purposeful, intentional, bad actors, foreign influence operations. But you also have a really core challenge of just the reliability and credibility of the information ecosystem. So you have Facebook, Instagram through Meta block news in Canada. And your research, this was the stat that stood out. Don't want to put you in and say like, what do we do? Okay. So there's, you say 11 million views of news have been lost as a consequence of that blocking. Okay. That's one piece of information people should know. Yeah. But at the same time.Taylor Owen05:17-05:17A day. Yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith05:18-05:18So right.Taylor Owen05:18-05:2711 million views a day. And we should sometimes we go through these things really fast. It's huge. Again, Facebook decides to block news. 40 million people in Canada. Yeah.Taylor05:27-05:29So 11 million times a Canadian.Taylor Owen05:29-05:45And what that means is 11 million times a Canadian would open one of their news feeds and see Canadian journalism is taken out of the ecosystem. And it was replaced by something. People aren't using these tools less. So that journalism was replaced by something else.Taylor05:45-05:45Okay.Taylor Owen05:45-05:46So that's just it.Nate Erskine-Smith05:46-06:04So on the one side, we've got 11 million views a day lost. Yeah. And on the other side, Canadians, the majority of Canadians get their news from social media. But when the Canadians who get their news from social media are asked where they get it from, they still say Instagram and Facebook. But there's no news there. Right.Taylor Owen06:04-06:04They say they get.Nate Erskine-Smith06:04-06:05It doesn't make any sense.Taylor Owen06:06-06:23It doesn't and it does. It's terrible. They ask Canadians, like, where do you get people who use social media to get their news? Where do they get their news? and they still say social media, even though it's not there. Journalism isn't there. Journalism isn't there. And I think one of the explanations— Traditional journalism. There is—Taylor06:23-06:23There is—Taylor Owen06:23-06:47Well, this is what I was going to get at, right? Like, there is—one, I think, conclusion is that people don't equate journalism with news about the world. There's not a one-to-one relationship there. Like, journalism is one provider of news, but so are influencers, so are podcasts, people listening to this. Like this would be labeled probably news in people's.Nate Erskine-Smith06:47-06:48Can't trust the thing we say.Taylor Owen06:48-07:05Right. And like, and neither of us are journalists, right? But we are providing information about the world. And if it shows up in people's feeds, as I'm sure it will, like that probably gets labeled in people's minds as news, right? As opposed to pure entertainment, as entertaining as you are.Nate Erskine-Smith07:05-07:06It's public affairs content.Taylor Owen07:06-07:39Exactly. So that's one thing that's happening. The other is that there's a generation of creators that are stepping into this ecosystem to both fill that void and that can use these tools much more effectively. So in the last election, we found that of all the information consumed about the election, 50% of it was created by creators. 50% of the engagement on the election was from creators. Guess what it was for journalists, for journalism? Like 5%. Well, you're more pessimistic though. I shouldn't have led with the question. 20%.Taylor07:39-07:39Okay.Taylor Owen07:39-07:56So all of journalism combined in the entire country, 20 percent of engagement, influencers, 50 percent in the last election. So like we've shifted, at least on social, the actors and people and institutions that are fostering our public.Nate Erskine-Smith07:56-08:09Is there a middle ground here where you take some people that play an influencer type role but also would consider themselves citizen journalists in a way? How do you – It's a super interesting question, right?Taylor Owen08:09-08:31Like who – when are these people doing journalism? When are they doing acts of journalism? Like someone can be – do journalism and 90% of the time do something else, right? And then like maybe they reveal something or they tell an interesting story that resonates with people or they interview somebody and it's revelatory and it's a journalistic act, right?Taylor08:31-08:34Like this is kind of a journalistic act we're playing here.Taylor Owen08:35-08:49So I don't think – I think these lines are gray. but I mean there's some other underlying things here which like it matters if I think if journalistic institutions go away entirely right like that's probably not a good thing yeah I mean that's whyNate Erskine-Smith08:49-09:30I say it's terrifying is there's a there's a lot of good in the in the digital space that is trying to be there's creative destruction there's a lot of work to provide people a direct sense of news that isn't that filter that people may mistrust in traditional media. Having said that, so many resources and there's so much history to these institutions and there's a real ethics to journalism and journalists take their craft seriously in terms of the pursuit of truth. Absolutely. And losing that access, losing the accessibility to that is devastating for democracy. I think so.Taylor Owen09:30-09:49And I think the bigger frame of that for me is a democracy needs signals of – we need – as citizens in a democracy, we need signals of reliability. Like we need to know broadly, and we're not always going to agree on it, but like what kind of information we can trust and how we evaluate whether we trust it.Nate Erskine-Smith09:49-10:13And that's what – that is really going away. Pause for a sec. So you could imagine signals of reliability is a good phrase. what does it mean for a legislator when it comes to putting a rule in place? Because you could imagine, you could have a Blade Runner kind of rule that says you've got to distinguish between something that is human generatedTaylor10:13-10:14and something that is machine generated.Nate Erskine-Smith10:15-10:26That seems straightforward enough. It's a lot harder if you're trying to distinguish between Taylor, what you're saying is credible, and Nate, what you're saying is not credible,Taylor10:27-10:27which is probably true.Nate Erskine-Smith10:28-10:33But how do you have a signal of reliability in a different kind of content?Taylor Owen10:34-13:12I mean, we're getting into like a journalistic journalism policy here to a certain degree, right? And it's a wicked problem because the primary role of journalism is to hold you personally to account. And you setting rules for what they can and can't do and how they can and can't behave touches on some real like third rails here, right? It's fraught. However, I don't think it should ever be about policy determining what can and can't be said or what is and isn't journalism. The real problem is the distribution mechanism and the incentives within it. So a great example and a horrible example happened last week, right? So Charlie Kirk gets assassinated. I don't know if you opened a feed in the few days after that, but it was a horrendous place, right? Social media was an awful, awful, awful place because what you saw in that feed was the clearest demonstration I've ever seen in a decade of looking at this of how those algorithmic feeds have become radicalized. Like all you saw on every platform was the worst possible representations of every view. Right. Right. It was truly shocking and horrendous. Like people defending the murder and people calling for the murder of leftists and like on both sides. Right. people blaming Israel, people, whatever. Right. And that isn't a function of like- Aaron Charlie Kirk to Jesus. Sure. Like- It was bonkers all the way around. Totally bonkers, right? And that is a function of how those ecosystems are designed and the incentives within them. It's not a function of like there was journalism being produced about that. Like New York Times, citizens were doing good content about what was happening. It was like a moment of uncertainty and journalism was doing or playing a role, but it wasn't And so I think with all of these questions, including the online harms ones, and I think how we step into an AI governance conversation, the focus always has to be on those systems. I'm like, what is who and what and what are the incentives and the technical decisions being made that determine what we experience when we open these products? These are commercial products that we're choosing to consume. And when we open them, a whole host of business and design and technical decisions and human decisions shape the effect it has on us as people, the effect it has on our democracy, the vulnerabilities that exist in our democracy, the way foreign actors or hostile actors can take advantage of them, right? Like all of that stuff we've been talking about, the role reliability of information plays, like these algorithms could be tweaked for reliable versus unreliable content, right? Over time.Taylor13:12-13:15That's not a – instead of reactionary –Taylor Owen13:15-13:42Or like what's most – it gets most engagement or what makes you feel the most angry, which is largely what's driving X, for example, right now, right? You can torque all those things. Now, I don't think we want government telling companies how they have to torque it. But we can slightly tweak the incentives to get better content, more reliable content, less polarizing content, less hateful content, less harmful content, right? Those dials can be incentivized to be turned. And that's where the policy space should play, I think.Nate Erskine-Smith13:43-14:12And your focus on systems and assessing risks with systems. I think that's the right place to play. I mean, we've seen legislative efforts. You've got the three pieces in Canada. You've got online harms. You've got the privacy and very kind of vague initial foray into AI regs, which we can get to. And then a cybersecurity piece. And all of those ultimately died on the order paper. Yeah. We also had the journalistic protection policies, right, that the previous government did.Taylor Owen14:12-14:23I mean – Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can debate their merits. Yeah. But there was considerable effort put into backstopping the institutions of journalism by the – Well, they're twofold, right?Nate Erskine-Smith14:23-14:33There's the tax credit piece, sort of financial support. And then there was the Online News Act. Right. Which was trying to pull some dollars out of the platforms to pay for the news as well. Exactly.Taylor14:33-14:35So the sort of supply and demand side thing, right?Nate Erskine-Smith14:35-14:38There's the digital service tax, which is no longer a thing.Taylor Owen14:40-14:52Although it still is a piece of past legislation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It still is a thing. Yeah, yeah. Until you guys decide whether to negate the thing you did last year or not, right? Yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith14:52-14:55I don't take full responsibility for that one.Taylor Owen14:55-14:56No, you shouldn't.Nate Erskine-Smith14:58-16:03But other countries have seen more success. Yeah. And so you've got in the UK, in Australia, the EU really has led the way. 2018, the EU passes GDPR, which is a privacy set of rules, which we are still behind seven years later. But you've got in 2022, 2023, you've got Digital Services Act that passes. You've got Digital Markets Act. And as I understand it, and we've had, you know, we've both been involved in international work on this. And we've heard from folks like Francis Hogan and others about the need for risk-based assessments. And you're well down the rabbit hole on this. But isn't it at a high level? You deploy a technology. You've got to identify material risks. You then have to take reasonable measures to mitigate those risks. That's effectively the duty of care built in. And then ideally, you've got the ability for third parties, either civil society or some public office that has the ability to audit whether you have adequately identified and disclosed material risks and whether you have taken reasonable steps to mitigate.Taylor Owen16:04-16:05That's like how I have it in my head.Nate Erskine-Smith16:05-16:06I mean, that's it.Taylor Owen16:08-16:14Write it down. Fill in the legislation. Well, I mean, that process happened. I know. That's right. I know.Nate Erskine-Smith16:14-16:25Exactly. Which people, I want to get to that because C63 gets us a large part of the way there. I think so. And yet has been sort of like cast aside.Taylor Owen16:25-17:39Exactly. Let's touch on that. But I do think what you described as the online harms piece of this governance agenda. When you look at what the EU has done, they have put in place the various building blocks for what a broad digital governance agenda might look like. Because the reality of this space, which we talked about last time, and it's the thing that's infuriating about digital policy, is that you can't do one thing. There's no – digital economy and our digital lives are so vast and the incentives and the effect they have on society is so broad that there's no one solution. So anyone who tells you fix privacy policy and you'll fix all the digital problems we just talked about are full of it. Anyone who says competition policy, like break up the companies, will solve all of these problems. is wrong, right? Anyone who says online harms policy, which we'll talk about, fixes everything is wrong. You have to do all of them. And Europe has, right? They updated their privacy policy. They've been to build a big online harms agenda. They updated their competition regime. And they're also doing some AI policy too, right? So like you need comprehensive approaches, which is not an easy thing to do, right? It means doing three big things all over.Nate Erskine-Smith17:39-17:41Especially minority parlance, short periods of time, legislatively.Taylor Owen17:41-18:20Different countries have taken different pieces of it. Now, on the online harms piece, which is what the previous government took really seriously, and I think it's worth putting a point on that, right, that when we talked last was the beginning of this process. After we spoke, there was a national expert panel. There were 20 consultations. There were four citizens' assemblies. There was a national commission, right? Like a lot of work went into looking at what every other country had done because this is a really wicked, difficult problem and trying to learn from what Europe, Australia and the UK had all done. And we kind of taking the benefit of being late, right? So they were all ahead of us.Taylor18:21-18:25People you work with on that grant committee. We're all quick and do our own consultations.Taylor Owen18:26-19:40Exactly. And like the model that was developed out of that, I think, was the best model of any of those countries. And it's now seen as internationally, interestingly, as the new sort of milestone that everybody else is building on, right? And what it does is it says if you're going to launch a digital product, right, like a consumer-facing product in Canada, you need to assess risk. And you need to assess risk on these broad categories of harms that we have decided as legislators we care about or you've decided as legislators you cared about, right? Child safety, child sexual abuse material, fomenting violence and extremist content, right? Like things that are like broad categories that we've said are we think are harmful to our democracy. All you have to do as a company is a broad assessment of what could go wrong with your product. If you find something could go wrong, so let's say, for example, let's use a tangible example. Let's say you are a social media platform and you are launching a product that's going to be used by kids and it allows adults to contact kids without parental consent or without kids opting into being a friend. What could go wrong with that?Nate Erskine-Smith19:40-19:40Yeah.Taylor19:40-19:43Like what could go wrong? Yeah, a lot could go wrong.Taylor Owen19:43-20:27And maybe strange men will approach teenage girls. Maybe, right? Like if you do a risk assessment, that is something you might find. You would then be obligated to mitigate that risk and show how you've mitigated it, right? Like you put in a policy in place to show how you're mitigating it. And then you have to share data about how these tools are used so that we can monitor, publics and researchers can monitor whether that mitigation strategy worked. That's it. In that case, that feature was launched by Instagram in Canada without any risk assessment, without any safety evaluation. And we know there was like a widespread problem of teenage girls being harassed by strange older men.Taylor20:28-20:29Incredibly creepy.Taylor Owen20:29-20:37A very easy, but not like a super illegal thing, not something that would be caught by the criminal code, but a harm we can all admit is a problem.Taylor20:37-20:41And this kind of mechanism would have just filtered out.Taylor Owen20:41-20:51Default settings, right? And doing thinking a bit before you launch a product in a country about what kind of broad risks might emerge when it's launched and being held accountable to do it for doing that.Nate Erskine-Smith20:52-21:05Yeah, I quite like the we I mean, maybe you've got a better read of this, but in the UK, California has pursued this. I was looking at recently, Elizabeth Denham is now the Jersey Information Commissioner or something like that.Taylor Owen21:05-21:06I know it's just yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith21:07-21:57I don't random. I don't know. But she is a Canadian, for those who don't know Elizabeth Denham. And she was the information commissioner in the UK. And she oversaw the implementation of the first age-appropriate design code. That always struck me as an incredibly useful approach. In that even outside of social media platforms, even outside of AI, take a product like Roblox, where tons of kids use it. And just forcing companies to ensure that the default settings are prioritizing child safety so that you don't put the onus on parents and kids to figure out each of these different games and platforms. In a previous world of consumer protection, offline, it would have been de facto. Of course we've prioritized consumer safety first and foremost. But in the online world, it's like an afterthought.Taylor Owen21:58-24:25Well, when you say consumer safety, it's worth like referring back to what we mean. Like a duty of care can seem like an obscure concept. But your lawyer is a real thing, right? Like you walk into a store. I walk into your office. I have an expectation that the bookshelves aren't going to fall off the wall and kill me, right? And you have to bolt them into the wall because of that, right? Like that is a duty of care that you have for me when I walk into your public space or private space. Like that's all we're talking about here. And the age-appropriate design code, yes, like sort of developed, implemented by a Canadian in the UK. And what it says, it also was embedded in the Online Harms Act, right? If we'd passed that last year, we would be implementing an age-appropriate design code as we speak, right? What that would say is any product that is likely to be used by a kid needs to do a set of additional things, not just these risk assessments, right? But we think like kids don't have the same rights as adults. We have different duties to protect kids as adults, right? So maybe they should do an extra set of things for their digital products. And it includes things like no behavioral targeting, no advertising, no data collection, no sexual adult content, right? Like kind of things that like – Seem obvious. And if you're now a child in the UK and you open – you go on a digital product, you are safer because you have an age-appropriate design code governing your experience online. Canadian kids don't have that because that bill didn't pass, right? So like there's consequences to this stuff. and I get really frustrated now when I see the conversation sort of pivoting to AI for example right like all we're supposed to care about is AI adoption and all the amazing things AI is going to do to transform our world which are probably real right like not discounting its power and just move on from all of these both problems and solutions that have been developed to a set of challenges that both still exist on social platforms like they haven't gone away people are still using these tools and the harms still exist and probably are applicable to this next set of technologies as well. So this moving on from what we've learned and the work that's been done is just to the people working in this space and like the wide stakeholders in this country who care about this stuff and working on it. It just, it feels like you say deja vu at the beginning and it is deja vu, but it's kind of worse, right? Cause it's like deja vu and then ignoring theTaylor24:25-24:29five years of work. Yeah, deja vu if we were doing it again. Right. We're not even, we're not evenTaylor Owen24:29-24:41Well, yeah. I mean, hopefully I actually am not, I'm actually optimistic, I would say that we will, because I actually think of if for a few reasons, like one, citizens want it, right? Like.Nate Erskine-Smith24:41-24:57Yeah, I was surprised on the, so you mentioned there that the rules that we design, the risk assessment framework really applied to social media could equally be applied to deliver AI safety and it could be applied to new technology in a useful way.Taylor Owen24:58-24:58Some elements of it. Exactly.Nate Erskine-Smith24:58-25:25I think AI safety is a broad bucket of things. So let's get to that a little bit because I want to pull the pieces together. So I had a constituent come in the office and he is really like super mad. He's super mad. Why is he mad? Does that happen very often? Do people be mad when they walk into this office? Not as often as you think, to be honest. Not as often as you think. And he's mad because he believes Mark Carney ripped him off.Taylor Owen25:25-25:25Okay.Nate Erskine-Smith25:25-26:36Okay. Yep. He believes Mark Carney ripped him off, not with broken promise in politics, not because he said one thing and is delivering something else, nothing to do with politics. He saw a video online, Mark Carney told him to invest money. He invested money and he's out the 200 bucks or whatever it was. And I was like, how could you possibly have lost money in this way? This is like, this was obviously a scam. Like what, how could you have been deceived? But then I go and I watched the video And it is, okay, I'm not gonna send the 200 bucks and I've grown up with the internet, but I can see how- Absolutely. In the same way, phone scams and Nigerian princes and all of that have their own success rate. I mean, this was a very believable video that was obviously AI generated. So we are going to see rampant fraud. If we aren't already, we are going to see many challenges with respect to AI safety. What over and above the risk assessment piece, what do we do to address these challenges?Taylor Owen26:37-27:04So that is a huge problem, right? Like the AI fraud, AI video fraud is a huge challenge. In the election, when we were monitoring the last election, by far the biggest problem or vulnerability of the election was a AI generated video campaign. that every day would take videos of Polyevs and Carney's speeches from the day before and generate, like morph them into conversations about investment strategies.Taylor27:05-27:07And it was driving people to a crypto scam.Taylor Owen27:08-27:11But it was torquing the political discourse.Taylor27:11-27:11That's what it must have been.Taylor Owen27:12-27:33I mean, there's other cases of this, but that's probably, and it was running rampant on particularly meta platforms. They were flagged. They did nothing about it. There were thousands of these videos circulating throughout the entire election, right? And it's not like the end of the world, right? Like nobody – but it torqued our political debate. It ripped off some people. And these kinds of scams are –Taylor27:33-27:38It's clearly illegal. It's clearly illegal. It probably breaks his election law too, misrepresenting a political figure, right?Taylor Owen27:38-27:54So I think there's probably an Elections Canada response to this that's needed. And it's fraud. And it's fraud, absolutely. So what do you do about that, right? And the head of the Canadian Banking Association said there's like billions of dollars in AI-based fraud in the Canadian economy right now. Right? So it's a big problem.Taylor27:54-27:55Yeah.Taylor Owen27:55-28:46I actually think there's like a very tangible policy solution. You put these consumer-facing AI products into the Online Harms Act framework, right? And then you add fraud and AI scams as a category of harm. And all of a sudden, if you're meta and you are operating in Canada during an election, you'd have to do a risk assessment on like AI fraud potential of your product. Responsibility for your platform. And then it starts to circulate. We would see it. They'd be called out on it. They'd have to take it down. And like that's that, right? Like so that we have mechanisms for dealing with this. But it does mean evolving what we worked on over the past five years, these like only harms risk assessment models and bringing in some of the consumer facing AI, both products and related harms into the framework.Nate Erskine-Smith28:47-30:18To put it a different way, I mean, so this is years ago now that we had this, you know, grand committee in the UK holding Facebook and others accountable. This really was creating the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And the platforms at the time were really holding firm to this idea of Section 230 and avoiding host liability and saying, oh, we couldn't possibly be responsible for everything on our platform. And there was one problem with that argument, which is they completely acknowledged the need for them to take action when it came to child pornography. And so they said, yeah, well, you know, no liability for us. But of course, there can be liability on this one specific piece of content and we'll take action on this one specific piece of content. And it always struck me from there on out. I mean, there's no real intellectual consistency here. It's more just what should be in that category of things that they should take responsibility for. And obviously harmful content like that should be – that's an obvious first step but obvious for everyone. But there are other categories. Fraud is another one. When they're making so much money, when they are investing so much money in AI, when they're ignoring privacy protections and everything else throughout the years, I mean, we can't leave it up to them. And setting a clear set of rules to say this is what you're responsible for and expanding that responsibility seems to make a good amount of sense.Taylor Owen30:18-30:28It does, although I think those responsibilities need to be different for different kinds of harms. Because there are different speech implications and apocratic implications of sort of absolute solutions to different kinds of content.Taylor30:28-30:30So like child pornography is a great example.Taylor Owen30:30-31:44In the Online Harms Bill Act, for almost every type of content, it was that risk assessment model. But there was a carve out for child sexual abuse material. So including child pornography. And for intimate images and videos shared without consent. It said the platforms actually have a different obligation, and that's to take it down within 24 hours. And the reason you can do it with those two kinds of content is because if we, one, the AI is actually pretty good at spotting it. It might surprise you, but there's a lot of naked images on the internet that we can train AI with. So we're actually pretty good at using AI to pull this stuff down. But the bigger one is that we are, I think, as a society, it's okay to be wrong in the gray area of that speech, right? Like if something is like debatable, whether it's child pornography, I'm actually okay with us suppressing the speech of the person who sits in that gray area. Whereas for something like hate speech, it's a really different story, right? Like we do not want to suppress and over index for that gray area on hate speech because that's going to capture a lot of reasonable debate that we probably want.Nate Erskine-Smith31:44-31:55Yeah, I think soliciting investment via fraud probably falls more in line with the child pornography category where it's, you know, very obviously illegal.Taylor Owen31:55-32:02And that mechanism is like a takedown mechanism, right? Like if we see fraud, if we know it's fraud, then you take it down, right? Some of these other things we have to go with.Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:24I mean, my last question really is you pull the threads together. You've got these different pieces that were introduced in the past. And you've got a government that lots of similar folks around the table, but a new government and a new prime minister certainly with a vision for getting the most out of AI when it comes to our economy.Taylor32:24-32:25Absolutely.Nate Erskine-Smith32:25-33:04You have, for the first time in this country, an AI minister, a junior minister to industry, but still a specific title portfolio and with his own deputy minister and really wants to be seized with this. And in a way, I think that from every conversation I've had with him that wants to maximize productivity in this country using AI, but is also cognizant of the risks and wants to address AI safety. So where from here? You know, you've talked in the past about sort of a grander sort of tech accountability and sovereignty act. Do we do piecemeal, you know, a privacy bill here and an AI safety bill and an online harms bill and we have disparate pieces? What's the answer here?Taylor Owen33:05-34:14I mean, I don't have the exact answer. But I think there's some like, there's some lessons from the past that we can, this government could take. And one is piecemeal bills that aren't centrally coordinated or have no sort of connectivity between them end up with piecemeal solutions that are imperfect and like would benefit from some cohesiveness between them, right? So when the previous government released ADA, the AI Act, it was like really intention in some real ways with the online harms approach. So two different departments issuing two similar bills on two separate technologies, not really talking to each other as far as I can tell from the outside, right? So like we need a coordinating, coordinated, comprehensive effort to digital governance. Like that's point one and we've never had it in this country. And when I saw the announcement of an AI minister, my mind went first to that he or that office could be that role. Like you could – because AI is – it's cross-cutting, right? Like every department in our federal government touches AI in one way or another. And the governance of AI and the adoption on the other side of AI by society is going to affect every department and every bill we need.Nate Erskine-Smith34:14-34:35So if Evan pulled in the privacy pieces that would help us catch up to GDPR. Which it sounds like they will, right? Some version of C27 will probably come back. If he pulls in the online harms pieces that aren't related to the criminal code and drops those provisions, says, you know, Sean Frazier, you can deal with this if you like. But these are the pieces I'm holding on to.Taylor Owen34:35-34:37With a frame of consumer safety, right?Nate Erskine-Smith34:37-34:37Exactly.Taylor Owen34:38-34:39If he wants...Nate Erskine-Smith34:39-34:54Which is connected to privacy as well, right? Like these are all... So then you have thematically a bill that makes sense. And then you can pull in as well the AI safety piece. And then it becomes a consumer protection bill when it comes to living our lives online. Yeah.Taylor Owen34:54-36:06And I think there's an argument whether that should be one bill or whether it's multiple ones. I actually don't think it... I think there's cases for both, right? There's concern about big omnibus bills that do too many things and too many committees reviewing them and whatever. that's sort of a machinery of government question right but but the principle that these should be tied together in a narrative that the government is explicit about making and communicating to publics right that if if you we know that 85 percent of canadians want ai to be regulated what do they mean what they mean is at the same time as they're being told by our government by companies that they should be using and embracing this powerful technology in their lives they're also seeing some risks. They're seeing risks to their kids. They're being told their jobs might disappear and might take their... Why should I use this thing? When I'm seeing some harms, I don't see you guys doing anything about these harms. And I'm seeing some potential real downside for me personally and my family. So even in the adoption frame, I think thinking about data privacy, safety, consumer safety, I think to me, that's the real frame here. It's like citizen safety, consumer safety using these products. Yeah, politically, I just, I mean, that is what it is. It makes sense to me.Nate Erskine-Smith36:06-36:25Right, I agree. And really lean into child safety at the same time. Because like I've got a nine-year-old and a five-year-old. They are growing up with the internet. And I do not want to have to police every single platform that they use. I do not want to have to log in and go, these are the default settings on the parental controls.Taylor36:25-36:28I want to turn to government and go, do your damn job.Taylor Owen36:28-36:48Or just like make them slightly safer. I know these are going to be imperfect. I have a 12-year-old. He spends a lot of time on YouTube. I know that's going to always be a place with sort of content that I would prefer he doesn't see. But I would just like some basic safety standards on that thing. So he's not seeing the worst of the worst.Nate Erskine-Smith36:48-36:58And we should expect that. Certainly at YouTube with its promotion engine, the recommendation function is not actively promoting terrible content to your 12 year old.Taylor Owen36:59-37:31Yeah. That's like de minimis. Can we just torque this a little bit, right? So like maybe he's not seeing content about horrible content about Charlie Kirk when he's a 12 year old on YouTube, right? Like, can we just do something? And I think that's a reasonable expectation as a citizen. But it requires governance. That will not – and that's – it's worth putting a real emphasis on that is one thing we've learned in this moment of repeated deja vus going back 20 years really since our experience with social media for sure through to now is that these companies don't self-govern.Taylor37:31-37:31Right.Taylor Owen37:32-37:39Like we just – we know that indisputably. So to think that AI is going to be different is delusional. No, it'll be pseudo-profit, not the public interest.Taylor37:39-37:44Of course. Because that's what we are. These are the largest companies in the world. Yeah, exactly. And AI companies are even bigger than the last generation, right?Taylor Owen37:44-38:00We're creating something new with the scale of these companies. And to think that their commercial incentives and their broader long-term goals of around AI are not going to override these safety concerns is just naive in the nth degree.Nate Erskine-Smith38:00-38:38But I think you make the right point, and it's useful to close on this, that these goals of realizing the productivity possibilities and potentials of AI alongside AI safety, these are not mutually exclusive or oppositional goals. that it's you create a sandbox to play in and companies will be more successful. And if you have certainty in regulations, companies will be more successful. And if people feel safe using these tools and having certainly, you know, if I feel safe with my kids learning these tools growing up in their classrooms and everything else, you're going to adoption rates will soar. Absolutely. And then we'll benefit.Taylor Owen38:38-38:43They work in tandem, right? And I think you can't have one without the other fundamentally.Nate Erskine-Smith38:45-38:49Well, I hope I don't invite you back five years from now when we have the same conversation.Taylor Owen38:49-38:58Well, I hope you invite me back in five years, but I hope it's like thinking back on all the legislative successes of the previous five years. I mean, that'll be the moment.Taylor38:58-38:59Sounds good. Thanks, David. Thanks. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

Free For All Friday - Hour 1 Amanda Galbraith breaks down the biggest stories of the day with Canada's top newsmakers. On today's show: We have another country-wide Canada Post strike on our hands, and the second one in less than a year. The news dropped hours after the feds directed Canada's biggest courier to significantly change how it delivers mail to Canadians. We dig deeper with Carleton University associate professor Ian Lee, who was a financial policy analyst for Canada Post in the 1980's. America's President claims that using Tylenol during pregnancy could lead to an Autism diagnosis. Would an untreated fever during a pregnancy cause more damage? We tackle that subject with Dr. Christopher Labos, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at McGill University. A flock of B.C. ostriches will be spared - for now - as the Supreme Court of Canada has granted a last-minute stay in court proceedings. However, their long-term fate remains up in the air. We get the details from Vjosa Isai, a Toronto-based reporter and researcher who writes for the New York Times. Free For All Friday - Hour 2 Contributors from all over the country join The Roundtable to discuss the top stories of the week. Today's edition features public affairs consultant Bob Richardson and Henley Strategies founder Laryssa Waller. Topic 1: Yet another country-wide strike at Canada Post, and so many unanswered questions as to how the corporation will operate moving forward. What are the main sticking points for both sides this time around? Topic 2: Canada's Public Safety Minister says he has full confidence in the government's gun buyback program, even though previous recordings beg to disagree. Topic 3: U.S. President Trump says there could be a link between Tylenol and Autism. Health professionals profusely dispute his findings. Topic 4: The B.C. ostriches live to see another day, but they still don't know what tomorrow brings. Topic 5: According to the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Washington might need to reassess pre-airport clearance. We explain what that means for Canadian-American travel.

There have been a number of pistachio recalls due to possible Salmonella contamination. Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Agricultural Microbiology at McGill University, Dr. Jennifer Ronholm joined Ken Connors with what you need to know.

Just two months after ChatGPT was launched in 2022, a survey found that 90 per cent of college students were already using it. I'd be shocked if that number wasn't closer to 100 per cent by now.Students aren't just using artificial intelligence to write their essays. They're using it to generate ideas, conduct research, and summarize their readings. In other words: they're using it to think for them. Or, as New York Magazine recently put it: “everyone is cheating their way through college.”University administrators seem paralyzed in the face of this. Some worry that if we ban tools like ChatGPT, we may leave students unprepared for a world where everyone is already using them. But others think that if we go all in on AI, we could end up with a generation capable of producing work – but not necessarily original thought.I'm honestly not sure which camp I fall into, so I wanted to talk to two people with very different perspectives on this.Conor Grennan is the Chief AI Architect at NYU's Stern School of Business, where he's helping students and educators embrace AI. And Niall Ferguson is a senior fellow at Stanford and Harvard, and the co-founder of the University of Austin. Lately, he's been making the opposite argument: that if universities are to survive, they largely need to ban AI from the classroom. Whichever path we take, the consequences will be profound. Because this isn't just about how we teach and how we learn – it's about the future of how we think.Mentioned:AI's great brain robbery – and how universities can fight back, by Niall Ferguson (The London Times)Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College, by James D. Walsh (New York Magazine)Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task, by Nataliya Kos'myna (MIT Media Lab)The Diamond Age, by Neal StephensonHow the Enlightenment Ends, by Henry A. KissingerMachines Like Us is produced by Mitchell Stuart. Our theme song is by Chris Kelly. Host direction by Athena Karkanis. Video editing by Emily Graves. Our executive producer is James Milward. Special thanks to Angela Pacienza and the team at the Globe & Mail.Support for Machines Like Us is provided by CIFAR and the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Join the latest Episode of the Exploring Mining Podcast with host Cali Vanzant and Silver expert Peter Krauth to deliver a bullish outlook on the silver market. Peter discusses the Fed's quarter-point rate cut amid persistent inflation, and analyzes silver's strong market position. Discussions emphasize Silver's vital role in renewable energy, particularly solar panels and battery storage. He unpacks the silver-to-gold ratio's historical significance, signaling potential opportunities. Peter highlights the growing influence of Eastern markets, central bank gold accumulation surpassing US treasuries, and a robust financing environment for silver companies. With silver prices soaring from $22 to $42-43 and ongoing supply deficits projected for years. We cover Investment opportunities in junior miners, and growth in Latin American. A must-watch for investors eyeing silver's bright future.About Peter Krauth, and Silver Stock Investor Newsletter Peter Krauth is a former portfolio adviser and a 20-year veteran of the resource market, with special expertise in precious metals, mining, and energy stocks. Peter writes about what he is buying and selling; he takes no pay from companies for coverage. He has contributed numerous articles to Kitco.com, BNN Bloomberg, the Financial Post, Seeking Alpha, Streetwise Reports, Investing.com, TalkMarkets, and Barchart, and he holds a Master of Business Administration from McGill University. The Silver Stock Investor newsletter is Peter's key contribution to The Gold Advisor world, and it is a welcome one. Silver is a world unto itself, with its own equity metrics, macro forces, and dedicated investors. Silver also usually outperforms gold in a bull market. For all those reasons, silver deserves its own newsletter – and until SSI no such newsletter existed! Peter covers the whole silver spectrum, from physical to major miners to junior explorers, in a monthly letter with a bi-monthly update. https://silverstockinvestor.com/ Disclaimer/Disclosure: Our site does not make recommendations for purchases or sale of stocks, services or products. Nothing on our sites should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell products or securities. All investing involves risk and possible losses. This site is currently compensated for news publication and distribution, social media and marketing, content creation and more. Disclosure is posted for each compensated news release, content published /created if required but otherwise the news was not compensated for and was published for the sole interest of our readers and followers. Contact management and IR of each company directly regarding specific questions. More disclaimer info: https://www.investorideas.com/About/Disclaimer.asp Learn more about publishing your news release and our other news services on the Investorideas.com newswire https://www.investorideas.com/News-Upload/ Global investors must adhere to regulations of each country. Please read Investorideas.com privacy policy: https://www.investorideas.com/About/Private_Policy.asp Follow us on X @investorideas @Exploringmining Follow us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Investorideas Follow us on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/Investorideas Contact Investorideas.com to be a guest or sponsor this podcast 800-665-0411

Host Piya Chattopadhyay speaks with McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy director Jennifer Welsh about the stakes of this week's United Nations General Assembly talks, "Traveling Nanas" Eleanor Hamby and Sandra Hazelip share the life lessons they've learned from their world adventures, University of Toronto scholar Jason Stanley reflects on the state of speech and democratic institutions in the United States, and incarcerated journalist John J. Lennon explores the value of telling crime stories from the inside.Discover more at https://www.cbc.ca/sunday

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Eos Foundation's Andrea Silbert interview Dr. Gil Troy, senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, Distinguished Scholar in North American History at McGill University, and editor of Theodor Herzl: The Collected Zionist Writings and Addresses of Israel's Founder. He offers […]

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Eos Foundation's Andrea Silbert interview Dr. Gil Troy, senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, Distinguished Scholar in North American History at McGill University, and editor of Theodor Herzl: The Collected Zionist Writings and Addresses of Israel's Founder. He offers an overview of Herzl's upbringing in 19th-century Vienna, the antisemitic events that shaped his worldview, and how the infamous Dreyfus Affair spurred his determination to establish a Jewish State. Dr. Troy highlights Herzl's most influential works, including The Jewish State and the Old New Land, and explained how they bolstered support for the Zionist movement. He also reflects on Herzl's role in creating the First Zionist Congress and his impact as the “spiritual father of the Jewish State,” addressing how his influence continues to confront rising global antisemitism today. Dr. Troy concludes the interview with a reading from Theodor Herzl: The Collected Zionist Writings and Addresses of Israel's Founder.

Say "artificial food dyes" and someone will inevitably start screaming about Red 40 (or FD&C Red 40 if they're really obsessive). Are these dyes really poisoning our children? Is natural food coloring better, or might there be unintended environmental consequences? Join us as we look at everything from MAHA to McGill University to get to the bottom of artificial colors. SourcesThe Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/08/white-food-dye-titanium-dioxide-maha/683806/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-usInternational Dairy Foods Assoc: https://www.idfa.org/idfa-ice-cream-commitmentMake America Healthy Again report: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf FDA: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-calls-rfk-jr-three-211918075.html UPMC HealthBeat: https://share.upmc.com/2024/07/is-red-food-dye-bad-for-kids/ UC Berkeley Public Health: https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/articles/spotlight/research/new-report-shows-artificial-food-coloring-causes-hyperactivity-in-some-kids Michigan State University Today: https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2025/07/ask-the-expert-whats-the-problem-with-artificial-food-dyes McGill University Office for Science and Society: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/food-health-news/food-dyes-science NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-artificial-dyes-atkinson-candy-company-replace-natural-colors-rfk-rcna220485 Foods (Journal): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10093929/ Patreon: patreon.com/greeningupmyactInstagram: @greeningupmyactFacebook: Greening Up My ActEmail us with questions: greeningupmyact@gmail.comYouTube: Greening Up My Act

On today's episode of the Illumination by Modern Campus podcast, podcast host Shauna Cox was joined by Carola Weil to discuss the mutual value exchange between continuing education and corporate partners, and the cultural, structural, and market challenges that complicate collaboration.

In the 19th-century, feminist and scholar Pandita Ramabai travelled America delivering lectures on how the caste system and patriarchy shaped the trajectory of women's lives. When she came back to India, she explained America's customs around gender and race relations, and their experiment with democracy. IDEAS explores her rich life and legacy.Guests in this episode:Radha Vatsal is the author of No. 10 Doyers Street (March 2025), as well as the author of the Kitty Weeks mystery novels. Born and raised in Mumbai, India, she earned her Ph.D. in Film History from Duke University and has worked as a film curator, political speechwriter, and freelance journalist.Tarini Bhamburkar is a research affiliate at the University of Bristol. Her research explores cross-racial networks and international connections built by British and Indian women's feminist periodical press between 1880 and 1910, which sowed the seeds of the transnational Suffrage movement of the early 20th century. Sandeep Banerjee is an associate professor of English at McGill University and a scholar of Global Anglophone and World literature, with a focus on the literary and cultural worlds of colonial and postcolonial South Asia. Readings by Aparita Bhandari and Pete Morey.

Fevers are one of the most common (and stressful!) parts of parenting. In this episode, Dr. Brie-Anne Rosenberg helps us understand why children get sick so often, what a fever means, and how parents can respond with calm and clarity.Dr. Brie-Anne Rosenberg studied biology at McGill University before completing her medical degree at the Jagiellonian University Medical College of Krakow, Poland, and Family Medicine residency at the University of California, San Diego. She returned home to Ontario in 2013, where she has had the pleasure of growing her family practice as well as her own little family.In this episode we've partnered with Obasan Click HERE to save - We want your kids sleeping great! Use code HAPPYSLEEP at checkout and receive 10% off when you purchase a crib mattress–head to obasan.com / obasan.ca and get great sleep started!**NOTE: be sure to shop obasan.com or obasan.ca pending your country locationErin Junker | Paediatric Sleep ConsultantInstagram @thehappysleepcompanyWebsite www.thehappysleepcompany.com

Joining Elias Makos on the Friday edition of The Big 5 is Bonnie Feigenbaum, Conservative Party of Quebec candidate in last provincial election and a lecturer at Concordia & McGill University, media & government relations consultant and Andrew Caddell, a town councillor in Kamouraska, and President of the Task Force on Linguistic policy.

Send us a textIn this episode of The Incubator Podcast, Dr. Guilherme Sant'Anna, Professor of Pediatrics at McGill University, joins Ben and Daphna to discuss his team's work on implementing an early bubble CPAP protocol in the delivery room. Although CPAP has long been considered standard practice for preterm infants, Dr. Sant'Anna explains why intubation rates remain high in the most immature babies and how his group sought to change this pattern.The conversation reviews the background of the protocol, which began at McGill in 2014, and the cultural shift required to adopt bubble CPAP as the default approach. Dr. Sant'Anna describes the importance of multidisciplinary training, technical details such as proper prong sizing, fixation, humidification, and suctioning, as well as the challenges of sustaining practice change over a decade.The results of this initiative are striking: lower rates of delivery room intubation, reduced severe BPD, and improvements in outcomes particularly for infants born before 28 weeks. Dr. Sant'Anna also reflects on lessons learned, the global implications of bubble CPAP in resource-limited settings, and the importance of sharing knowledge to improve care everywhere.This episode highlights how attention to detail, persistence, and team culture can transform neonatal respiratory care.Support the showAs always, feel free to send us questions, comments, or suggestions to our email: nicupodcast@gmail.com. You can also contact the show through Instagram or Twitter, @nicupodcast. Or contact Ben and Daphna directly via their Twitter profiles: @drnicu and @doctordaphnamd. The papers discussed in today's episode are listed and timestamped on the webpage linked below. Enjoy!

On healing our emotional biography, the unwounded soul within, and the choices we keep making to evolve. (0:00) — Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's Introduction and Background (3:35) — The Importance of Holding Ourselves (7:02) — Navigating Addiction and Hyper-Vigilance (8:33) — The Science of Happiness and Integrity (10:56) — Understanding Human Behavior and Emotional Intelligence (14:38) — The Role of Nature and Playfulness (15:32) — Navigating Personal Relationships and Trauma (40:01) — The Impact of Patriarchy and Toxic Masculinity (45:42) — The Importance of Self-Care and Emotional Regulation (46:00) — The Role of Playfulness and Humor in Emotional Health (49:08) — The Impact of Menopause and Andropause on Relationships Through the years, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has had the occasion to meet inspiring world leaders — Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron, Pope Francis, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Michelle and Barack Obama, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, First Lady Jill Biden and President Joe Biden, and more — who've inspired her to bring about change and justice in the world. Sophie studied commerce at McGill University and holds a Bachelor's degree in Communications from the University of Montreal, as well as a certificate from the Promedia School of Television and Radio. Deeply passionate about exploring the great outdoors, she loves sports, movement, and yoga. She's the former First Lady of Canada, and she's also certified to teach yoga for children and adults, practicing and guiding meditation and yoga nidra sessions to reset the nervous system and find calm. Her first book, Closer Together (Penguin Random House and KO Éditions), encourages us to better understand the mechanisms of our own personality and the quality of all our relationships — most importantly, the relationship we have with ourselves.

Trudie Mason closes the week with Bonnie Feigenbaum, Conservative Party of Quebec candidate in last provincial election and a lecturer at Concordia & McGill University, media & government relations consultant, and Akil Alleyne, Reporter and commentator with extensive experience analysing legal, political, and social issues and Manager of the GemStar Circle of Excellence Scholarship Program. The CAQ is continuing with making Quebec society secular, with a plan to ban public prayer, and they’re not ruling out the use of the notwithstanding clause again One year of construction begins on the Côte Saint-Luc overpass above Decarie Death by mail…. An elderly woman in Quebec died of a preventable heart attack last December Many Canadians are left reeling after their Facebook and Instagram accounts had been accidentally deleted by Meta

Dr. Vera Bittner, Section Head of General Cardiology, Prevention, and Imaging and Medical Director of the Coronary Care Unit at UAB, discusses the risks associated with elevated triglycerides and how to combat this potentially dangerous condition.About the TeamDr. Alain Bouchard is a clinical cardiologist at Cardiology Specialists of Birmingham, AL. He is a native of Quebec, Canada and trained in Internal Medicine at McGill University in Montreal. He continued as a Research Fellow at the Montreal Heart Institute. He did a clinical cardiology fellowship at the University of California in San Francisco. He joined the faculty at the University of Alabama Birmingham from 1986 to 1990. He worked at CardiologyPC and Baptist Medical Center at Princeton from 1990-2019. He is now part of the Cardiology Specialists of Birmingham at UAB Medicine.Dr. Philip Johnson is originally from Selma, AL. Philip began his studies at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, where he double majored in Biomedical and Electrical Engineering. After a year in the “real world” working for his father as a machine design engineer, he went to graduate school at UAB in Birmingham, AL, where he completed a Masters and PhD in Biomedical Engineering before becoming a research assistant professor in Biomedical Engineering. After a short stint in academics, he continued his education at UAB in Medical School, Internal Medicine Residency, and is currently a cardiology fellow in training with a special interest in cardiac electrophysiology.Medical DisclaimerThe contents of the MyHeart.net podcast, including as textual content, graphical content, images, and any other content contained in the Podcast (“Content”) are purely for informational purposes. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read or heard on the Podcast!If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or 911 immediately. MyHeart.net does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, products, procedures, opinions, or other information that may be mentioned on the Podcast. Reliance on any information provided by MyHeart.net, MyHeart.net employees, others appearing on the Podcast at the invitation of MyHeart.net, or other visitors to the Podcast is solely at your own risk.The Podcast and the Content are provided on an “as is” basis.

Season Six of The Food Professor Podcast, presented by Caddle, kicks off with hosts Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois diving into a whirlwind of summer news, trade turbulence, and big-picture food industry shifts. This debut episode sets the tone for what promises to be a dynamic and thought-provoking season.Michael and Sylvain begin with personal updates from a busy summer, including travels to Quebec City, Sylvain's new role as Visiting Scholar at McGill University, and Michael's experiences covering retail in New York. They also announce that full video episodes of The Food Professor are now available on YouTube, expanding the show's reach as podcasting and video continue to converge.The discussion quickly pivots to critical economic and policy issues. The hosts unpack Ottawa's decision to end retaliatory countervailing tariffs on U.S. food imports—a move Sylvain argues was long overdue, as tariffs only raised costs for Canadian consumers while doing little to protect domestic industries. With food inflation running hot, Sylvain predicts prices will ease by early fall, pointing to statements from Loblaw CEO Per Bank as validation.From there, the pair explore the elimination of the U.S. “de minimis” exemption, a decision with far-reaching consequences for Canadian small businesses and independent food producers shipping across the border. Michael emphasizes how indie retailers relying on U.S. customers will be hit hardest, while Sylvain warns that Ottawa must address Canada's own $150 threshold to avoid worsening inequities.The conversation expands globally with a deep dive into China's escalating tariffs on Canadian canola, pork, and lobster—measures Sylvain interprets as retaliation for Canada's 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. He makes the case for a more nuanced approach: segment tariffs between luxury and affordable EVs, allowing consumers greater choice while protecting farmers from geopolitical fallout.Other highlights include an analysis of the pickle aisle—yes, really—where the Bick's withdrawal from Canada illustrates the tangled realities of cross-border food supply chains. The hosts also discuss Dr Pepper Keurig's acquisition of JDE Peet's, situating it within a larger trend of consumer packaged goods giants restructuring in response to inflation, climate change, GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, and a rewiring of global trade flows.The episode wraps on a lighter note, celebrating the Canadian arrival of Bobby Flay's Burger concept and teasing next week's guest, Globe and Mail journalist Greg Mercer, author of The Lobster Trap.With sharp analysis, lively banter, and a keen eye on the forces reshaping food and retail, Michael and Sylvain set the stage for a season that will track how consumers, farmers, and retailers navigate inflation, trade disputes, shifting supply chains, and new food trends. The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

Dr. Chris Buddle is an Associate Professor in the Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Associate Dean of Student Affairs at McGill University. He is a community ecologist who studies biodiversity of different species, and he is interested in figuring out what animals are where in our ecosystem. In particular, his work focuses on spiders, insects, and other arthropods. Chris is a bird aficionado who loves to draw birds and go birdwatching. For him, drawing is a great way to learn more about things and get a new perspective on what they look like. He also keeps busy chauffeuring his three kids to different activities, riding bikes, and spending time with his family. He received his undergraduate training in Ecology at the University of Guelph and was awarded his PhD in Ecology and Environmental science from the University of Alberta. Afterwards, Chris conducted postdoctoral research at Miami University before accepting a position at McGill where he is today. He has received a number of his awards for his exceptional teaching and research, including the Entomological Society of Canada's C. Gordon Hewitt Award for Excellence in Entomology in Canada, the MacDonald Campus Award for Teaching Excellence, and the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education's Desire2Learn Teaching Innovation Award. Chris also writes great articles in his Arthropod Ecology Blog. He is here with us today to tell us all about his journey through life and science.

In this episode, Heather discusses her background and how she came to working with couples in therapy. She discussed how usually, when a partner in a couple has significant PTSD, it is recommended that each do individual therapy, but as she discussed, that doesn't mean the couple doesn't continue to struggle in their relationship. She shared how in her research with couples, where one person was a child sexual abuse survivor, the Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy approach was helpful, but it was difficult to complete Deescalation Stage, since there was a great deal of emotional dysregulation and difficulty with mentalizing. Heather discussed her conceptualization of Complex PTSD and how she began starting with cognitive-based interventions to help clients understand trauma, their reactions to trauma, and learn skills for emotional regulation and mentalizing, which is being able to reflect on one's own perceptions of the other, what the other may be experiencing/thinking, and how one might be being perceived. She explained how helping improve these skills helps to couple to address the effects of the trauma together and then allowing for the couple to do the relationship work. She talked about refining her Developmental Couples Therapy for Complex Trauma approaches, trained other clinicians, writing a treatment manual and conducting research. Heather also shared that she had recently published a workbook for clients, “Healing Broken Bonds: A Couple's Workbook for Complex Trauma” which goes through Developmental Couples Therapy for Complex Trauma step-by-step from a client's perspective. She describes how it's being used not only alongside treatment, but independently by couples and individuals. It can be paired with episodes of her podcast Healing Broken Bonds that help walk people through the concepts. ​ Heather MacIntosh, Ph.D., CPsych is a clinical psychologist, Associate Professor, and Director of the Couple and Family Therapy Clinic at McGill University where she is the recipient of the H. Noel Fieldhouse Award for Distinguished Teaching. Heather is author of Developmental Couple Therapy for Complex Trauma a Manual for Therapists and Healing Broken Bonds: A Couple's Workbook for Complex Trauma. She is also the developer and host of Healing Broken Bonds, a podcast featuring couples dealing with the impacts of complex trauma in their relationships. Developmental Couple Therapy for Complex Trauma is an evidence based, psychoanalytically informed treatment approach, developed by Heather, for working with couples dealing with the impacts of complex trauma. Heather is the author of over 60 peer reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and treatment manuals. She is in demand as a speaker at international conferences and workshops as well as a resource for local and national media in the areas of trauma, couple and family relationships and issues, and queer and trans wellbeing. She leads an active funded research program having been principal researcher on over $500,000 in peer reviewed research grants and an active co-investigator on over $7,000,000 more with other internationally recognized colleagues. Heather's research primarily examines the impact of early life trauma on the process and outcome of couple therapy. In addition, she studies the experiences of 2SLGBTQIA+ trauma survivors in therapy, in healing their sexual selves, adapting and integrating models of treatment to ensure accessibility and inclusion of Indigenous, racialized, queer, and trans, graduate student therapist trainees and clients. Heather lives and works on land of the Crawford Purchase Mohawk territory “purchased” for settlement by United Empire Loyalists at the end of the American Revolutionary War. MerryMac Farm is in Eastern Ontario, Canada, where she strives to live with the land in peace, and to bring healing through therapy offered in relation with her Icelandic horses, her retired RCMP Musical Ride Horse, three Ojibwe Spirit Ponies, and a cadre of other creatures who bring joy, hilarity, and love to life.

Sarah Giffen Carr is a conservation leader whose lifelong connection to Maine's landscapes has shaped both her personal journey and professional career. Raised in Hallowell, she spent summers with her family in a rustic cabin built by her father. As a result of that yearly re-immersion into the natural world, Sarah developed a deep love for the outdoors that guided her toward studying geography and environmental science at McGill University. She went on to work with organizations including the U.S. Geological Survey and Maine's Land Use Planning Commission, before serving as co-executive director of conservation at the Midcoast Conservancy. In this conversation, Sarah shares how her upbringing, family influences, and the writings of Aldo Leopold shaped her conservation ethic. She reflects on balancing land use with preservation, the unique ecological treasures of Maine—from intact northern forests to Atlantic salmon populations—and the personal meaning she draws from place, loss, and legacy. Join our conversation with Sarah Giffen Carr today on Radio Maine. Don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more inspiring stories!

Rarely is one of our shows as intricately fascinating and self-disclosing to our guest and ourselves that we cannot adequately describe all that we covered, all that we learned, and all that we began integrating anew into our knowledge as the interview evolved.   Our guest, physician Juliette Engel, was a captive, slave, and experimental subject controlled by the CIA from early childhood until age sixteen. Acting on her own, she then escaped the CIA/MKUltra house of devil worship — a subject we will let her tell you about in the interview. She began her new life as a college student, and to manage her severe post-traumatic stress, she developed amnesia for her horrendous past. As a therapist and researcher, I know this happens, but it requires a powerful mind like Dr. Engel to accomplish it and ultimately to flourish.   Dr. Engel is part of a growing number of people coming forth about their experiences as victims of CIA experiments, which in part were training her to become a part of what I have decided to call, “the global community of abusers without conscience,” a powerful aspect of the global predators and their unholy empires.   Adding incredible background to her personal testimony, she sent us in advance a document released from the National Security Archive on December 23, 2024. The ominous title is “CIA Behavioral Control Experiments Focus of New Scholarly Collection.”   The CIA documents confirm many of Dr. Engel's memories, which only began to unfold much later, after a life of medical reform work in Russia.   Confirming Our Own Experiences with the Deep State and CIA   One huge confirmation for me and Ginger is how much the CIA was indeed focused on defending and supporting the very kind or torturous and inhuman psychiatric treatments that I began openly opposing in the early 1970s, including lobotomy and other forms of psychosurgery and electroshock (ECT) which I have described as an electrical closed-head lobotomy.   Another insight for me was the similarity between the CIA agents and collaborators, as described in the CIA documents, and the global predators we have described in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey. This is the same profile we continue to explore in our recent columns about America's four current empires: the Western Global Empire, the Eastern Global Chinese Communist Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Caliphate Muslim Empire.   These predators, across a broad spectrum of activities, are primarily motivated by a lust for power over other human beings. They also desire wealth, but mostly as a tool for gaining power. What drives them is the desire to exert power over as many people as possible within their sphere, whether it is a political party, a criminal cabal or conspiracy, a government agency, a nation, an empire, or a global governance.   If they did not lust for power, they would not succeed in their goal of dominating, controlling, exploiting, enslaving, or killing as many people as possible. They must also possess extreme cunning and shrewdness to be able to manipulate and exploit so many people and to compete for power among so many other violent, cunning people. Probably above all else, they must be masters of conspiracy, able to seduce or intimidate others into helping them pursue their evil aims.   These predators must lack identification with the people within their own family,  group, nation, or empire, because seizing and growing enormous power usually requires, as history demonstrates, killing competitors in their own families and their own inner circles of co-conspirators, as well as millions of their own people, as demonstrated by apex global predators from Alexander “the Great” to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the current leaders of Communist China.   These predators must not allow themselves to genuinely love anyone, because such entanglements and feelings would check or inhibit the kind of evil conduct required for fulfilling their primary lust for power. Ultimately, they must not identify with anyone but themselves.   The following excerpts are taken from the vastly important document that our guest, Juliette Engel, MD, first drew to our attention, “CIA Behavior Control Experiments Focus of New Scholarly Collection.”  [The document lacks page numbers, but the excerpts can be located by means of searching the document:]   Excerpt 1 from the CIA Documents   Asked whether the CIA had tried to identify “techniques of producing retrograde amnesia,” Gottlieb said it was something that they “talked about,” but that he could not “remember any specific projects or specific research mounted in response to that question.” Asked if the CIA ever used “psychosurgery research projects,” Gottlieb said his “remembrance is that they did.”   Excerpt 2   The elevation of Allen Dulles to deputy director of central intelligence in 1951 led to an expansion of BLUEBIRD programs under a new name, ARTICHOKE, and under the direction of Gottlieb at TSS. The new program was to include, among other projects, the development of “gas guns” and “poisons,” and experiments to test whether “monotonous sounds,” “concussion,” “electroshock,” and “induced sleep” could be used as a means to gain “hypnotic control of an individual.”[5]   Excerpt 3   Another prominent MKULTRA “cutout” foundation, the Human Ecology Society, was run by Cornell Medical Center neurologist Dr. Harold Wolff, who wrote an early study of communist brainwashing techniques for Allen Dulles and later partnered with the CIA to develop a combination of drugs and sensory deprivation that could be used to erase the human mind. Among the most extreme MKULTRA projects funded through Wolff's group were the infamous “depatterning” experiments conducted by Dr. D. Ewen Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute, a psychiatric hospital at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Cameron's methods combined induced sleep, electroshocks, and “psychic driving,” under which drugged subjects were psychologically tortured for weeks or months in an effort to reprogram their minds.   Except 4   While no new techniques had been discovered, presently known mind control techniques described in the attachment include the use of LSD and other drugs, hypnosis, the use of the polygraph, neurosurgery, and electric shock treatments. However, field testing of these techniques has been handicapped by the “inability to provide the medical competence for a final evaluation and for such field testing as the evaluation indicates. Repeated efforts to recruit medical personnel have failed and until recently the CIA Medical Staff has not been in a position to assist.”   Excerpt 5   The response from TSS lists 17 “materials and methods” that the Chemical Division was working to develop, including:   *substances that “promote illogical thinking,” materials that would “render the induction of hypnosis easier” or “enhance its usefulness,” substances that would help individuals to endure “privation, torture and coercion during interrogation” and attempts at ‘brainwashing,'” *“materials and physical methods” to “produce amnesia” and “shock and confusion over extended periods of time,” substances that would “produce physical disablement, including paralysis, *substances that “alter personality structure” or that “produce ‘pure' euphoria with no subsequent let-down,” and a “knockout pill” for use in surreptitious druggings and to produce amnesia, among other things. [Asterisks and bold added]   Excerpt 6   Gibbons was not fully clear on how the CIA obtained LSD, but most of it came from the Eli Lilly & Company, according to this memo, which “apparently makes a gift of it to CIA.”  [bold added. There are many mentions in the report citing Eli Lilly as the source of massive of amounts of LSD which the CIA then inflicted upon Americans, sometimes as experiments and sometimes for financial gain.]   End of Excerpts   In the current release of CIA documents, many well-known government officials and universities are named as supporting and collaborating with MKUltra and other ghastly CIA experiments. Particularly stunning to me, the CIA bought a new wing for the Georgetown University Hospital, in return for which the CIA was given a special “safe house” inside the medical wing where they were free to inflict their wanton will on involuntary experimental subjects with supportive help from the hospital.   One More Step in Facing the Evil Within   These quotes confirm what I had long suspected and had only limited data to confirm — that the CIA and other government agencies are very protective and supportive of psychosurgery (lobotomy) and electroshock treatment (ECT). They want to research and apply these gross methods of damaging the human brain and mind to facilitate interrogation, to erase memories, to change personalities, and to make people more obedient and robotic. They also want them widely used in society to dumb down and render passive as many people as possible on the way to building the global slave state.   During this interview, we began to more deeply appreciate the involvement of the Deep State in psychiatry and psychology and the strength of their opposition to my reform work going back to the early 1970s. My earliest reform efforts focused on these two treatments, psychosurgery and then electroshock, and finally matured into seeing all psychiatric treatment as an assault on the brain and mind.   In various books and scientific articles, Ginger and I have been pointing to federal agencies pushing lobotomy (DOJ, NIMH), pushing electroshock (CIA, FDA), and pushing psychoactive drugs (FDA, CIA, NIMH, NIH, Department of Education, and others.   Our greatest confrontation with federal agencies came during an intense few years when we educated and organized people to shut down a massive U.S. interagency eugenical program to go into the inner cities to identify supposed biological and genetic causes of violence in black children and youth. The goal was ultimately to justify the widespread diagnosing and drugging of these children, including highly remunerative drugs like antidepressants and stimulants. I had already encountered outright racism, with neurosurgeons and psychiatrists advocating in print for the use of psychosurgery to control the leaders of black uprisings in the 1960s and early 1970s.   We completely defeated the massive eugenics project, causing the cancellation of a major conference and many research projects. We authored a book about it, The War Against Children of Color (1994), which addresses numerous Deep State actors such as the CDC, Department of Justice, FBI, NIMH, NIH, DHHS, and PHS, and names many perpetrators. But we had not yet seen the globalist scope of these activities. Here are links to a few articles about our successful efforts to stop the federal eugenics program.   The Role of Psychiatry in Nazi Germany and the U.S. Violence Initiative. This link contains the written introduction and historical video of Dr. Peter Breggin's presentation to Black leaders and community members in Harlem in the early 1990s about the federal government's plans to biologically “prevent violence” by identifying and drugging Black toddlers and children—a plan ultimately stopped due to the Breggins' exposure of the eugenics program. A biomedical programme for urban violence control in the US: the dangers of psychiatric social control; by Peter R Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin Letter to the Editor, The New York Times by Peter R. Breggin, M.D.: U.S. Hasn't Given Up Linking Genes to Crime.  Excerpt: “Dr. Goodwin estimates that 100,000 children, as young as 5, will be identified for psychiatric interventions. He called the violence initiative the No. 1 funding priority for the Federal mental health establishment in 1994. My organization has since obtained documentation that millions of dollars of Federal funds are being spent on violence initiative research and planning, including studies of both rhesus monkeys and inner-city children. Newly developed psychiatric drugs are being tested for violence prevention in monkey studies, and some psychiatrists are claiming they can be used in humans for the same purpose. It seems inevitable that the violence initiative will involve administering the same drugs to inner-city children. The widespread use of Ritalin to control aggressive children, frequently supported or initiated by public schools, has set a precedent for pharmacological intervention.” Disposable Children in Black Faces: The Violence Initiative as Inner-City Containment Policy; Alfreda A. Sellers-Diamond, UMKC Law Review, 1994. Campaigns Against Racist Federal Programs by the Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; Peter R. Breggin, Journal of African American Men, 1995. NIH, under fire, freezes grant for conference on genetics and crime; Nature, Vol. 358, 30 July 1992, p357.   It was further hammered home to me in the interview with Dr. Engel that the kinds of individuals who are cunning enough and violent enough to run totalitarian nations and empires have their counterparts running amok within many federal agencies and many other American institutions. And that is the force from within that we are fighting today as we stand up for freedom in America. We must face a former national leadership, and a current Deep State and other institutions riddled with the worst human beings we can imagine and understand — or we will remain vastly hampered in fighting them.     ______   Learn more about Dr. Peter Breggin's work: https://breggin.com/   See more from Dr. Breggin's long history of being a reformer in psychiatry: https://breggin.com/Psychiatry-as-an-Instrument-of-Social-and-Political-Control   Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, the how-to manual @ https://breggin.com/a-guide-for-prescribers-therapists-patients-and-their-families/   Get a copy of Dr. Breggin's latest book: WHO ARE THE “THEY” - THESE GLOBAL PREDATORS? WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES AND THEIR PLANS FOR US? HOW CAN WE DEFEND AGAINST THEM? Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey Get a copy: https://www.wearetheprey.com/   “No other book so comprehensively covers the details of COVID-19 criminal conduct as well as its origins in a network of global predators seeking wealth and power at the expense of human freedom and prosperity, under cover of false public health policies.”   ~ Robert F Kennedy, Jr Author of #1 bestseller The Real Anthony Fauci and Founder, Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel for Children's Health Defense.

Air Canada strike ends: What's next for passengers? (0:39) Guest: John Gradek, Faculty lecturer and academic coordinator for Supply Networks and Aviation Management at McGill University, and former Director at Air Canada D.I.Y iPhones? Apple introduces new self-service repair program (9:00) Guest: Anthony Rosborough, Assistant professor of Law and computer science at Dalhousie University, and co founder of the Canadian Repair coalition Fraser Downs closure leaves horse racing community in shock (19:42) Guest: David Milburn, President of the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of B.C. How Vancouver's housing struggles inspired a thrilling futuristic action novel (31:42) Guest: John D'Eathe, Developer and author of Broadway Corridor: The Great Social Divide Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why is political rhetoric broken – and how can it be fixed? Words on Fire: Eloquence and Its Conditions (Cambridge University Press, 2022) returns to the origins of rhetoric to recover the central place of eloquence in political thought. Eloquence, for the orators of classical antiquity, emerged from rhetorical relationships that exposed both speaker and audience to risk. Through close readings of Cicero – and his predecessors, rivals, and successors – political theorist and former speechwriter Rob Goodman tracks the development of this ideal, in which speech is both spontaneous and stylized, and in which the pursuit of eloquence mitigates political inequalities. He goes on to trace the fierce disputes over Ciceronian speech in the modern world through the work of such figures as Burke, Macaulay, Tocqueville, and Schmitt, explaining how rhetorical risk-sharing has broken down. Words on Fire offers a powerful critique of today's political language – and shows how the struggle over the meaning of eloquence has shaped our world. The book was the finalist for the C.B. Macpherson Prize from the Canadian Political Science Association. Rob Goodman is an Associate Professor of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University. He was previously a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University and a Core Curriculum instructor at Columbia University. Before starting his doctoral research, he worked as a speechwriter for U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Honer and Senator Chris Dodd. Goodman has published widely in leading academic journals. He has also co-edited ‘Populism, Demagoguery, and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective' published by Oxford University Press, 2024. Goodman is also the author of ‘Not Here' (Simon & Schuster Canada, 2023), a book on democratic erosion in Canada and the United States, which was a finalist for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing from the Writers' Trust of Canada. Ayushi Singh is a graduate student at Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, India. 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

What happens when your first major expedition is one of the world's Seven Summits?In this episode of the World Extreme Medicine Podcast, emergency medicine doctor Ffyon Smith is joined by Kacylia Roy Proulx, a medical student at McGill University and President of her university's Wilderness Medicine Society. Together, they explore Kacylia's experience of climbing Mount Kilimanjaro, from early trail excitement to summit-day exhaustion, team dynamics, and the real-time challenge of acute mountain sickness.This is an honest, insightful conversation about why we climb, how we build mental resilience, and what expedition medicine means to someone just starting out.You'll hear about:The reality of altitude acclimatisation and AMS symptomsNavigating ethical dilemmas on the trailHow expedition teamwork makes or breaks the journeyFinding identity, purpose, and introspection at high altitudeAdvice for medical students looking to break into expedition medicine

Why is political rhetoric broken – and how can it be fixed? Words on Fire: Eloquence and Its Conditions (Cambridge University Press, 2022) returns to the origins of rhetoric to recover the central place of eloquence in political thought. Eloquence, for the orators of classical antiquity, emerged from rhetorical relationships that exposed both speaker and audience to risk. Through close readings of Cicero – and his predecessors, rivals, and successors – political theorist and former speechwriter Rob Goodman tracks the development of this ideal, in which speech is both spontaneous and stylized, and in which the pursuit of eloquence mitigates political inequalities. He goes on to trace the fierce disputes over Ciceronian speech in the modern world through the work of such figures as Burke, Macaulay, Tocqueville, and Schmitt, explaining how rhetorical risk-sharing has broken down. Words on Fire offers a powerful critique of today's political language – and shows how the struggle over the meaning of eloquence has shaped our world. The book was the finalist for the C.B. Macpherson Prize from the Canadian Political Science Association. Rob Goodman is an Associate Professor of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University. He was previously a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University and a Core Curriculum instructor at Columbia University. Before starting his doctoral research, he worked as a speechwriter for U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Honer and Senator Chris Dodd. Goodman has published widely in leading academic journals. He has also co-edited ‘Populism, Demagoguery, and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective' published by Oxford University Press, 2024. Goodman is also the author of ‘Not Here' (Simon & Schuster Canada, 2023), a book on democratic erosion in Canada and the United States, which was a finalist for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing from the Writers' Trust of Canada. Ayushi Singh is a graduate student at Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, India. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Why is political rhetoric broken – and how can it be fixed? Words on Fire: Eloquence and Its Conditions (Cambridge University Press, 2022) returns to the origins of rhetoric to recover the central place of eloquence in political thought. Eloquence, for the orators of classical antiquity, emerged from rhetorical relationships that exposed both speaker and audience to risk. Through close readings of Cicero – and his predecessors, rivals, and successors – political theorist and former speechwriter Rob Goodman tracks the development of this ideal, in which speech is both spontaneous and stylized, and in which the pursuit of eloquence mitigates political inequalities. He goes on to trace the fierce disputes over Ciceronian speech in the modern world through the work of such figures as Burke, Macaulay, Tocqueville, and Schmitt, explaining how rhetorical risk-sharing has broken down. Words on Fire offers a powerful critique of today's political language – and shows how the struggle over the meaning of eloquence has shaped our world. The book was the finalist for the C.B. Macpherson Prize from the Canadian Political Science Association. Rob Goodman is an Associate Professor of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University. He was previously a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University and a Core Curriculum instructor at Columbia University. Before starting his doctoral research, he worked as a speechwriter for U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Honer and Senator Chris Dodd. Goodman has published widely in leading academic journals. He has also co-edited ‘Populism, Demagoguery, and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective' published by Oxford University Press, 2024. Goodman is also the author of ‘Not Here' (Simon & Schuster Canada, 2023), a book on democratic erosion in Canada and the United States, which was a finalist for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing from the Writers' Trust of Canada. Ayushi Singh is a graduate student at Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, India. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Why is political rhetoric broken – and how can it be fixed? Words on Fire: Eloquence and Its Conditions (Cambridge University Press, 2022) returns to the origins of rhetoric to recover the central place of eloquence in political thought. Eloquence, for the orators of classical antiquity, emerged from rhetorical relationships that exposed both speaker and audience to risk. Through close readings of Cicero – and his predecessors, rivals, and successors – political theorist and former speechwriter Rob Goodman tracks the development of this ideal, in which speech is both spontaneous and stylized, and in which the pursuit of eloquence mitigates political inequalities. He goes on to trace the fierce disputes over Ciceronian speech in the modern world through the work of such figures as Burke, Macaulay, Tocqueville, and Schmitt, explaining how rhetorical risk-sharing has broken down. Words on Fire offers a powerful critique of today's political language – and shows how the struggle over the meaning of eloquence has shaped our world. The book was the finalist for the C.B. Macpherson Prize from the Canadian Political Science Association. Rob Goodman is an Associate Professor of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University. He was previously a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University and a Core Curriculum instructor at Columbia University. Before starting his doctoral research, he worked as a speechwriter for U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Honer and Senator Chris Dodd. Goodman has published widely in leading academic journals. He has also co-edited ‘Populism, Demagoguery, and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective' published by Oxford University Press, 2024. Goodman is also the author of ‘Not Here' (Simon & Schuster Canada, 2023), a book on democratic erosion in Canada and the United States, which was a finalist for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing from the Writers' Trust of Canada. Ayushi Singh is a graduate student at Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, India. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

Air Canada flight attendants defy back-to-work order as strike continues (0:43) Guest: John Gradek, Faculty lecturer and academic coordinator for Supply Networks and Aviation Management at McGill University, and former Director at Air Canada Fraser Downs racetrack shuts down after nearly 50 years in Surrey (12:51) Guest: Doug McCallum, former Mayor of Surrey B.C.'s craft distillers call for an end to prohibitive production caps (22:11) Guest: Tyler Dyck, President of the Craft Distillers Guild of B.C. Meta under fire for allowing ‘sensual' AI chats with children (33:16) Guest: Jesse Miller, Social Media Expert and Founder of Mediated Reality Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guest host Saroja Coelho speaks with New York Times White House correspondent Katie Rogers and McGill University political science associate professor Maria Popova about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's meeting in Alaska, The Globe and Mail's architecture critic Alex Bozikovic and environmental journalist Sam Bloch make the case for city shade, aviation expert John Gradek discusses the the Air Canada flight attendant labour dispute, Canadian history professor Alan MacEachern reflects on the evolution of Canada's parks, and Canadian author Vinh Nguyen retraces his family's journey 50 years after the end of the Vietnam War.Discover more at https://www.cbc.ca/sunday

"Our duty as Jewish youth is paving the way for ourselves. Sometimes we may feel alone . . . But the most important thing is for us as youth to pave the way for ourselves, to take action, to speak out. Even if it's hard or difficult.” As American Jewish college students head back to their campuses this fall, we talk to three leaders on AJC's Campus Global Board about how antisemitism before and after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks revealed their resilience and ignited the activist inside each of them. Jonathan Iadarola shares how a traumatic anti-Israel incident at University of Adelaide in Australia led him to secure a safe space on campus for Jewish students to convene. Ivan Stern recalls launching the Argentinian Union of Jewish Students after October 7, and Lauren Eckstein shares how instead of withdrawing from her California college and returning home to Arizona, she transferred to Washington University in St. Louis where she found opportunities she never dreamed existed and a supportive Jewish community miles from home.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Key Resources: AJC Campus Global Board Trusted Back to School Resources from AJC  AJC's 10-Step Guide for Parents Supporting Jewish K-12 Students AJC's Center for Education Advocacy Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  War and Poetry: Owen Lewis on Being a Jewish Poet in a Time of Crisis An Orange Tie and A Grieving Crowd: Comedian Yohay Sponder on Jewish Resilience From Broadway to Jewish Advocacy: Jonah Platt on Identity, Antisemitism, and Israel Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: MANYA: As American Jewish college students head back to their campuses this fall, it's hard to know what to expect. Since the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, maintaining a GPA has been the least of their worries. For some who attend universities that allowed anti-Israel protesters to vandalize hostage signs or set up encampments, fears still linger.  We wanted to hear from college students how they're feeling about this school year. But instead of limiting ourselves to American campuses, we asked three students from AJC's Campus Global Board – from America, Argentina, and Australia – that's right, we still aim for straight A's here. We asked them to share their experiences so far and what they anticipate this year. We'll start on the other side of the world in Australia. With us now is Jonathan Iadarola, a third-year student at the University of Adelaide in Adelaide, Australia, the land down under, where everything is flipped, and they are getting ready to wrap up their school year in November.  Jonathan serves as president of the South Australia branch of the Australian Union of Jewish students and on AJC's Campus Global Board. Jonathan, welcome to People of the Pod. JONATHAN: Thank you for having me. MANYA: So tell us what your experience has been as a Jewish college student in Australia, both before October 7 and after. JONATHAN: So at my university, we have a student magazine, and there was a really awful article in the magazine that a student editor wrote, very critical of Israel, obviously not very nice words. And it sort of ended with like it ended with Death to Israel, glory to the Intifada. Inshallah, it will be merciless. So it was very, very traumatic, obviously, like, just the side note, my great aunt actually died in the Second Intifada in a bus bombing. So it was just like for me, a very personal like, whoa. This is like crazy that someone on my campus wrote this and genuinely believes what they wrote. So yeah, through that experience, I obviously, I obviously spoke up. That's kind of how my activism on campus started. I spoke up against this incident, and I brought it to the university. I brought it to the student editing team, and they stood their ground. They tried to say that this is free speech. This is totally okay. It's completely like normal, normal dialog, which I completely disagreed with.  And yeah, they really pushed back on it for a really long time. And it just got more traumatic with myself and many other students having to go to meetings in person with this student editor at like a student representative council, which is like the students that are actually voted in. Like student government in the United States, like a student body that's voted in by the students to represent us to the university administration.  And though that student government actually laughed in our faces in the meeting while we were telling them that this sort of incident makes us as Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. And we completely were traumatized. Completely, I would say, shattered, any illusion that Jewish students could feel safe on campus. And yeah, that was sort of the beginning of my university journey, which was not great. MANYA: Wow. And that was in 2022, before October 7. So after the terror attacks was when most college campuses here in America really erupted. Had the climate at the University of Adelaide improved by then, or did your experience continue to spiral downward until it was addressed? JONATHAN: It's kind of remained stagnant, I would say. The levels haven't really improved or gotten worse. I would say the only exception was maybe in May 2024, when the encampments started popping up across the world. Obviously it came, came to my city as well. And it wasn't very, it wasn't very great. There was definitely a large presence on my campus in the encampment.  And they were, they were more peaceful than, I would say, other encampments across Australia and obviously in the United States as well. But it was definitely not pleasant for students to, you know, be on campus and constantly see that in their faces and protesting. They would often come into people's classrooms as well. Sharing everything that they would like to say. You couldn't really escape it when you were on campus. MANYA: So how did you find refuge? Was there a community center or safe space on campus? Were there people who took you in?    JONATHAN: So I'm the president of the Jewish Student Society on my campus. One of the things that I really pushed for when the encampments came to my city was to have a Jewish space on campus. It was something that my university never had, and thankfully, we were able to push and they were like ‘Yes, you know what? This is the right time. We definitely agree.' So we actually now have our own, like, big Jewish room on campus, and we still have it to this day, which is amazing.  So it's great to go to when, whether we feel uncomfortable on campus, or whether we just want a place, you know, to feel proud in our Jewish identity. And there's often events in the room. There's like, a Beers and Bagels, or we can have beer here at 18, so it's OK for us. And there's also, yeah, there's bagels. Then we also do Shabbat dinners. Obviously, there's still other stuff happening on campus that's not as nice, but it's great that we now have a place to go when we feel like we need a place to be proud Jews. MANYA: You mentioned that this was the start of your Jewish activism. So, can you tell us a little bit about your Jewish upbringing and really how your college experience has shifted your Jewish involvement, just activity in general? JONATHAN: Yeah, that's a great question. So I actually grew up in Adelaide. This is my home. I was originally born in Israel to an Israeli mother, but we moved, I was two years old when we moved to Adelaide. There was a Jewish school when I grew up. So I did attend the Jewish school until grade five, and then, unfortunately, it did close due to low numbers. And so I had to move to the public school system.  And from that point, I was very involved in the Jewish community through my youth. And then there was a point once the Jewish school closed down where I kind of maybe slightly fell out. I was obviously still involved, but not to the same extent as I was when I was younger. And then I would say the first place I got kind of reintroduced was once I went to college and obviously met other Jewish students, and then it made me want to get back in, back, involved in the community, to a higher level than I had been since primary school.  And yeah, then obviously, these incidents happened on campus, and that kind of, I guess, it shoved me into the spotlight unintentionally, where I felt like no one else was saying anything. I started just speaking up against this. And then obviously, I think many other Jews on campus saw this, and were like: ‘Hang on. We want to also support this and, like, speak out against it.' and we kind of formed a bit of a group on campus, and that's how the club actually was formed as well.  So the club didn't exist prior to this incident. It kind of came out of it, which is, I guess, the beautiful thing, but also kind of a sad thing that we only seem to find each other in incidences of, you know, sadness and trauma. But the beautiful thing is that from that, we have been able to create a really nice, small community on campus for Jewish students.  So yeah, that's sort of how my journey started. And then through that, I got involved with the Australsian Union of Jewish Students, which is the Jewish Student Union that represents Jewish students all across Australia and New Zealand. And I started the South Australian branch, which is the state that Adelaide is in.  And I've been the president for the last three years. So that's sort of been my journey. And obviously through that, I've gotten involved with American Jewish Committee.  MANYA: So you're not just fighting antisemitism, these communities and groups that you're forming are doing some really beautiful things.  JONATHAN: Obviously, I really want to ensure that Jewish student life can continue to thrive in my city, but also across Australia. And one way that we've really wanted to do that is to help create essentially, a national Shabbaton. An event where Jewish students from all across the country, come to one place for a weekend, and we're all together having a Shabbat dinner together, learning different educational programs, hearing from different amazing speakers, and just being with each other in our Jewish identity, very proud and united. It's one of, I think, my most proud accomplishments so far, through my college journey, that I've been able to, you know, create this event and make it happen.  MANYA: And is there anything that you would like to accomplish Jewishly before you finish your college career? JONATHAN: There's a couple things. The big thing for me is ensuring, I want there to continue to be a place on campus for people to go and feel proud in their Jewish identity. I think having a Jewish space is really important, and it's something that I didn't have when I started my college journey. So I'm very glad that that's in place for future generations.  For most of my college journey so far, we didn't have even a definition at my university for antisemitism. So if you don't have a definition, how are you going to be able to define what is and what isn't antisemitic and actually combat it? So now, thankfully, they do have a definition. I don't know exactly if it's been fully implemented yet, but I know that they have agreed to a definition, and it's a mix of IHRA and the Jerusalem Declaration, I believe, so it's kind of a mix. But I think as a community, we're reasonably happy with it, because now they actually have something to use, rather than not having anything at all.  And yeah, I think those are probably the two main things for me, obviously, ensuring that there's that processes at the university moving forward for Jewish students to feel safe to report when there are incidents on campus. And then ensuring that there's a place for Jewish students to continue to feel proud in their Jewish identity and continue to share that and live that while they are studying at the university.  MANYA: Well, Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us, and enjoy your holiday. JONATHAN: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.  MANYA: Now we turn to Argentina, Buenos Aires to be exact, to talk to Ivan Stern, the first Argentine and first Latin American to serve on AJC's Campus Global Board. A student at La Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Ivan just returned to classes last week after a brief winter break down there in the Southern Hemisphere.  What is Jewish life like there on that campus? Are there organizations for Jewish students?  IVAN: So I like to compare Jewish life in Buenos Aires like Jewish life in New York or in Paris or in Madrid. We are a huge city with a huge Jewish community where you can feel the Jewish sense, the Jewish values, the synagogues everywhere in the street. When regarding to college campuses, we do not have Jewish institutions or Jewish clubs or Jewish anything in our campuses that advocate for Jewish life or for Jewish students.  We don't actually need them, because the Jewish community is well established and respected in Argentina. Since our terrorist attacks of the 90s, we are more respected, and we have a strong weight in all the decisions. So there's no specific institution that works for Jewish life on campus until October 7 that we gathered a student, a student led organization, a student led group.  We are now part of a system that it's created, and it exists in other parts of the world, but now we are start to strengthening their programming and activities in Argentina we are we now have the Argentinian union with Jewish students that was born in October 7, and now we represent over 150 Jewish students in more than 10 universities. We are growing, but we are doing Shabbat talks in different campuses for Jewish students. We are bringing Holocaust survivors to universities to speak with administrations and with student cabinets that are not Jewish, and to learn and to build bridges of cooperation, of course, after October 7, which is really important. So we are in the middle of this work. We don't have a strong Hillel in campuses or like in the US, but we have Jewish students everywhere. We are trying to make this grow, to try to connect every student with other students in other universities and within the same university. And we are, yeah, we are work in progress. MANYA: Listeners just heard from your Campus Global Board colleague Jonathan Iadarola from Adelaide, Australia, and he spoke about securing the first  space for Jewish students on campus at the University of Adelaide. Does that exist at your university? Do you have a safe space?  So Hillel exists in Buenos Aires and in Cordoba, which Cordova is another province of Argentina. It's a really old, nice house in the middle of a really nice neighborhood in Buenos Aires. So also in Argentina another thing that it's not like in the U.S., we don't live on campuses, so we come and go every day from our houses to the to the classes. So that's why sometimes it's possible for us to, after classes, go to Hillel or or go to elsewhere. And the Argentinian Union, it's our job to represent politically to the Jewish youth on campus. To make these bridges of cooperation with non-Jewish actors of different college campuses and institutions, as I mentioned before, we bring Holocaust survivors, we place banners, we organize rallies. We go to talk with administrators. We erase pro- Palestinian paints on the wall. We do that kind of stuff, building bridges, making programs for Jewish youth. We also do it, but it's not our main goal. MANYA: So really, it's an advocacy organization, much like AJC. IVAN: It's an advocacy organization, and we are really, really, really happy to work alongside with the AJC more than once to strengthen  our goals. MANYA: October 7 was painful for all of us, what happened on university campuses there in Argentina that prompted the need for a union? So the impact of October 7 in Argentina wasn't nearly as strong as in other parts of the world, and definitely nothing like what's been happening on U.S. campuses. Maybe that's because October here is finals season, and our students were more focused on passing their classes than reacting to what was happening on the Middle East, but there were attempts of engagements, rallies, class disruptions and intimidations, just like in other places. That's why we focused on speaking up, taking action. So here it's not happening. What's happening in the U.S., which was really scary, and it's still really scary, but something was happening, and we needed to react. There wasn't a Jewish institution advocating for Jewish youth on campus, directly, getting to know what Jewish students were facing, directly, lively walking through the through the hallways, through the campus, through the campuses. So that's why we organize this student-led gathering, different students from different universities, universities. We need to do something. At the beginning, this institution was just on Instagram. It was named the institutions, and then for Israel, like my university acronym, it's unsam Universidad national, San Martin unsam. So it was unsam for Israel. So we, so we posted, like every campaign we were doing in our campuses, and then the same thing happened in other university and in other universities. So now we, we gathered everyone, and now we are the Argentinian Union of Jewish students.  But on top of that, in November 2023 students went on summer break until March 2024 so while the topic was extremely heated elsewhere here, the focus had shifted on other things. The new national government was taking office, which had everyone talking more about their policies than about Israel.  So now the issue is starting to resurface because of the latest news from Gaza, So we will go where it goes from here, but the weight of the community here, it's, as I said, really strong. So we have the ability to speak up.  MANYA: What kinds of conversations have you had with university administrators directly after. October 7, and then now, I mean, are you, are you communicating with them? Do you have an open channel of communication? Or is are there challenges? IVAN: we do? That's an incredible question there. It's a tricky one, because it depends on the university. The answer we receive. Of course, in my university, as I said, we are, we are lots of Jews in our eyes, but we are a strong minority also, but we have some Jewish directors in the administration, so sometimes they are really focused on attending to our concerns, and they are really able to to pick a call, to answer back our messages, also, um, there's a there's a great work that Argentina has been, has been doing since 2020 to apply the IHRA definition in every institute, in every public institution. So for example, my university, it's part of the IHRA definition. So that's why it was easy for us to apply sanctions to student cabinets or student organizations that were repeating antisemitic rhetorics, distortioning the Holocaust messages and everything, because we could call to our administrators, regardless if they were Jewish or not, but saying like, ‘Hey, this institution is part of the IHRA definition since February 2020, it's November 2023, and this will be saying this, this and that they are drawing on the walls of the of our classrooms. Rockets with Magen David, killing people. This is distortioning the Jewish values, the religion, they are distortioning everything. Please do something.'  So they started doing something. Then with the private institutions, we really have a good relationship. They have partnerships with different institutions from Israel, so it's easy for us to stop political demonstrations against the Jewish people. We are not against political demonstrations supporting the Palestinian statehood or anything. But when it regards to the safety of Jewish life on campus or of Jewish students, we do make phone calls. We do call to other Jewish institutions to have our back. And yes, we it's we have difficult answers, but we but the important thing is that we have them. They do not ghost us, which is something we appreciate. But sometimes ghosting is worse. Sometimes it's better for us to know that the institution will not care about us, than not knowing what's their perspective towards the problem. So sometimes we receive like, ‘Hey, this is not an antisemitism towards towards our eyes. If you want to answer back in any kind, you can do it. We will not do nothing.  MANYA: Ivan, I'm wondering what you're thinking of as you're telling me this. Is there a specific incident that stands out in your mind as something the university administrators declined to address? IVAN: So in December 2023, when we were all in summer break, we went back to my college, to place the hostages signs on the walls of every classroom. Because at the same time, the student led organizations that were far left, student-led organizations were placing these kind of signs and drawings on the walls with rockets, with the Magen David and demonizing Jews. So we did the same thing. So we went to the school administrators, and we call them, like, hey, the rocket with the Magen David. It's not okay because the Magen David is a Jewish symbol. This is a thing happening in the Middle East between a state and another, you have to preserve the Jewish students, whatever. And they told us, like, this is not an antisemitic thing for us, regardless the IHRA definition. And then they did do something and paint them back to white, as the color of the wall.  But they told us, like, if you want to place the hostages signs on top of them or elsewhere in the university, you can do it. So if they try to bring them down, yet, we will do something, because that this is like free speech, that they can do whatever they want, and you can do whatever that you want. So that's the answers we receive.  So sometimes they are positive, sometimes they are negative, sometimes in between. But I think that the important thing is that the youth is united, and as students, we are trying to push forward and to advocate for ourselves and to organize by ourselves to do something. MANYA: Is there anything that you want to accomplish, either this year or before you leave campus? IVAN: To keep building on the work of the Argentinian Union of Jewish Students is doing bringing Jewish college students together, representing them, pushing our limits, expanding across the country. As I said, we have a strong operations in Buenos Aires as the majority of the community is here, but we also know that there's other Jewish students in other provinces of Argentina. We have 24 provinces, so we are just working in one.  And it's also harder for Jewish students to live Jewishly on campus in other provinces when they are less students. Then the problems are bigger because you feel more alone, because you don't know other students, Jews or non-Jews. So that's one of my main goals, expanding across the country, and while teaming up with non-Jewish partners.  MANYA: You had said earlier that the students in the union were all buzzing about AJC's recent ad in the The New York Times calling for a release of the hostages still in Gaza.Are you hoping your seat on AJC's Campus Global Board will help you expand that reach? Give you some initiatives to empower and encourage your peers. Not just your peers, Argentina's Jewish community at large.  IVAN: My grandma is really happy about the AJC donation to the Gaza church. She sent me a message. If you have access to the AJC, please say thank you about the donation. And then lots of Jewish students in the in our union group chat, the 150 Jewish students freaking out about the AJC article or advice in The New York Times newspaper about the hostages. So they were really happy MANYA: In other words, they they like knowing that there's a global advocacy organization out there on their side? IVAN: Also advocating for youth directly. So sometimes it's hard for us to connect with other worldwide organizations. As I said, we are in Argentina, in the bottom of the world. AJC's worldwide. And as I said several times in this conversation, we are so well established that sometimes we lack of international representation here, because everything is solved internally. So if you have, if you have anything to say, you will go to the AMIA or to the Daya, which are the central organizations, and that's it. And you are good and there. And they may have connections or relationships with the AJC or with other organizations. But now students can have direct representations with organizations like AJC, which are advocating directly for us. So we appreciate it also. MANYA: You said things never got as heated and uncomfortable in Argentina as they did on American college campuses. What encouragement would you like to offer to your American peers?  I was two weeks ago in New York in a seminar with other Jewish students from all over the world and I mentioned that our duty as Jewish youth is paving the way for ourselves. Sometimes we may feel alone. Sometimes we are, sometimes we are not. But the most important thing is for us as youth to pave the way for ourselves, to take action, to speak out. Even if it's hard or difficult. It doesn't matter how little it is, but to do something, to start reconnecting with other Jews, no matter their religious spectrum, to start building bridges with other youth. Our strongest aspect is that we are youth, Not only because we are Jewish, but we are youth. So it's easier for us to communicate with our with other peers. So sometimes when everything is, it looks like hate, or everything is shady and we cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. We should remember that the other one shouting against us is also a peer. MANYA:. Thank you so much, Ivan. Really appreciate your time and good luck going back for your spring semester. IVAN: Thank you. Thank you so much for the time and the opportunity.  MANYA:  Now we return home. Campus Global Board Member Lauren Eckstein grew up outside Phoenix and initially pursued studies at Pomona College in Southern California. But during the spring semester after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks, she transferred to Washington University in St. Louis. She returned to California this summer as one of AJC's Goldman Fellows.  So Lauren, you are headed back to Washington University in St Louis this fall. Tell us what your experience there has been so far as a college student. LAUREN: So I've been there since January of 2024. It has a thriving Jewish community of Hillel and Chabad that constantly is just like the center of Jewish life. And I have great Jewish friends, great supportive non-Jewish friends. Administration that is always talking with us, making sure that we feel safe and comfortable. I'm very much looking forward to being back on campus.  MANYA: As I already shared with our audience, you transferred from Pomona College. Did that have anything to do with the response on campus after October 7? LAUREN: I was a bit alienated already for having spent a summer in Israel in between my freshman and sophomore year. So that would have been the summer of 2023 before October 7, like few months before, and I already lost some friends due to spending that summer in Israel before anything had happened and experienced some antisemitism before October 7, with a student calling a pro-Israel group that I was a part of ‘bloodthirsty baby killers for having a barbecue in celebration of Israeli independence. But after October 7 is when it truly became unbearable. I lost hundreds of followers on Instagram. The majority of people I was friends with started giving me dirty looks on campus. I was a history and politics double major at the time, so the entire history department signed a letter in support of the war. I lost any sense of emotional safety on campus. And so 20 days after October 7, with constant protests happening outside of my dorm, I could hear it from my dorm students going into dining halls, getting them to sign petitions against Israel, even though Israel had not been in Gaza at all at this point. This was all before the invasion happened. I decided to go home for a week for my mental well being, and ended up deciding to spend the rest of that semester at home. MANYA: What did your other Jewish classmates do at Pomona? Did they stay? Did they transfer as well? LAUREN: I would say the majority of Jewish students in Claremont either aren't really–they don't really identify with their Jewish identity in other way, in any way, or most of them identify as anti-Zionist very proudly. And there were probably only a few dozen of us in total, from all five colleges that would identify as Zionists, or really say like, oh, I would love to go to Israel. One of my closest friends from Pomona transferred a semester after I did, to WashU. A few other people I know transferred to other colleges as well. I think the choice for a lot of people were either, I'm going to get through because I only have a year left, or, like, a couple years left, or I'm going to go abroad.  Or I'm just going to face it, and I know that it's going to be really difficult, and I'm only going to have a few friends and only have a few professors I can even take classes with, but I'm going to get through it. MANYA: So have you kept in touch with the friends in Pomona or at Pomona that cut you off, shot you dirty looks, or did those friendships just come to an end? LAUREN: They all came to an end. I can count on one hand, under one hand, the number of people that I talked to from any of the Claremont Colleges. I'm lucky to have one like really, really close friend of mine, who is not Jewish, that stood by my side during all of this, when she easily did not need to and will definitely always be one of my closest friends, but I don't talk to the majority of people that I was friends with at Pomona. MANYA: Well, I'm very sorry to hear that, but it sounds like the experience helped you recognize your truest friend. With only one year left at WashU, I'm sure plenty of people are asking you what you plan to do after you graduate, but I want to know what you are hoping to do in the time you have left on campus. LAUREN: I really just want to take it all in. I feel like I haven't had a very normal college experience. I mean, most people don't transfer in general, but I think my two college experiences have been so different from each other, even not even just in terms of antisemitism or Jewish population, but even just in terms of like, the kind of school it is, like, the size of it and all of that, I have made such amazing friends at WashU – Jewish and not –  that I just really want to spend as much time with them as I can, and definitely spend as much time with the Jewish community and staff at Hillel and Chabad that I can. I'm minoring in Jewish, Islamic, Middle Eastern Studies, and so I'm really looking forward to taking classes in that subject, just that opportunity that I didn't have at Pomona. I really just want to go into it with an open mind and really just enjoy it as much as I can, because I haven't been able to enjoy much of my college experience. So really appreciate the good that I have. MANYA: As I mentioned before, like Jonathan and Ivan, you are on AJC's Campus Global Board. But you also served as an AJC Goldman Fellow in the Los Angeles regional office this summer, which often involves working on a particular project. Did you indeed work on something specific?  LAUREN: I mainly worked on a toolkit for parents of kids aged K-8, to address Jewish identity and antisemitism. And so really, what this is trying to do is both educate parents, but also provide activities and tools for their kids to be able to really foster that strong Jewish identity. Because sadly, antisemitism is happening to kids at much younger ages than what I dealt with, or what other people dealt with.  And really, I think bringing in this positive aspect of Judaism, along with providing kids the tools to be able to say, ‘What I'm seeing on this social media platform is antisemitic, and this is why,' is going to make the next generation of Jews even stronger. MANYA: Did you experience any antisemitism or any challenges growing up in Arizona? LAUREN: I went to a non-religious private high school, and there was a lot of antisemitism happening at that time, and so there was a trend to post a blue square on your Instagram. And so I did that. And one girl in my grade –it was a small school of around 70 kids per grade, she called me a Zionist bitch for posting the square. It had nothing to do with Israel or anything political. It was just a square in solidarity with Jews that were being killed in the United States for . . . being Jewish.  And so I went to the school about it, and they basically just said, this is free speech. There's nothing we can do about it. And pretty much everyone in my grade at school sided with her over it.  I didn't really start wearing a star until high school, but I never had a second thought about it. Like, I never thought, oh, I will be unsafe if I wear this here.  MANYA: Jonathan and Ivan shared how they started Jewish organizations for college students that hadn't existed before. As someone who has benefited from Hillel and Chabad and other support networks, what advice would you offer your peers in Argentina and Australia? LAUREN: It's so hard for me to say what the experience is like as an Argentinian Jew or as an Australian Jew, but I think community is something that Jews everywhere need. I think it's through community that we keep succeeding, generation after generation, time after time, when people try to discriminate against us and kill us. I believe, it's when we come together as a people that we can truly thrive and feel safe.  And I would say in different places, how Jewish you want to outwardly be is different. But I think on the inside, we all need to be proud to be Jewish, and I think we all need to connect with each other more, and that's why I'm really excited to be working with students from all over the world on the Campus Global Board, because I feel like us as Americans, we don't talk to Jews from other countries as much as we should be. I think that we are one people. We always have been and always will be, and we really need to fall back on that. MANYA: Well, that's a lovely note to end on. Thank you so much, Lauren. LAUREN: Thank you. MANYA:  If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Adam Louis-Klein, a PhD candidate at McGill University. Adam shared his unexpected journey from researching the Desano tribe in the Amazon to confronting rising antisemitism in academic circles after October 7. He also discussed his academic work, which explores the parallels between indigenous identity and Jewish peoplehood, and unpacks the politics of historical narrative.  Next week, People of the Pod will be taking a short break while the AJC podcast team puts the finishing touches on a new series set to launch August 28: Architects of Peace: The Abraham Accords Story. Stay tuned.  

This episode is sponsored by: My Financial CoachYou trained to save lives—who's helping you save your financial future? My Financial Coach connects physicians with CFP® Professionals who specialize in your complex needs. Whether it's crushing student loans, optimizing investments, or planning for retirement, you'll get a personalized strategy built around your goals. Save for a vacation home, fund your child's education, or prepare for life's surprises—with unbiased, advice-only planning through a flat monthly fee. No commissions. No conflicts. Just clarity.Visit myfinancialcoach.com/physiciansguidetodoctoring to meet your financial coach and find out if concierge planning is right for you._______________In this episode, host Dr. Bradley Block welcomes Jonathan Jarry to tackle the persistent myth that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. Jarry traces the claim to a 2000 Institute of Medicine report and a 2016 BMJ paper co-authored by Dr. Marty Makary, exposing their flawed extrapolations from small, non-representative studies. He highlights issues like erroneous assumptions, small sample sizes, and the challenge of determining causality in deaths linked to errors. Jarry explains how this inflated statistic fuels fear, drives patients toward unproven alternative treatments, and erodes trust in healthcare. He offers practical ways to push back against the myth while acknowledging the need for improved patient safety systems. This episode is essential for healthcare professionals and patients seeking clarity on medical errors and their true impact.Three Actionable TakeawaysChallenge the Statistic with Facts – When confronted with the claim that medical error is the third leading cause of death, explain that it stems from flawed extrapolations (e.g., 62% of hospital deaths attributed to errors is unrealistic) and cite more reliable estimates (0.6%–5% of hospital deaths).Promote Patient Safety Transparently – Acknowledge medical errors as a real issue but emphasize ongoing efforts to improve safety, like rigorous error reporting systems, to maintain trust without dismissing legitimate concerns.Educate on Context – Share that small, non-representative studies (e.g., Medicare patients or regional data) were misused to inflate error rates, encouraging patients to seek evidence-based care rather than unproven alternatives.About the ShowSucceed In Medicine  covers patient interactions, burnout, career growth, personal finance, and more. If you're tired of dull medical lectures, tune in for real-world lessons we should have learned in med school!About the GuestJonathan Jarry is a science communicator with McGill University's Office for Science and Society (OSS), dedicated to separating sense from nonsense in science. With a background in clinical lab work and podcasting, he tackles pseudoscience and misinformation, making complex topics accessible. His work at OSS, established in 1999, focuses on debunking myths and promoting evidence-based understanding.Website: mcgill.ca/ossBlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jonathanjarry.bsky.socialAbout the host:Dr. Bradley Block – Dr. Bradley Block is a board-certified otolaryngologist at ENT and Allergy Associates in Garden City, NY. He specializes in adult and pediatric ENT, with interests in sinusitis and obstructive sleep apnea. Dr. Block also hosts The Succeed In Medicine  podcast, focusing on personal and professional development for physiciansWant to be a guest?Email Brad at brad@physiciansguidetodoctoring.com  or visit www.physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to learn more!Socials:@physiciansguidetodoctoring on Facebook@physicianguidetodoctoring on YouTube@physiciansguide on Instagram and Twitter  This medical podcast is your physician mentor to fill the gaps in your medical education. We cover physician soft skills, charting, interpersonal skills, doctor finance, doctor mental health, medical decisions, physician parenting, physician executive skills, navigating your doctor career, and medical professional development. This is critical CME for physicians, but without the credits (yet). A proud founding member of the Doctor Podcast Network!Visit www.physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to connect, dive deeper, and keep the conversation going. Let's grow! Disclaimer:This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical, financial, or legal advice. Always consult a qualified professional for personalized guidance.

As the school year kicks off, Adam Louis-Klein shares his unexpected journey from researching the Desano tribe in the Amazon to confronting rising antisemitism in academic circles after October 7. He discusses his academic work, which explores the parallels between indigenous identity and Jewish peoplehood, and unpacks the politics of historical narrative.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  War and Poetry: Owen Lewis on Being a Jewish Poet in a Time of Crisis An Orange Tie and A Grieving Crowd: Comedian Yohay Sponder on Jewish Resilience From Broadway to Jewish Advocacy: Jonah Platt on Identity, Antisemitism, and Israel Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Adam Louis-Klein is a PhD candidate in anthropology at McGill University, where he researches antisemitism, Zionism, Jewish peoplehood, and broader questions of indigeneity and historical narrative. His work bridges academic scholarship and public commentary, drawing on field work with indigenous communities in the Amazon and studies in philosophy at Yale, The New School and the University of Chicago.  He writes on translation and the politics of peoplehood across traditions, and is committed to developing a Jewish intellectual voice grounded in historical depth and moral clarity. He blogs for The Times of Israel, and he's with us today to talk about his experience emerging from the Amazon, where he was doing research after October 7, 2023, and discovering what had happened in Israel. Adam, welcome to People of the Pod. Adam Louis-Klein:   Thank you so much for having me. It's a real pleasure to be here on this podcast with the American Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So tell us about the research that you are doing that took you into the depths of the Amazon rainforest. Adam Louis-Klein:   So I work with a group called the Desano people who live in the Vaupés region, which is a tributary of the upper Rio Negro. Part of it's in Brazil, part of it's in Colombia today. I went there because I was really interested in trying to understand how people were often seen at the margins of the world, the periphery of the global economy. See themselves and their own sort of role in the cosmos and in the world in general.  And what I found actually is that these people see themselves at the center of it all, as a unique people, as a chosen people. And that was something that really inspired me, and later led me to rethink my own relationship to Jewish peoplehood and chosenness, and what it means to be a kind of indigenous people struggling for survival and recognition. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So were you raised Jewish? Did you have a Jewish upbringing? Adam Louis-Klein:   Yeah, I was raised as kind of a cultural and reform Jew. I wouldn't say that Israel was super present in our lives, but we did travel there for my younger brother's Bar Mitzvah at the Kotel, and that did have an impression on me. And then later on, I wear a wristband of Brothers for Life, which is a charity for injured Israeli soldiers. But as time went on, I got involved in these radical academic scenes.  And you know, my own field, anthropology, has fundamentally turned against Jewish peoplehood and Israel, unfortunately. But it was really in the Amazon, actually, that my journey of Teshuvah and rediscovering my Jewishness and the importance of Jewish peoplehood was really re-awoken for me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You were involved in these radical circles. Did you ascribe to some of the beliefs that a lot of your academic colleagues were ascribing to? Did you start to question the legitimacy of Israel or the actions of the Israeli government?  Adam Louis-Klein:   I think I started to ascribe to them in a kind of background and passive way. In the way that I think that many people in these communities do. So I had actually learned about Israel. I did know something. But as I wanted to kind of ascribe to a broader social justice narrative, I sort of immediately assumed when people told me, that Israelis were the ones doing the oppression and the injustice, that that had to be true. And I didn't question it so much.  So it's ironic that those spaces, I think, that are built around critical thought, have become spaces, in my opinion, that are not so critical today. And I think we really need a critical discourse around this kind of criticism, sort of to develop our own critical discourse of what anti-Zionism is today. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what inspired the research? In other words, so you're involved in these radical circles, and then you go and immerse yourself with these tribes to do the research. What inspired you to do it, and was it your Jewishness? Adam Louis-Klein:   So I think what led me to anthropology was probably a kind of diasporic Jewish sensibility. So I'd studied philosophy before, and I was very entrenched in the Western tradition. But I was kind of seeking to think across worlds and think in translation. I've always kind of moved between countries and cities, and I think that's always been an intuitive part of who I am as a Jew.  And anthropology was founded by Jews, by Franz Boas, Emile Durkheim, Claude Lévi-Strauss, so I think that's kind of part of what brought me there. But I ended up rediscovering also the meaning of, you know, homeland as well, and what it means to be part of a people with a unique destiny and relationship to territory and land. And that made me understand Zionism in a completely new light. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And did you understand it when you were there? Did you come to these realizations when you were there, or did you start to piece all of that together and connect the dots after you emerged? Adam Louis-Klein:   So part of my research looks at how indigenous people engage with Christian missionaries who try and translate the Bible into indigenous languages. So when that encounter happens, it's actually quite common throughout the world, that a lot of indigenous people identify with the Jewish people quite strongly. So this might sound a little counterintuitive, especially if someone's used to certain activist networks in which indigeneity is highly associated with Palestinians, Jews are treated now as settler colonists, which is basically the opposite of indigeneity. And that's become a kind of consensus in academia, even though it seems to fly in the face of both facts and our own self understanding as Jews. So I saw that in the Amazon, in the way people at the margins of the world who might not already be integrated in the academic, activist kind of scene, sort of organically identify with the Jewish people and Israel.  And they admire the Jewish people and Israel, because they see in us, a people that's managed to maintain our cultural identity, our specific and distinct civilization, while also being able to use the tools of modernity and technology to benefit us and to benefit the world. So I think that also kind of disrupts some primitivist notions about indigenous people, that they should remain sort of technologically backwards, so to speak. I think that they have a more nuanced approach. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I guess, what did you discover when you did emerge from the Amazon? In other words, October 7 had happened. When did you emerge and how did you find out? Adam Louis-Klein:   So I'd been living in a remote Desano village without internet or a phone or any connection to the outside world for months. And then I returned a couple days after October 7 to a local town, so still in the Amazon, but I was signing onto my computer for the first time in months, and I remember signing onto Facebook and I saw the images of people running from the Nova Festival. And that was the first thing that I saw in months from the world. So that was a very traumatic experience that sort of ruptured my sense of reality in many ways, but the most difficult thing was seeing my intellectual milieu immediately transform into a space of denial or justification or even just straightforward aggression and hate to anyone who showed any solidarity with Israelis in that moment, or who saw it as a moment to to say something positive and inspiring and helpful about the Jewish people. That was actually seen as an act of violence.  So I went to Facebook, and I don't remember exactly what I said, I stand with the Jewish people, or with Israelis, or Am Yisrael Chai, or something like that. And many people in my circles, really interpreted that as an aggression. So at that point, it was really strange, because I'd been living in the Amazon, trying to help people with their own cultural survival, you know, their own struggle to reproduce their own civilization in the face of assimilation and surrounding society that refuses to validate their unique identity. And then I came back to the world, and I was seeing the exact same thing happening to my own people.  And even stranger than that, it was happening to my own people, but in the language of critique and solidarity. So the very language I'd learned in anthropology, of how to support indigenous people and sort of to align myself with their struggles was now being weaponized against me in this kind of horrible inversion of reality. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Had you sensed this aggressive tone prior to your time in the Amazon and when you were involved with these circles? Adam Louis-Klein:   No, I'd never witnessed anything like this in my life, and so it took some real searching and going inward, and I was still in the jungle, but encountering all this anti-Zionist hate online from people I thought were my friends. And I had to really ask myself, you know, maybe I'm in the wrong, because I've never seen people act like . . .  people who are scholars, intellectuals who should be thinking critically about antisemitism. Because antisemitism, you know, we talk a lot about in the academy, critical race theory. So we look at ideologies, tropes, and symbols that are used to dehumanize minority groups, and we learn to be skeptical.  So we learn that there are discourses that speak at times, in languages of reason, of justice, even that are actually biased, structurally biased, against minorities. So then I was deeply confused. Why did these same people not know how to apply those same analytics to Jews? And not only did they not know how, they seemed to think it was offensive to even try. So that was really strange, and I had to kind of think, well, you know, maybe I'm wrong, you know, I think there's a process of they've attempted to sort of stabilize this consensus at such a degree. That Israel is committing genocide, that Israel is a settler colonial entity that is fundamentally evil, basically. And Israelis are fundamentally oppressors. They've created a space it's almost impossible to question them.  And it took me a long time to emerge and to come to that realization that I think anti-Zionism is really a discourse of libel, fundamentally. And these accusations, I wouldn't say, are offered in good faith. And it's unfortunately, not much use to try and refute them. And so instead, I started writing, and I started trying to analyze anti-Zionism itself as an object of critique and as an ideology that we can deconstruct. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So did this change the course of your academic research? In other words, you said you started writing, are you writing academic articles, or is it more The Times of Israel blog and your more public writings? Adam Louis-Klein:   So I've been writing publicly. I started writing on Facebook, and then the readership on Facebook started to grow, and then I sent it to the Times of Israel. And I do have some plans lined up to try and get this material out in the academic context as well. Because I think that's really important, that we build parallel academic spaces and our own language of academic legitimacy. Because I think that academic language, and as well, that kind of activist language, critique of oppression is valuable, but it's also culturally hegemonic today. And so I think that as Jews, if we abandon that language, we will have trouble telling our story. So I think there are also projects like this. I'd like to mention the London Center for the Study of contemporary antisemitism. I think that's a great model. So they're doing serious academic work on contemporary antisemitism, not just classical antiSemitism, which we're all familiar with, Neo Nazis, etc. You know, what does it look like today? You know, red triangles, Hamas headbands. This is a new language of hate that I think we need to be on top of. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In fact, you presented a paper recently, there, correct, at the London Center, or at a conference sponsored by the London Center? Adam Louis-Klein:   Yeah, I did. I presented a paper. It was called the Dissolving the Denotational Account of Antisemitism. So denotational means, what words refer to. Because what I found very often is that it's a trope that's become really familiar now. Anti-Zionists, they say, we don't hate Jews, we only hate Zionists. We don't hate Judaism, we hate Zionism. We're not antisemitic, we're critical of Israel.  So these distinctions that are made are all about saying, you can't point to us as attacking Jews, because our language is such that we are denoting we are referring to something else. So in my talk, I was trying to explain that I like look at anti-Zionism more like a symbolic anthropologist. So when an anthropologist goes and works with an indigenous culture, we look at the kinds of symbols that they use to articulate their vision of the world. The Jaguar, for example, becomes a symbol of certain kinds of potency or predation, for example. So I look at anti-Zionism in the same way. It's not important to me whether they think they're referring to Israel or Jews. What's important to me is the use of conspiratorial symbols, or a symbol of child killing, for example. So we see that classical antisemitism accused Jews of killing children. Anti-Zionism today constructs Israelis as bloodthirsty and desiring to kill children. So when we see that, we see that even if they say not Jews, Zionists, they're using similar symbols that have mutated. So I think that's what I'm trying to track, is both the mutation of classical antisemitism into anti-Zionism, and also the continuities between the two. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did you ever experience antisemitism from your academic circles or really anywhere in life through from childhood on? Adam Louis-Klein:   Not particularly. So I went to a northeastern prep school, and we were, there were very few Jews, so I think we were sort of seen as another to the kind of traditional northeast New England aristocracy. But it wasn't something that overt, I would say. I think that antisemitism is something that occurs more so in cycles. So if you look at the 19th century, emancipation of Jews and integration of Jews into society, that was the up part of the cycle, and then the reaction to that came on the down part of the cycle. So unfortunately, I think we're in the same thing today.  So Jews have very successfully assimilated into American society and became very successful and integrated into American society. But now we're seeing the backlash. And the backlash is taking a new form, which is anti-Zionism, which allows itself to evade what classical antisemitism looks like, and what we're used to identifying as classical antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I do want to talk about the word indigenous or indigeneity. Jews celebrate the creation of Israel as a return to their indigenous homeland, and Palestinians also consider it their indigenous homeland. So how are their definitions of indigeneity, how are those definitions different or distinct? I mean, how are their experiences distinct from each other's and from the people and the tribes with whom you immersed yourself in the Amazon? Adam Louis-Klein:   So I think indigeneity, in its fundamental meaning, captures something very real that's common to tons of different groups across the world. Which is a certain conception of the way that one's genealogical ancestry is connected to a specific territory where one emerged as a people, and through which one's own peoplehood  is defined. So as Jews, our own peoplehood is connected to the land of Israel. It's the Promised Land, it's the place where our civilization first flourished, and it's the place we've always looked to return to. And so that is very similar to indigenous groups around the world.  Now, at the same time, I think there's another concept of indigeneity that gets thrown in and sometimes confuses the issue a little bit, and that's that being indigenous relates to a specific history of dispossession, usually by European colonialism, starting in the 16th century. Now, in fact, there have been many colonialism throughout history. So there have been Islamic civilization practiced widespread colonialism. The Romans practiced colonialism. The Babylonians. But there is a tendency to only look at this form of colonialism.  And now when we look at the Middle East, what we find then is these analytics are becoming confused and applied in strange ways. So we see that Palestinians, for example, their genealogical traditions, they understand themselves as tribally derived from tribes in Arabia that expanded with Muhammad's conquest, and that's very common. And Arabian culture and Arabic language is what they practice.  And so at that level, from a factual perspective, Palestinians are not indigenous in the genealogical sense. However, there's a tendency to believe, since Jews have a state today, then since they appear not as dispossessed, because Jews have actually repossessed our ancestral land, that Jews can't be indigenous. But so I think that's a confusion. The basic understanding of what indigenous means, and largely what the UN definition is based on, is this notion of continuous identification with the territory.  So I really think that this isn't so much a question of who can live where. I think Palestinians' right to live in the land has largely been recognized by the UN Partition Plan in 1947, or the Oslo Accords, and other peace deals, but it's a question of conceptual clarity and fact. And so at this level, I believe that the UN and other institutions should formally recognize Jews as indigenous to the land of Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You have written, and I want to read this line, because it's so rich you have written that the recursive logic of an antiSemitic consensus builds upon itself, feeds on moral certainty, and shields its participants from having to ask whether what they are reproducing is not justice at all, but a new iteration of a very old lie. I. So are there other examples of that phenomenon in academia, either currently or in the past? Adam Louis-Klein:   So what I was trying to grasp with that was my sense of despair in seeing that it was impossible to even point to people, point people to fact within academia, or debate these issues, or explain to non Jews who Jews even are. So I got the sense that people are talking quite a lot about Jews, but don't seem to really care about our voices.  So some of that writing that you're quoting is an attempt to understand anti Zionism, not just not only as libel, but also as a kind of practice of exclusion, where Jews feel silenced in spaces. And where, where for all the talk of Academic Freedom versus antisemitism, which I think can sometimes be a tricky issue, I believe that Jews own academic freedom has fundamentally been violated by this discourse so that recursive logic is the way rumor and repeating slogans and repeating notions, regardless of their factual content, like the Jews or settler colonists, sort of builds on itself, as well as on social media, with this algorithmic escalation until it's almost impossible to talk back to it.  So an example would be in 2024 the American Anthropological Association had its big conference, and the Gaza genocide was the main theme. But it wasn't a theme we were all going to go and debate. It was a theme that we assumed was true, and we were going to talk about it as a thing in the world, and then the Society for cultural anthropology released an issue with the exact same premise.  It was glorifying Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and Nasrallah of Hezbollah. And then, interestingly enough, just the other day, they released another edition, which was about settler colonialism, and saying, We want to come back to this issue and and reaffirm that settler colonialism applies to Israel and Palestine against people who are attacking the concept, and we're against the exceptionalization of Israel in their terms.  And so I searched through the document, but I couldn't find anywhere where Jews were talked about as indigenous, not even as a fact, but even as a claim. I couldn't find anywhere in this journal where Jew it was even acknowledged that Jews might believe that we are indigenous. So it's almost as if the very notion is just completely erased by consciousness within academia. Which is quite frightening. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And do you feel able to push back on that. In other words, as a fellow anthropologist, are you able to ask, why is this omitted from this paper, from this journal? Adam Louis-Klein:   No, because they will simply ignore you. So that's why I believe these parallel spaces are so important and what I see my work trying to do is to help build a Jewish intellectual discourse. And unfortunately, I think we have to start a little bit internally. So we've been somewhat ghettoized.  But if we build up that space, and construct these spaces where we have, where we can share the same premises and we don't have to argue from the bottom up every time. I think that will give us strength and also more clarity on our own understanding of what's happening. You know, both of the level of what is anti-Zionism, what is this new discourse? And at the level of, how can we speak from Jewish peoplehood as a legitimate place to even theorize from or build academic theories from. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned earlier that you held on to doubt. You kept open the possibility that Israel is in the wrong here, and you were watching for, looking for signs or evidence that your colleagues were correct. But as you've watched the horrors unfold, and wondered to yourself whether maybe Israel isn't really defending itself, why have you not concluded that that is indeed the case? Why have you reached the opposite conclusion? Adam Louis-Klein:   Yeah, so I talked earlier about using, like a critical race theory analysis, so thinking about ideologies and the kind of tropes they're using and the way they're talking about Israelis, but I think that's only one part of the picture. So what I noticed is, one, they didn't want to do that kind of analysis, but two, they also weren't interested in empirical fact. So when I would sometimes try and do that analysis like this. This sounds like antisemitic, right? They would say, oh, but it's true. Israel is doing this stuff. Israel is intentionally killing Palestinian children. Israel is going completely beyond the laws of war. This is a genocide of unique proportions. Completely irrational and exaggerated statements.  They also didn't want to engage with fact. I spent a lot of time digging up the sources of this material, given disinformation. For example, the Al-Ahli incident, where it was claimed by the Hamas health ministry that Israel had intentionally bombed the Al-Ahli hospital, killing 500 people. Al Jazeera promoted it. Western outlets also promoted it, and I had people all over my wall attacking me, saying that I'm justifying this by standing with Israel. And I saw what happened after, which was that they looked into it. The casualty count was tragic, but it was far lower than reported. It was about 50 people, and it was an Islamic Jihad rocket, so Israel was not even responsible.  So I think that any rational person who sees what happened in that incident becomes skeptical of everything else they're being told and of the information circuits. And so when I also saw that the people who were talking about the Gaza genocide, weren't seemed completely unfazed by that. That made me have to rethink also what they were doing, because if they're unfazed by something like that, that suggests this isn't a truth that they're being forced to acknowledge, it sounds a bit more like a truth that has its own sort of incentive to believe in despite fact, rather than being pushed towards it because of fact. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I'm curious, if you went back to the people that you had been immersed with and had been studying for the matter of months before October 7, did you go back to them and tell them what had happened, or did they somehow know what had happened? And I'm just curious if there was any kind of response from them? Adam Louis-Klein:   Interesting. Yeah, I speak with them regularly, on a regular basis. They don't know exactly what's happened. I think they see sometimes news, but it's largely their understanding, is that there's a lot of wars in the Western world. And they ask why? Why is there so much war? Why is there so much suffering?  I mean, they were particularly interested in in the Ukraine war, because they couldn't wrap their head around why Putin was doing this, which I think is pretty similar to a lot of people, but they do see, some of them see Israel as kind of, you know, a figure of strength, and compare Israel almost to their own notions of ancestral, sort of potency or power. So they have a very different understanding of the relationship between, let's say, power and victimhood. They don't necessarily fetishize being powerless. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Tell me a little bit about this tribe, these people that you spent time with.  Adam Louis-Klein: So the Desano there, they're one of a number of many ethnicities who inhabit the Northwest Amazonian region in northwest Brazil and southeast Columbia. They live in an extremely complex world in which there are over 25 languages in the region. And they have a very unique form of marriage, where you have to marry someone who speaks a different language than you. And so any community has a kind of nucleus of people who speak the same language, and they're from the same tribe. But the women in the community all speak different languages and come from different tribes.  So I think it's a kind of space where you have to think across difference. You're constantly confronted with people who are other than you, who are from different tribes and different communities, as well as the relationship between the Western world and the indigenous world itself. And I think that's really part of the promise of anthropology, like coming back to what I was saying earlier about a diasporic Jewish sensibility, I think it's also just a Jewish sensibility. Part of being a distinct people is that we need to think with other people, and I think that includes Muslims and Arabs and Christians as well. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That is such an enlightened approach that they have taken to marriage. Isn't that what marriage is all about, crossing those differences and figuring out and they just do it from the very beginning. And I'm also curious, though, are they also mixing with Western cultures. In other words, have they broadened that, or do they keep it within those villages? Adam Louis-Klein:   Yeah, so they've taken on a lot of features of the surrounding, Colombian Spanish language culture, and that is the struggle today. Because there's a lot of economic pressures to move to the towns and the cities in order to get work and employment. And that can pose problems to the reproduction of the traditional village community.  And so that's part of what we've been struggling with and part of the project with them. So we're currently translating an old book about anthropology, about them into their language, so they have the Bible, which was translated into the language by missionaries. And now we also want to translate their own cultural material into their language so that can help them preserve the language and preserve their own cultural knowledge. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what's next for you, Adam? Adam Louis-Klein:   So I'm hoping to continue writing and to continue getting out this work. I'm hoping to also work with grassroots organizers to try to put some activist meat onto this opposition to anti-Zionism. So I believe that, as I was talking about parallel academic spaces are really important, I also think it's important to be able to speak back to anti-Zionism with activist language. Not only the academic side, but the activist side. So I'm working with the group now, a decentralized group, developing infographics, memes, things that can circulate to educate people about anti-Zionism as the new form of antisemitism today. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you for taking on this work and for sharing your story. Adam Louis-Klein:   Thank you so much. It was a pleasure.  

Listen to 124 Future Now Podcast I have known Drs. Stephen Sideroff and Hal Myers since I was an undergraduate at McGill University in the 1970’s, when Hal & I were in Stephen’s Psych class on designing the protocols for our various science experiments. Not just a student, Hal had just started a company called “Thought Technology,” and was designing equipment for monitoring and influencing human biosignals with one’s awareness, for better health. It was the dawn of bio/neuro feedback thinking in psychology and medicine, with Hal scribbling out schematics for new devices at his seat while Stephan taught us how best to test the effectiveness of our tech and ideas. Who would have guessed that the three of us would vacation together 50 years down the timeline, where Hal has 40 employess at Thought Tech, and Stephen is a professor at UCLA and  internationally recognized psychologist. His latest book is “The 9 Pillars of Resilience, The Proven Path to Master Stress, Slow Aging, and Increase Vitality.” Enjoy! Drs. Stephen Sideroff and Hal Myers on vacation on Myers Island

On this episode, Nathan Goodman interviews political theorist Jacob Levy about the rule of law and its tensions with modern immigration enforcement. Drawing on his 2018 article, “The rule of law and the risks of lawlessness,” Levy explains that the rule of law requires laws to be general, predictable, and applied equally. Referencing thinkers like Montesquieu, Fuller, Hayek, Oakeshott, and Shklar, Levy argues that immigration control often violates these principles, especially when it involves militarized policing, extrajudicial punishment, and fear-based governance, which ultimately threatens both civil liberties and democratic institutions.Dr. Jacob T. Levy is Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory and associated faculty in the Department of Philosophy at McGill University. He is the coordinator of McGill's Research Group on Constitutional Studies and was the founding director of McGill's Yan P. Lin Centre for the Study of Freedom and Global Orders in the Ancient and Modern Worlds. He is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center. He is the author of The Multiculturalism of Fear (Oxford University Press, 2000) and Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2014).If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Virtual Sentiments, a podcast series from the Hayek Program, is streaming. Subscribe today and listen to season three, releasing now!Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium

Telescopes are like light buckets. The bigger the telescope, the more light collected for astronomers to observe. With recent advances in technology, amateur astronomers can join professionals for a chance to observe stellar nurseries and exoplanets many light-years away. But as our capabilities increase, so do the mysteries, including those around high-energy bursts coming from an otherwise unremarkable part of the universe. Understanding fast radio bursts could turn physics on its head. From the Vera Rubin Telescope in Chile to the backyard instruments of amateur astronomers, we share what new things we might learn about stars, the Earth, exoplanets, and the potential for life on other worlds. Guests: Clare Higgs – Astronomer working with the public outreach team for the Vera Rubin Observatory Franck Marchis – Senior astronomer and director of citizen science at the SETI Institute, chief science officer and co-founder of Unistellar Amanda Cook – Postdoctoral fellow at McGill University and member of the CHIME/FRB Collaboration Featuring music by Dewey Dellay and Jun Miyake You can get early access to ad-free versions of every episode by joining us on Patreon. Thanks for your support! Big Picture Science is part of the Airwave Media podcast network. Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com to inquire about advertising on Big Picture Science. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Zahra Sabri comes on TPE to discuss Workplace harassment, IBA, her case and the Urdu debate.Zahra Sabri is a Karachi-based academic who teaches Indo-Muslim History and Literatures. She received her MA degree from the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies at Columbia University in the City of New York through a Fulbright Scholarship. She has taught History and Urdu Language and Literature at universities such as McGill University, Canada (where she pursued doctoral work at the Institute of Islamic Studies), IBA Karachi, the Aga Khan University, Pakistan, Habib University, and the University of Karachi's Pakistan Study Centre. Her research focuses on Mughal History and the influence of the Persianate on Indo-Muslim languages, cultures, and traditions of learning, as well as on politics of identity centred around Urdu in South Asia. She is the curator of Koozah -- an anthology of Urdu short stories by new and little-known Pakistani writers (Oxford University Press, 2015). She is a literary translator, and has translated folk and classical poetry from almost a dozen Pakistani languages for eleven seasons of the popular music programme Coke Studio, Pakistan. She has also worked as a journalist for the Herald magazine (Dawn), winning the Zubeida Mustafa Award for Journalistic Excellence (2013) and has contributed articles to Pakistan's national press on diverse political and educational issues.The Pakistan Experience is an independently produced podcast looking to tell stories about Pakistan through conversations. Please consider supporting us on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceTo support the channel:Jazzcash/Easypaisa - 0325 -2982912Patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceAnd Please stay in touch:https://twitter.com/ThePakistanExp1https://www.facebook.com/thepakistanexperiencehttps://instagram.com/thepakistanexpeperienceThe podcast is hosted by comedian and writer, Shehzad Ghias Shaikh. Shehzad is a Fulbright scholar with a Masters in Theatre from Brooklyn College. He is also one of the foremost Stand-up comedians in Pakistan and frequently writes for numerous publications. Instagram.com/shehzadghiasshaikhFacebook.com/Shehzadghias/Twitter.com/shehzad89Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC44l9XMwecN5nSgIF2Dvivg/joinChapters:0:00 Introduction2:15 Story of the IBA lecturer harassment case47:47 Workplace Harassment, the Law and the Process52:55 Careerism and Old boys clubs1:00:00 Ombudsman ruling and the process after1:04:00 Publications1:10:30 The Urdu Debate1:13:48 Languages evolve1:17:30 Teaching Urdu and different styles of Urdu1:29:00 India Policy and Hindi1:31:25 Urdu vs Bengali1:40:00 Press Releases

“Pandemics are a political choice. We will not be able to prevent every disease outbreak or epidemic but we can prevent an epidemic from becoming a pandemic,” says Dr. Joanne Liu, the former International President of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders and a professor in the School of Population and Global Health at McGill University. You are in for a lot of that sort of frank and clear-eyed analysis in this episode of Raise the Line from Dr. Liu, whose perspective is rooted in decades of experience providing medical care on the frontlines of major humanitarian and health crises across the globe, as well as wrangling with world leaders to produce more effective responses to those crises and to stop attacks on medical facilities and aid workers in conflict zones. Firsthand accounts from the bedside to the halls of power are captured in her new book Ebola, Bombs and Migrants, which focuses on the most significant issues during her tenure leading MSF from 2013-2019.  The book also contains insights about the geopolitical realities that hamper this work, including lax enforcement of international humanitarian law, and a focus on national security that erodes global solidarity. Join host Lindsey Smith as she interviews this leading voice on our preparedness to meet the needs of those impacted by violent conflict, forced migration, natural disasters, disease outbreaks and other grave challenges. If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/raisethelinepodcast

Harness the power of suggestion for well-being, pain management, and mental health.   Dr. Amir Raz is a world-renowned expert on the science of suggestion with recent positions as Canada Research Chair, Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology and Neurosurgery, and Psychology at McGill University, and as Founding Director of The Institute for Interdisciplinary Brain and Behavioral Sciences at Chapman University. His most recent book is The Suggestible Brain: The Science and Magic of How We Make Up Our Minds. In this episode we talk about: How Dr. Raz transitioned from a career in magic to neuroscience  The science of suggestibility, how it's defined, and its relation to hypnosis  Stage  hypnosis vs medical hypnosis How the power of suggestion could be  therapeutically harnessed to impact our physiology, behavior, and well-being Practical exercises for increasing thought control The "magical ingredient" when it comes to dealing with life's challenges Why placebos may work even when you know you're taking them How we protect ourselves against mis–and–disinformation And much more   Join Dan's online community here Follow Dan on social: Instagram, TikTok Subscribe to our YouTube Channel To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/10HappierwithDanHarris.

Can reading King Lear help us rethink economic policy? Can Measure for Measure shape how we talk about justice, or Hamlet help us face grief? That's the idea behind an ambitious project at Montreal's McGill University called Reimagining Shakespeare, Remaking Modern World Systems. Led by Laurette Dubé, professor emerita of management, and Paul Yachnin, professor of Shakespeare studies, the initiative brings together experts in economics, health policy, AI,  and robotics, with theater and literary artists and humanities scholars, to explore how Shakespeare's plays can help us think more humanely—and creatively—about the systems we inhabit. In this episode, Dubé and Yachnin discuss how Shakespeare's theater created a space where money, power, and empathy intersected—and why those same plays may hold insights for addressing today's most complex challenges, reminding us of how the humanities can help us build a better future. From the Shakespeare Unlimited podcast. Published July 15, 2025. © Folger Shakespeare Library. All rights reserved. This episode was produced by Matt Frassica. Garland Scott is the executive producer. It was edited by Gail Kern Paster. We had help with web production from Paola García Acuña. Leonor Fernandez edits our transcripts. Final mixing services are provided by Clean Cuts at Three Seas, Inc.