Podcasts about new york times editorial board

Are you ready to change the clock on Sunday? Is springing forward or falling back still an idea worth practicing? Those ready to end Daylight Savings argue it is inconvenient and has negative health and productivity effects. Those who want to keep Daylight Savings argue the time change's effects are temporary and helps improve our quality of life. Now we debate: Is It Time to End Daylight Savings Time?      Arguing Yes: Joan Costa-i-Font, Health Economist at the London School of Economics   Arguing No: Binyamin Applebaum, Member of the New York Times Editorial Board    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Trump administration's fight against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs is underway, and it's proving to be even broader and further-reaching than anticipated. What's at stake for these programs—and why are so many Americans glad to see them go? Guest: Farah Stockman, member of the New York Times Editorial Board, author of American Made: What Happens to People When Work Disappears Want more What Next? Join Slate Plus to unlock full, ad-free access to What Next and all your other favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the What Next show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trump administration's fight against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs is underway, and it's proving to be even broader and further-reaching than anticipated. What's at stake for these programs—and why are so many Americans glad to see them go? Guest: Farah Stockman, member of the New York Times Editorial Board, author of American Made: What Happens to People When Work Disappears Want more What Next? Join Slate Plus to unlock full, ad-free access to What Next and all your other favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the What Next show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trump administration's fight against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs is underway, and it's proving to be even broader and further-reaching than anticipated. What's at stake for these programs—and why are so many Americans glad to see them go? Guest: Farah Stockman, member of the New York Times Editorial Board, author of American Made: What Happens to People When Work Disappears Want more What Next? Join Slate Plus to unlock full, ad-free access to What Next and all your other favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the What Next show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:05pm- At one point during Tuesday night's Vice-Presidential debate, moderators Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan attempted to “fact check” J.D. Vance with inaccurate information. Vance corrected the moderators and also noted that all parties had agreed to not issuing real-time fact checks—CBS quickly responded by muting his microphone. During MSNBC's post-debate coverage, host Nicolle Wallace said that it was “mansplaining” and sexist for Vance to correct the moderators despite the fact they had broken the rules and were using misleading information. 5:10pm- Even Mainstream Media Believes Vance Won Debate. The New York Times Editorial Board—which endorsed Kamala Harris earlier this week—said they believe J.D. Vance won Tuesday's Vice-Presidential debate. Similarly, CNN's Abby Phillip said Vance successfully landed “a bunch of punches” on Tim Walz. NBC's Kristen Welker said she received text messages from “panicked” Democrats following Walz's performance. 5:15pm- On Wednesday, Department of Justice appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a 165-page claim that former President Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution and that his actions following the 2020 presidential election were “private criminal conduct.” 5:30pm- Rich breaks ANOTHER studio microphone. According to our tally, this is at least the 3rd time in 2024. Will engineering kick him out of the building? 5:40pm- Biden Admin Empowers Venezuelan Dictator. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes: “Treasury hasn't revoked its 2022 general license for Chevron Corp. to export oil from Venezuela. Chevron's production is generating more than $100 million a month in income to the Maduro regime. We don't usually say this, but Mr. Biden might listen to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. The Democrat has drafted legislation that he says would ‘immediately halt investment by United States persons in the energy sector of Venezuela until the legitimate results of the July 28, 2024, election are respected.'” You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/joe-biden-venezuela-election-nicolas-maduro-edmundo-gonzalez-urrutia-dick-durbin-oil-sanctions-bb4041ac?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

The New York Times Editorial Board has published a piece detailing why Donald Trump is unfit to retake the reigns of federal power and why he poses an extreme danger to American Democracy. The piece is broken down into five parts: "Moral Fitness Matters", "Principled Leadership Matters", "Character Matters", "A President's Words Matters," and "The Rule of Law Matters". Or, put another way Justice Matters. Glenn does a deep dive into this new opinion piece and discusses the opportunity the American people have to serve as the final jury that will sit in judgment of Donald Trump.Here is the link to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/11/opinion/editorials/donald-trump-2024-unfitIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The New York Times Editorial Board has published a piece detailing why Donald Trump is unfit to retake the reigns of federal power and why he poses an extreme danger to American Democracy. The piece is broken down into five parts: "Moral Fitness Matters", "Principled Leadership Matters", "Character Matters", "A President's Words Matters," and "The Rule of Law Matters". Or, put another way Justice Matters. Glenn does a deep dive into this new opinion piece and discusses the opportunity the American people have to serve as the final jury that will sit in judgment of Donald Trump.Here is the link to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/11/opinion/editorials/donald-trump-2024-unfitIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Mara Gay, a member of the New York Times Editorial Board, returned to the show to discuss key themes in national and New York politics, including President Biden's status and the presidential election, leadership from Governor Hochul and Mayor Adams, and more. (Episode 455)

The New York Times Editorial Board is calling on President Biden to leave the race for the White House after his performance at CNN's presidential debate. This as Biden's campaign insisted he will not drop out of the race, but fractures between those in the president's orbit insisting on trudging forward and the broader Democratic world seeking a last-minute change were growing after Biden's disastrous debate performance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Journalist, writer - 30 year veteran of The New York Times Editorial Board and a former fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice - Dorothy Samuels is the best person to talk with about federal courts, the Supreme Court's recent activities, and politics.

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act in a case called Haaland v. Brackeen. The decision comes almost exactly 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, which planted the seed for last week's big ruling. To mark the new landmark decision, More Perfect re-airs the Radiolab episode that tells the story of two families, a painful history, and a young girl caught in the middle. Voices in the episode include: • Allison Herrera — KOSU Indigenous Affairs reporter • Matt and Melanie Capobianco — Veronica's adoptive parents • Dusten Brown — Veronica's biological father • Mark Fiddler — attorney for the Capobiancos • Marcia Zug — University of South Carolina School of Law professor • Bert Hirsch — attorney formerly of the Association on American Indian Affairs • Chrissi Nimmo — Deputy Attorney General for Cherokee Nation • Terry Cross — founding executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (now serving as senior advisor) • Lori Alvino McGill — attorney for Christy Maldonado, Veronica's biological mother Learn more: • 2013: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl • 2023: Haaland v. Brackeen • "Baby Veronica belongs with her adoptive parents" by Christy Maldonado • "Doing What's Best for the Tribe" by Marcia Zug • "The Court Got Baby Veronica Wrong" by Marcia Zug • "A Wrenching Adoption Case" by The New York Times Editorial Board • National Indian Child Welfare Association • In Trust podcast, reported by Allison Herrera   Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Mara Gay of The New York Times Editorial Board joined the show to discuss the outcomes of the 2022 New York congressional primaries and the Board's endorsements.

On today's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Co-Founder and Editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. They start off breaking down the Supreme Court's official opinion on Dobbs, which overturns Roe v. Wade. They discuss how we got here, the immediate repercussions on Washington and the country, and what we can do about it. Next, they look at the motivations behind Seattle Pride's decision to ask for no uniformed police to participate in this year's festivities. In housing news, they question Mayor Harrell's decision to veto a bill from the City Council asking landlords to report how much rent they charge, and look at what's next for Seattle's Social Housing Initiative now that it's gathered enough votes to qualify for the November ballot. Finally, they discuss the reasoning behind Gov. Inslee signaling that he's not interested in following Biden's lead in creating a gas tax holiday in Washington state.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Abortion Funds: Northwest Abortion Access Fund - https://nwaafund.org/donate    Planned Parenthood of the Greater Northwest - https://www.weareplannedparenthood.org/onlineactions/cOJVhOyrzkq4uBcxVekXFA2?sourceid=1000065&affiliateID=091810&_ga=2.195968876.195061633.1656097315-413517584.1656097315    National Network of Abortion Funds - https://secure.actblue.com/donate/supportabortionfunds?refcode=nnafwebsite  –--------------- “What the end of Roe v. Wade means for Washington state” by Melissa Santos from Axios:  https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/06/24/end-roe-v-wade-means-washington-state    “Democrats seek to stop hospital mergers that limit abortion access” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/06/22/democrats-stop-hospital-mergers-limit-abortions    “Seattle Police officers won't march in pride parade, frustrated chief says” by Anika Varty from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/uniformed-seattle-police-officers-will-not-march-at-seattle-pride-parade/        “Harrell vetoes plan to require Seattle landlords to report the rent they charge” by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times:  https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/harrell-vetoes-plan-to-require-seattle-landlords-to-report-the-rent-they-charge/   “Social Housing Initiative Pushes Forward, Fact Checking-Harrell on Homelessness” from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/06/23/social-housing-initiative-pushes-forward-fact-checking-harrell-on-homelessness/    “A Photo-Finish for Seattle's Social Housing Initiative” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/22/75442679/a-photo-finish-for-seattles-social-housing-initiative    “Inslee signals no interest in WA gas tax ‘holiday'; others skeptical too” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/inslee-signals-no-interest-in-a-wa-gas-tax-holiday-others-skeptical-too/    Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you like the show, please feel free to leave us a good review. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's cohost: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, cohost of the Seattle Nice podcast and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. [00:01:02] Erica Barnett: Hey Crystal. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Hey, Erica. Well, it's been a morning. [00:01:09] Erica Barnett: It sure has. [00:01:12] Crystal Fincher: Because the overturning of the Roe vs Wade decision is now official. The Supreme Court, with the Dobbs decision, has ended the right to abortion for women in this country and signaled a potential end to other critical rights that are pretty basic and fundamental. And it's just rough. Where are you at with this? [00:01:44] Erica Barnett: Yeah. I tweeted out this morning, because if you're not on Twitter, do you even exist? I said basically - don't interpret the silence of people who re suffering today and who will continue to suffer because of the end of abortion rights - don't interpret our silence as consent or believing that this is okay. We've been screaming our heads off about this for years and no one listened. And now all of a sudden, everybody is screaming too. Boy, with the way I'm describing this, is way too long for a tweet. I said something much more pithy, but basically - look, I am feeling overwhelmed, but I'm also not in the state of shock that the New York Times Editorial Board appears to be, or a lot of mainstream pundits appear to be, because we knew this was coming. And we knew it was coming long before the Supreme Court even took up this case, and before the the leaked opinion - this is part of the theocracy that I would argue started long before Trump, but certainly accelerated with Trump - an illegitimate president installing Supreme Court justices for life, so I'm feeling - emotionally, I'm feeling pretty numb. But yeah, that is not by any means, it's not meant to imply that I am okay with this, or complacent, or anything of the sort. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: Of course. [00:03:19] Erica Barnett: I'm very upset. I'm just so upset, I can't - I can barely talk about it. [00:03:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I think a lot of us are in a similar situation - certainly, there is, I will say there is, some frustration that I feel with people who are shocked about this right now, or even shocked about it when the opinion leak came out. I get how people land there, so I totally get it, but there have been so many people warning that this was coming for years. And this basically became the inevitable conclusion as soon as Trump was elected, and we knew that he was going to be making more Supreme Court picks and making a Roe vs Wade-proof majority on the Court. And so there's - I've also on Twitter, this morning, and have tweeted some stuff about it, been in some group chats about it. But man, I've said this before, listen to the people who are impacted. They know what's coming, they have to be vigilant because they know that they're going to be the people most exposed to the problem first. So yes, they're great at picking up the warning signs before other people are, and yes, they're warning and no, it may not have been on the front page of the New York Times until years later and lots of pundits, especially white male pundits, have downplayed this outcome. But this was so obvious this was coming, and the time to fight against it and to get serious about fighting against it was a long time ago. Does not mean that we cannot still fight and we absolutely need to, but I wish we would get better collectively about listening to people who are in the most impacted, most marginalized groups, most subject to harm - when they warn about things, we need to take it seriously. [00:05:33] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and I feel like what's gonna happen now is a lot of women, and people who take contraception of any kind, have been warning that contraception is next. There's a lot of things that I think are "next" on the list of rights that the Court's gonna try to strip away, but I think contraception is probably one of the very next. And I think that still, to this day, when you bring that up and you say they're gonna start banning the women's right, people's right, not to get pregnant - that people - you get laughed at, like that's absurd. In the same way that the notion of overturning Roe was absurd, maybe I don't know, back in the 90s when it was still, in retrospect, a fairly new decision, 20, 25 years old. It seemed absurd and now I think everything is just accelerated, and I think the right to access an IUD is going to be next because a lot of sort of Christian-ist right-wing pundits and politicians and people in the Court believe that that is abortion. And I won't go into all the details about their thinking there because it's absurd, but that is going to be next. And then it's going to be all kinds of rights that the Supreme Court will use this decision in the reasoning to say - that it wasn't in the Constitution and it hasn't been established law - it wasn't established law at the time in the 1800s and before, so it can't be established law now. It's everything from same sex marriage, same sex relationships, interracial marriage. The list just goes on and on and on of rights that could be impacted and probably will be impacted by this decision. So, I feel like also - in screaming my head off all these years, I have tried to say - it is not just women I know that no one cares about women. That is a well-established right, or well-established fact, that I have seen again and again in my lifetime. But this isn't "just women" and people who can get pregnant - it's all marginalized people who are going to have their rights stripped away because of the reasoning behind this decision. [00:08:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we're talking about the stripping away of a lot of fundamental privacy rights, really, and that does impact marginalized populations. And this occurring at the same time where we basically have a surveillance-based economy is just really alarming, and people are justifiably scared, and harm is going to occur because of this to lots of different people, not only women. And so it is just - it's a challenge. This morning in a chat I was in, lots of people were - this is hard, distraught, and really troubled and furious. And just feeling the whole range of emotions. And someone asks - well, where is our power in this? - and people just wondering what do we do. And I think that's an important question to ask, I absolutely think the range of feelings that people are feeling are entirely justified - this is hard and rough. I hope people have grace for people that they're around because this is just another thing on top of so many other things that we're dealing with that is just hard and unjust and unnecessarily cruel, but we do still have power and we need to exercise all of our power, all of the levers that we have - because this is so critical and so fundamental, and just the beginning of the attempt to dismantle rights and dismantle privacy for people who they just view as beneath them, or they financially benefit from being beneath them. So I think it's important to continue to, at every turn, even if federal action has not occurred and they are not jumping to do that now. They do respond to pressure and if we apply all of the levers of pressure to let them know that this is a priority - we've gotta be in the streets, every town hall, every meeting, every fundraiser - people should be asking - Hey, are you, do you support ending the filibuster, do you support taking this vote? We have to codify it. There has to be a vote. We have to do what's necessary, which does involve ending the filibuster for this and so many other things, ways to protect rights - the filibuster is not more important than that. They should be asked about this by Democrats, by everyone, all of the time. They should know that this is front and center on people's minds and that people are not willing to accept anything less than action, urgent action. And so we should be demanding that of them - organizations who do endorsements should reopen those endorsements - and ending the filibuster, calling for a vote should be a basic requirement for an endorsement. It's a different change in process, but part of the signaling of this is an emergency, this is urgent is treating things like that from an institutional and from organizational points of view. Organizations have to signal that this is a right that we can't do without. Even organizations that are not thought of as women's organizations or reproductive rights organizations - this affects everyone who you deal with - this affects our community, this affects people's financial mobility, ability to not live in poverty, to dictate their own healthcare - everyone should be standing in solidarity. Every organization should be saying - okay, you want support, then these are the basic things that are gonna need to happen. You can choose not to, but we need to put our energy and effort and resources towards people who are. In the State, legislatively - we absolutely need to make sure that our legislators take action to make sure that access is available. We have a lot of areas in this state where there have been mergers - Catholic hospitals, in some cities, are the only hospitals that some communities have access to - who don't provide abortion care. We're gonna be seeing an influx of people coming from other states to get abortion care - those who have enough money to come from other states - we need to be taking action now, legislatively, to ensure that that access is available and that we're supporting just the capacity of our healthcare system to provide that. And Jay Inslee should call a special session to make that happen. He says he wants to, he supports the introduction of a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights. I think that is a great idea. Even if it doesn't - may be close or they're saying, okay, well, Republicans may not vote for it, it may not hit the threshold - well, let's get people on record and see what they say. Let's actually force the vote. Let's let people know who stands where and what they're voting for 'cause there's been a lot of silence from Republicans in this state. And everyone should be held accountable and everyone should have the opportunity to act to do this and it should happen now. These are things that we absolutely need to do. And being involved just in mutual aid organizations, supporting those that already exist - abortion care funds - supporting those reputable ones that already exist is absolutely necessary. We're gonna have to be here for each other in community like we have not been in a long time, and organizing starts with your neighbors and being there for one another and building that network out. So just there are things that we can do, that we need to do, that we can demand of our legislators that can help protect and fortify abortion rights and access in this state, while we work hard and apply pressure to get them reinstated federally. [00:14:18] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and I think also, your point on abortion access right now is really key, because overturning the filibuster and then getting a law and then getting a law that will hold up in court, given this decision, and et cetera, et cetera is a very long process that has many maybes in it. But one thing you can do right now is give money, if you have it, to local abortion funds. And because I was mentioning to you Crystal, before we went on air, that I used to work at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington - we would get a lot of calls from people who were trying to come in from out of state, from Alaska, from Idaho to access abortion because a lot of states that even do technically have access, it is much, much harder to get a later-in-pregnancy abortion. It has been for a long time. So, if you don't have the money early on, if you don't have the access, if you don't have the permission of your parents, all sorts of reasons. And the fact was that people would call and say - can you give me money to get out here? And we didn't do that - we were an advocacy group - so we would refer them to the abortion funds in the state that have very, very limited resources. And so, the way that - there's going to be, there's this notion that there's going to be a flood of abortion refugees to Washington State, and I think that is true - in the same way that New Mexico has become a refuge state for people seeking abortions from Texas. But the fact is that you can't get an abortion out-of-state unless you have the means independently, or you're lucky enough to get funding from an abortion fund that doesn't have enough money for everybody. And so, if you have money, that is a critical place to put it right now. [00:16:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Very well said. Absolutely true. We'll continue to follow this. There is also another piece of legislation that has been introduced, that can be taken up in the special session or soon thereafter, to prevent mergers. We're giving our state's Attorney General the power to deny mergers if it does impact access to abortion and other critical healthcare needs. So there are definitely things that can happen locally, there's pressure that can be applied nationally. This is going to take everybody getting involved, it's gonna take ally organizations signaling that this is critical and an emergency. This is literally a life-or-death situation for some women. And again, this is the beginning. This is the beginning of - we've seen laws in other states forcing, explicitly saying that women must be forced to carry an ectopic pregnancy. That's a death sentence. And just people who have no understanding of what basic biology actually is, and how women's cycles work and can vary - and they vary all the time - and applying and attaching punishments to things that happen naturally and that aren't preventable at all is - it's terrifying as a person needing healthcare. And I just - we have to hold power accountable. This is not a - hopefully they get to it. This is a - they need to get to it and we need to let them know that votes are at stake. [00:17:59] Erica Barnett: And can I just say, just real quickly before we get off this topic, that's great that the Attorney General is now concerned to this extent about the mergers of Catholic hospitals, but this is another thing that abortion rights advocates have been absolutely screaming our heads off about for years and years. And it is frankly infuriating to me to see - great, go for it, by all means, better incredibly late than never, I guess. But this is something that needed to happen 10 years ago, 15 years ago. And again, we were told we're hysterical and there's never gonna really be a problem. And there's always gonna be other options you can choose to go to if you're having, for example, a miscarriage and it's an emergency - you can have the ambulance take you to the hospital that you happen to know will actually let you have a managed miscarriage. And we were just told we were hysterical. And it's so infuriating now - and this is why I can't talk about it, honestly, 'cause as soon as I start going down an avenue, I start getting so mad - but this is one that really does piss me off because this is something that was actionable at the State level years ago and the State took no action. [00:19:17] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely justifiable point and I will say to those listening, there's - I'm a political consultant, I work for Democrats - but hearing the mantra "Vote Blue, No Matter Who," just "Vote Blue, this is wrong - Vote Blue." Well, we vote blue to prevent things like this from happening. We vote blue and we elect a president and congressional majorities and legislative majorities to ensure that things like this don't happen, so that they take action to prevent things like this from happening, so that they do everything in their power to keep women from losing this right. And everything in their power does include ending the filibuster - that's within their power - and just being in the situation where it's like voting rights, disability rights, women's rights, healthcare just falling at the whim of one or two Congresspeople in a filibuster - when we see more energy being applied to sometimes more progressive people for rocking the boat. Well, yeah, we're gonna rock the boat if this is where the boat is headed - we've gotta turn this thing around and you have to earn the ability to say - we vote for Democrats so that this won't happen. You can't let this happen. You have to fight with everything you have and do everything in your power. They have not done everything in their power, right? So we have to see that - I'm gonna be voting for the Democratic nominee for president, right? I'm going to, but I'm not going to be surprised at low turnout and bad outcomes, if we don't have leaders who are willing to step up and use their power to prevent real, immediate, tangible harm. And in some cases, death, which absolutely will occur, which absolutely will occur. You have to earn this. You have to act. You can't find it easier to give an excuse than to fight to convince people why it's worth taking this vote and taking this fight on. If we spent as much energy collectively making the case for why this needs to happen, instead of coming up with excuses why it can't, and applying pressure - so at least we're doing everything in our power to pressure Joe Manchin to make it happen, in the way that we've seen other people pressured. And not - well, we'll wait for his - when they wanna make life hard for someone, they can. When they want to apply pressure, they can. They choose when to and when not to, and to allow everyone else to experience these consequences while we're watching people in relative comfort not take action, is absolutely infuriating to people being harmed. They're looking at people, they're like - I hear sometimes - well, why aren't we just mad at Republicans? Trust me, we are. But we know who they are. And Democrats are saying that they're people who stand against this and who fight against this, so we're waiting to see the fight. We need to see the fight. We need to see action now. And I am as frustrated as anyone else by not seeing people do everything in their power to help this, because this has such wide-ranging ramifications immediately. There are several states that have trigger laws that make abortion illegal immediately, or sometimes up to a month in these states. But it is coming and we need action, and we should hold people accountable for taking action. I also get furious about this. You can tell I'm a bit frustrated and trying to moderate the emotion but it's infuriating, it's absolutely infuriating. It's something in a long line of things that are infuriating. Just - I'll leave it there. With that said, there are some other things that happened this week that we could talk about, including - Pride is coming up, Pride Parade is coming up this weekend. We're coming back together in person, it's an exciting time for a lot of people. But we've had a conversation here locally that has taken place in a lot of different cities and countries - in should police be allowed to march in Pride? Should they be excluded from Pride? What is happening here? [00:24:33] Erica Barnett: Well, I would say, and perhaps this'll be an odd framing, but I would say that the police department in Seattle has sort of - Pride has asked, the main Pride Parade organizers have asked, have said that they are not, that police officers in uniform are not welcome. The way that I would frame it though, is that the police department then sort of made it into a bigger story than it would've been by issuing a lengthy statement from Police Chief Adrian Diaz, saying that this is unacceptable and almost prejudicial to not allow this. The sort of reasoning, which may be obvious, is that LGBTQ+ rights were were won against the force of the state - Stonewall was a riot sparked by police violence. [00:25:27] Crystal Fincher: Against police brutality. Yeah. [00:25:29] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and so it would be inappropriate for armed police officers to be marching in the parade and sort of giving a rainbow sheen to the police department. And so that's what's happened - this is the, I believe the second year in a row, there's been a clash over this, maybe the third year. No second year, 'cause obviously we had a pandemic. But I think the police are being a little provocative. They are still permitted and there are many LGBTQ+ police officers - and I think that is something that is somewhat getting lost in this debate and something that Diaz did attempt to rather clumsily to point out - but the issue is not whether those officers are themselves individually allowed to participate in the parade. The issue is marching in uniform and sort of saying the police are big supporters of LGBTQ rights, and so I think that is the crux of the issue. And ultimately, Pride can say what they wanna say and they can ban who they wanna ban, and what are the police gonna do - show up unwanted? That just seems that would be an act of provocation that would be absolutely outrageous and a distraction, I think, from the joyfulness and the excitement of Pride weekend. [00:26:54] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely would be, also wouldn't be a surprise to see that happen. But to me it's pretty simple - given the origin of Pride, it absolutely makes sense that you would not want to have armed officers. It was about literally fighting against that, fighting against the harm that it has caused. I think the community being impacted and harmed has the right to dictate their response to that harm. And I - it's one thing if the police want to characterize themselves as wonderful, lots of people wanna characterize themselves as wonderful. But if a person is saying you have harmed me, you've continued to harm me, you've been a harmful force in my community - that's their thing, that's their right, they have experienced that harm. And this is their community celebration. I wouldn't walk into a religious celebration and say - you must allow different people - this is a community that has been harmed, that this celebration came out of fighting to reduce that harm and fighting for themselves and for their survival. And so why are we not centering whatever it is around the concerns and cares of that community and letting this group force themselves, feel entitled to be part of it? It just seems like - they are being provocative. They're also finding time to meet about this and spending a lot of time talking in the media and everything. Where was this time at, when they decided they couldn't investigate sexual assault? [00:28:53] Erica Barnett: Well, I do wanna introduce just a tiny bit of nuance, which is that - that no community is is monolithic and to say that LGBT people have certain political beliefs on - or LGBTQ+ people in the military or in the police force are not real members of that community - I know it's not what you're saying, but there is a slippery slope there. And I do think that it is important to acknowledge that the people who are in SPD, who are members of that community, do exist. They are legitimate members of that community. And I understand some of the hurt that they are feeling as well. And I don't wanna just totally diminish that by saying - cops are bad and they shouldn't be allowed to participate because of the origin of Pride. But I do think, but again, that is a bit of nuance - I think that the mutual provocations here are around this issue of whether they should be able to be essentially marching in formation, in military-style uniforms, in the middle of a Pride Parade. And I think - let's just take that off the table and say that's not gonna happen. And how are we going to invite individual officers, not in uniform, to participate in a celebration of their community - that's a more appropriate question and let's just leave the whole possibility of cops marching in formation out of it. [00:30:32] Crystal Fincher: I would just say two things. One, you're absolutely correct. The community is not a monolith - no community is - and that's evidenced in the variety of Pride celebrations. And we've seen that, and have talked about that in various ways before. But I do think as the organizers of this particular event, if not legally - but certainly seems like they can legally - but just ethically and morally, they get to dictate the terms of participation. And especially if they feel they're centering the safety of the community that they're putting on this event to celebrate. And the other thing I would say is that I don't think it's always so easy to just dismiss the possibility of the police showing up. People have to prepare for that, because they have in other situations and because that can create harm, it can escalate it. So organizers have to think about that, the community needs to plan around that, people who may be impacted by that do have to think about that. And they have to think about that because of provocations that they've seen in other situations. So it's almost a privilege to not be, to be like - ah, don't worry about it. Because you do have to worry about it - and that's the crux of the problem - that is something that is a known possibility. And that, in and of itself, is its own thing that you have to prepare for that's not that pleasant, and have contingency plans for and all of that, because that is a wild card that could happen. Or some escalation happens, right? So it's - I just don't think it's as simple as - ah, let them be nice. They have a - we see the complaints and the reports and the investigations - there is a history in town here of them engaging in harmful ways, and escalating in situations, and inserting themselves into situations, where investigations of them have found that they have escalated situations. So I think they have to think about it, right? But they shouldn't - it would be nice that they didn't have to. At the same time, your point that there are people in the LGBTQ community, in the Seattle Police Department and others, is absolutely true. And - hey, if they wanna have a Cop Pride Parade, where they're marching in uniform, they could absolutely do that. I haven't seen those, but that seems like that would be a great thing for the police department, if they are primarily concerned with supporting their community and their officers, that they could do. And yeah, I think that's the thing, but it'll continue - we'll see how it goes. Also this week, or within the past couple weeks, Mayor Harrell vetoed a plan that would have required Seattle landlords to report the rent they charge. Why did he do that? [00:34:05] Erica Barnett: Well, this is a really interesting bill, which I covered from the beginning back in March when they first started discussing it, because the original purpose of the bill - and it came from Alex Pedersen, one of the more conservative members of the council - the original purpose was to basically get landlords to provide some information about the rents they charge, in order to essentially demonstrate that small landlords are good and need to be preserved. Because the theory, the hypothesis went that they charge lower rents. And so, during the upcoming comprehensive plan - this is really a zoning bill, weirdly enough - during the upcoming comprehensive plan, they could not make changes that would increase density, so as to preserve these small landlords. So it was conceived as a pro-landlord bill. Then it got support from Councilmember Sawant and Tammy Morales on the left, who are eager to get just this information out there, because it's really hard to know when you're renting an apartment, what the average rent is in that area. You can go on all kinds of websites that tell you all different things, you can sort of look and see what else is available in the area, but that doesn't give you a real sense. And so they were like - this is great, we need more information so that renters can have the same kind of information that home buyers do about mortgages and housing costs. So, the mayor, to answer your question, ultimately vetoed it 'cause he said it was too anti-landlord and that it would've been too onerous on landlords, it would've violated their rights by requiring them to reveal so-called proprietary information, i.e. what they were charging in rents. And that it would be unreliable because people, landlords would essentially just choose to opt-out or they would choose to lie. So, a whole bunch of what I would call very unconvincing arguments. I think the real purpose was to protect landlords from having to to reveal something that might ultimately have caused them to have to lower their rent because the rents they're charging are unreasonable, and it also would've increased renter's ability to have some information parity, if no other kind of parity with the landlords that charge them rent. So, it was an anti-renter and a pro-landlord veto in very, very short. [00:36:32] Crystal Fincher: No, I think you summed it up quite well, and in this time where Bruce Harrell loves a dashboard - he talks about data and wanting to get more information. It seems like when there is a widely acknowledged housing affordability crisis that is exacerbating the homelessness crisis, doing everything we can - and the Harrell administration, all of it, all of the plans and all of his announcements have started with we need to gather the data and we'll get a dashboard up and all of that. This seems like a very basic step to do that. Landlords ostensibly advertise their rent when they're doing that anyway, which was one of the very basic things and I think Alex Pedersen - who is one of the more conservative members of the Council - it sounded perfectly reasonable, and he's taking this step to address housing affordability. I love the - funny enough, it comes down to zoning - as a former land use and planning board commissioner - man, everything comes down to zoning. [00:37:40] Erica Barnett: Yep. [00:37:41] Crystal Fincher: But it's - this was so basic and common sense, and it just seems - wow, we ask a lot from homeowners. We actually require homeowners to give a ton of personal, extremely personal information to landlords. We require people getting rental assistance and other assistance to give a ton of extremely personal information over to government entities and man, what a difference when it just comes to asking landlords to report what they're charging - which they have to report already in various formats - just really confounding and seems like a very clear and bold statement about where, who's being centered in this policy. And where, if we're talking about this housing affordability crisis, where help is not likely to come from. And it's just unfortunate 'cause if this is hard, then doing the actual things to increase affordability are a lot harder than this. So it's just troubling that that was a hard thing, when it initially would've been very basic - received a lot of pushback from Sara Nelson on the Council, and it looks like Mayor Harrell wound up feeling very similarly to Councilmember Nelson. [00:39:12] Erica Barnett: Well, it's very interesting that Councilmember Nelson sort of said several times - well, renters can just go and look on Craigslist or whatever - obviously a statement from somebody who hasn't had to rent in a very, very long time. It is so hard to know. It is so hard to even know what the place that you're trying to rent rents for, honestly, because a lot of times it'll be a range, and it'll be five months free or whatever, and then the deposit is huge. So in comparison - you wanna buy a house - you can go see what it's sold for the last five times it sold, you can see what the asking price is, you can see what the adjacent houses sold for - just, there's a tremendous amount of information. And this information, by the way, used to be available - there was a private company that provided it. And that company went out of business and that is what precipitated this legislation. So there's a long precedent of this information actually being available. The fact that it is not available is a new thing, not a longstanding situation. [00:40:13] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and relevant to so many people in the City - about half of the City's residents are renters. And so this is very meaningful and very impactful for a lot of people in the City. And so we'll see what the next plan is, but action is needed. Housing is so expensive and continues to rise in and around Seattle and the State. So hopefully more action is figured out, or there are questions brought to Bruce Harrell to say - okay, so what is the plan? If we can't gather basic data, what are you going to do to make housing more affordable? Lots of things are on the table, action is needed - what is going to get done? Also - that we see here - is the Social Housing Initiative turned in their signatures. They exceeded the threshold. What happened here? [00:41:19] Erica Barnett: So this is the initiative to create a public development authority which would, and I'm sure your listeners already know this - I'm repeating myself, I'm sure - but basically it would create an authority that could build affordable housing, publicly-owned housing, permanently affordable housing. They turned in, I believe, around 29,000-something signatures, and they did not get as many signatures as they wanted. So when you turn in signatures for an initiative, a lot of them tend to get thrown out because they are illegible, they have addresses outside of Seattle, they're not eligible voters, et cetera. So they had hoped to turn in 35,000, they got around 29,000. And I think it remains to be seen, and they said this week at a press conference that it remains to be seen, whether that's going to end up being enough valid signatures. They do have an opportunity if it's just a few, or a few hundred, short to go out and collect those signatures. They get 20 days to do that, so this very well could be on the ballot in November. They did say that if they don't achieve their goal this time, they're not giving up, they're gonna keep pushing for this social housing measure. So either way, it's not gonna go away, but it could be on the ballot as soon as November. [00:42:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, and the very last thing that we'll cover super quickly - Inslee signaling no interest in suspending Washington's gas tax, as President Biden has signaled a potential easing of the federal gas tax for a period. What is Inslee thinking? [00:43:03] Erica Barnett: Well, I don't know exactly what Inslee's logic is, but my guess is that, in the same way that the the Biden proposal is not certain to lower gas taxes, neither is a local proposal or a state proposal, and you lose a lot of money. The gas tax in Washington State funds transportation projects and primarily, almost exclusively roads. So you can argue over some of those specific roadway expansion projects, but nonetheless it's a blunt instrument to suddenly eliminate a huge tax resource, without any real guarantee that gas companies won't just further increase the prices so that they make even more profit, since in the same way that this is not Biden's fault - Biden does not hold the main levers to actually decrease gas prices substantially, the oil companies do and they're making record profits. So I think that there's probably some caution about that. Are we gonna cut this tax, lose a lot of money, and gain nothing for consumers - that's a real risk. [00:44:11] Crystal Fincher: That is definitely a real risk and Biden is certainly receiving some of that feedback on his proposal. Gas prices are up around the world, the percentage increases that we're seeing in the United States are not close to the highest increases that other people have seen in some other countries. A lot of this is a supply problem, which easing the gas tax does not allow, and in fact it could make the supply problem a little worse if it encourages more people to buy gas. And it does rob folks of revenue, it does allow oil companies to - essentially if they wanted to - just pocket the difference and not pass along this to consumers. We're funneling this through essentially Big Oil, who is not known for being really generous and magnanimous and they like a lot of profit for themselves. And if anything - man, this money could be invested in helping reduce our reliance on this, to build infrastructure that enables more people to safely and efficiently use other methods of travel for short or long trips or commutes or all of the above. It just is - it's something, but sometimes doing something, even though it is something - if it doesn't fix the problem, why do it? And so I actually think Inslee is right on on this, because it's not actually a solution to the problem. With that, we will conclude today's conversation. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 24th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler - who just had a baby! - and assistant producer Shannon Cheng with assistance from Bryce Cannatelli, and our wonderful cohost today is Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett - that's Erica with a "c", and then another "c", Barnett - and on PubliCola.com. And you can buy her book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii and all those things. You can find Hacks & Wonks on wherever you get your podcasts - just make sure to subscribe so you get our midweek and our end of week show. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to all of the resources referenced in the show. We will also have abortion fund resources in the show notes also and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

Censorship in ChinaCensorship in communist China extends further than some may realize. The repressive regime in Beijing seeks to extirpate not only speech and writing that contravene its dogmas, but even symbols that might give viewers the wrong idea.An article by Zachary Evans in National Review Online on May 2 details how China's censors demanded that Sony cut the Statue of Liberty from the climax of Spider-Man: No Way Home. Evans notes that the monument is on view throughout the 20-minute climax. In the view of Chinese censors, it is unacceptable for viewers to take in, even subliminally, this image of freedom.The Times Gets It Wrong, AgainJesse Wegman of the New York Times Editorial Board believes that the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, is out of touch. The title of his May 3 opinion piece in the Times says it bluntly: “This Supreme Court Is Out of Step With Most Americans.”Wegman complains at some length that the court has become increasingly politicized over the years to the point where it resembles Congress more than a body undertaking the review of laws and policies in an impartial manner and assessing their constitutionality. Hence it is ironic that Wegman's objections to the pending ruling on Roe v. Wade are political rather than legal in nature. He sounds like a political partisan, indeed like an activist, when he lashes out at the court for its stance on Roe v. Wade. The Passing of Kathy BoudinThe California Globe's Evan Symon reported on May 2 that Kathy Boudin, the member of the Weather Underground who attained notoriety for her role in the deadly Brinks Robbery of October 1981, has died at age 78. Boudin is the mother of San Francisco's progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin, who faces possible recall in an election scheduled for June 7 as a consequence of the disastrous policy of “decarceration” he has foisted on the city, which has driven crime way up and eroded the quality of life in what many long considered to be one of the most desirable places in the world to live.The World Outside Maybe you remember that tender age when you were just barely old enough to begin to take trips by yourself. The literary journal Rosebud has just published its long-awaited 69th issue, and on page 140 of this issue, you will find my short story “The World Outside,” which is an account of a boy's trip by train from Chicago through a swath of rural Michigan and back. It evokes midcentury America and draws its inspiration largely from Theodore Roethke's poem “Night Journey.” In Roethke's poem, the narrator describes riding in a Pullman car through an alternately bright and misty part of the upper Midwest and conveys the depth of his love for a land that holds out such natural beauty to the observer.I hope that “The World Outside” will evoke more wonder and terror on the reader's part for what it prompts the reader to imagine than for what it actually shows. As readers of W.W. Jacobs's classic story “The Monkey's Paw” will affirm, this approach can be powerful indeed.

Justin and Chris discuss the New York Times Editorial Board's article about America's free speech problem. They also discuss Christina Emba's Washington Post piece about society needing a new sex ethic and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/17/sex-ethics-rethinking-consent-culture/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, I continue to examine the fallout of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's actions in invoking the Emergencies Act. In an attempt to appear strong and determined, he has instead painted himself as a divisive tyrant throwing a temper tantrum. A day after the Canadian Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, made it known that banks and financial institutions were now empowered to freeze accounts of anyone involved with the Freedom Convoy, the New York Times Editorial Board spoke out in favor of the truckers. The notoriously liberal and Leftist NYT Editorial Board literally said peaceful protest, even if irritating, is a vital part of democracy. Similarly, the Toronto Sun also penned an opinion piece entitled, “Trudeau has gone too far.” The piece further goes on to say, “The Liberal government appeared to be hoping for some sort of Jan. 6 style event as happened in the United States last year. All of their rhetoric indicated they were keen to see such an event go down. It never did. The convoy has been peaceful throughout. The only real violence so far has been a vehicular ramming conducted against protesters, which sent four people to hospital. You don't hear much about that though. Trudeau never condemned it. Instead, Trudeau has called protesters every name in the book even though they are a diverse crowd in every sense of the word.” Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley went one step further and published a piece showing how the overreach by Trudeau could be used to stop the next Martin Luther King, Jr. from having a peaceful protest. The precedent has been set. If a group of people gather to the annoyance of the Prime Minister, simply declare it a national emergency and strip those citizens of their rights and their property or assets. Ironically, even Justin Trudeau tweeted in 2012, “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is when it's rapidly losing it's moral authority to govern.” Yet, he seems to have forgotten about that now that he's the one in power. Finally, I remind everyone how important the freedom of the press is in the First Amendment. The framers of our government knew they needed to protect the press so they could be free to keep an eye on the happenings of government. It was a way of creating a fourth check on the three branches of our Republic. Unfortunately, the bulk of the legacy media is 90% in the tank for the Democrat party and has lost their ability to fairly report. It has become the province of the new media – the 5th Estate – to keep government in check. Maybe that's why they are so adamant at trying to silence those voices by any means necessary. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and GETTR by searching for the Alan Sanders Show.

The Archivist of the United States is in the news, and if that's happening, you know some esoteric constitutional question is up.  Fortunately, “Amarica's Constitution,” is on the case.  We have New York Times Editorial Board member, Jesse Wegman, who wrote for the Times on this subject recently, raising all sorts of issues - which Akhil is happy to answer for Jesse and for all of us.  Meanwhile, this is all about the Equal Rights Amendment, and Amendments in general, and Article V of the Constitution, and what about ERA anyway - what would it do?  All this and more - with feeling.  There's a lot here, so this is part one of two.

Tuesday on Political Rewind we talk one-on-one with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Farah Stockman. We dive into Stockman's book "American Made" to see how the loss of manufacturing jobs changed the political landscape of the early 21st century. But first, the latest on voting rights as the Senate skips recess to vote on the matter. Farah Stockman, Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist, and New York Times Editorial Board member. View her book "American Made": www.randomhousebooks.com/books/591675 Timestamps: :00 - Senate skips recess to debate voting rights bill 2:23- Introductions 5:19- Farah talks about the privilege of higher education 9:30- Setting of factory workers in the Rexnord plant in Indianapolis 13:30- The leadup to election night 2016 19:29- Following Shannon, a white single mom who worked at the factory 25:45- Following Wally, an African American man from rural Georgia worked in the factory 30:46- Following John, a white man who worked in the factory 35:42- The Rexnord factory shuts down 37:58- COVID comes into play 40:16- Talking about the global implications of NAFTA 47:14- Former President Trump tries to overturn the election Please be sure to download our newsletter: www.gpb.org/newsletters. And subscribe, follow and rate Political Rewind with Bill Nigut wherever podcasts are found.

Guests: Rep. Eric Swalwell, Brandy Zadrozny, Michelle Goldberg, Jesse Wegman, Dana GoldsteinTonight: New revelations from the Jan. 6 committee, how Donald Trump is solidifying support, and dire warnings about the state of our democracy one year after the insurrection. Then, Jesse Wegman of the New York Times Editorial Board on why his newspaper is now sounding alarms over an authoritarian Republican Party. Plus, new reporting on how Jan. 6 extremism is being felt on the local level across the country. And what we're learning from the chaos of another back to school moment in year three of the pandemic.

HOUR 1Tom S. sleeps to 11 AM over the weekend; T & T catch up on activitiesGeneral Colin Powell passes at age 84 / (CBS) https://www.cbsnews.com/video/colin-powell-dies-at-84-due-to-complications-from-covid-19/ NPR) https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/1046981056/colin-powell-former-secretary-of-state-dies-at-84China has a new hypersonic missile / (MB) https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2021/10/17/china-s-hypersonic-missile-launch-surprises-us-financial-timesTom A saw the latest James Bond"No Time to Die" and loved it / Tom and Tom talk other spy series like "Bourne Identity" and "Salt"New York Times Editorial Board  asks AZ U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema to leave the Democratic Party / (FOX) https://www.foxnews.com/media/board-member-new-york-times-kyrsten-sinema-democratic-party-independentT & T discuss voters choosing candidates based on race and gender and other factorsChemo drug shortage in Alaska / (ADN) https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2021/10/17/national-shortage-of-a-chemo-drug-is-affecting-some-alaska-clinics-providers-say/T & T talk mountain climbingHOUR 2T & T talk food (Beni Hana, Red Robin, and Main Event Grill)U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski raises $1.1 million for her re-election but has yet to formally file / https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2021/10/16/murkowski-reports-bringing-nearly-11m-last-quarter/Media asks why a debate continues on vaccines where they appear to be working (NPR) https://www.alaskapublic.org/2021/10/18/the-political-fight-over-vaccine-mandates-deepens-despite-their-effectiveness/Dalton says he and Eddie Burke called the pandemic before 2020 and he thinks all government and media is deceptive and praised Putin's leadershipOne dead in Parks Highway collision / (ANS) https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2021/10/17/one-person-dead-after-head-on-collision/Last minute deals for travel / (ADN) https://www.adn.com/alaska-life/travel/2021/10/16/deals-on-last-minute-flights-out-of-alaska-include-destinations-such-as-hawaii-florida-new-york/Scott McMurren, Alaska Travel Gram guru, joins Tom / https://alaskatravelgram.com/

DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL READING PART 1 (0:0 - 6:39): ────────────────── He Must Go: A Devastating Report from NY Attorney General Pulls No Punches, New York's Governor is a National Embarrassment WASHINGTON POST (JOSH DAWSEY AND MICHAEL SCHERER) Biden Calls For Cuomo To Resign After Investigation Finds The New York Governor Sexually Harassed 11 Women PART 2 (6:40 - 17:29): ────────────────── A Dynasty Undone: From Mario Cuomo To the Machiavellian Raw Politics and Immorality of Andrew Cuomo PART 3 (17:30 - 20:10): ────────────────── The Current Political Context of the Democratic Party: The Overwhelming Evidence Against Cuomo Turns This Into A Problem With Only One Solution PART 4 (20:11 - 25:31): ────────────────── Responding to Sexual Abuse in a Fallen World: The Paramount Moral Imperatives of the Christian Worldview CNN (CHRIS CILLIZZA) 35 Words That Almost Certainly Will End Andrew Cuomo's Political Career NEW YORK TIMES (EDITORIAL BOARD) Governor Cuomo, It's Time to Resign

Most people know by now that Kamala Harris can thank former Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown for cheating on his wife with her and catapulting Harris into the political arena. But Bernie and Sid don't think even Willie Brown could have imagined Harris making it all the way to the White House one day. Nonetheless, that's where Harris is now, and day in and day out she is putting on display for the world just how incompetent and inept she is at doing her job. Bernie and Sid react to Harris's visit to Guatemala and Mexico to 'fix' the root causes of immigration as well as the pathetic interview NBC's Lester Holt had with her in which she makes one of the most pathetic and strange excuses you may ever hear. Bernie and Sid also get into teachers and parents across the country finally standing up to school boards trying to indoctrinate their children with the Critical Race Theory, who will be running on the Republican side against Phil Murphy for the Governor of New Jersey, Bruce Springsteen back on Broadway, the New York Times Editorial Board member who is disturbed by the sight of the America flag, and the NYPD makes an arrest in the murder case of a 10-year-old Queens boy over the weekend. They cover it all with opinions you are not going to get anywhere else. Plus, President of the Uniformed Firefighters Association Andrew Ansbro joins the program to talk about the First official Comptrollers Debate on 77 WABC, and the importance of the position of comptroller.

Already having a difficult day due to the death of his favorite aunt, Michael makes the questionable decision to go on Twitter. He then engages in a war of words with a troll who attempts to call him out as a racist. Also, New York Times Editorial Board member Mara Gay says she found dozens of American flags she saw displayed in Long Island 'disturbing.'

We steal a bit from a large political podcast and use it to dunk on Lee Cooperman (aka the crying billionaire) and read another terrible op-ed article from the New York Times Editorial Board. Supply side economics is astrology for billionaires and Florida man is back.

Six years after the beginning of the Fight for $15 movement, conventional wisdom is finally waking up to economic reality. How do we know? Because the New York Times recently published an editorial titled ‘Let’s Talk About Higher Wages’ calling on the incoming Biden administration to focus on higher wages for everyone. They couldn’t be more right on. Binyamin Appelbaum, the lead writer on business and economics for the Editorial Board, helps us understand the change in consensus on wages. Binyamin Appelbaum is the lead writer on business and economics for the Editorial Board of The New York Times. From 2010 to 2019, he was a Washington correspondent for the Times, covering economic policy. His book, ‘The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society’ is a Wall Street Journal Business Bestseller.  Twitter: @BCAppelbaum Nick on Marketplace: https://www.marketplace.org/2020/12/08/new-rand-study-quantifies-cost-of-rising-us-inequality/ Binyamin has been a guest on our show before! Here’s our episode with him and George Monbiot, ‘How neoliberalism happened’, from October 2019: https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/how-neoliberalism-happened-with-george-monbiot-and-binyamin-appelbaum/ Show us some love by leaving a rating or a review! RateThisPodcast.com/pitchforkeconomics  Further reading/listening:  Let’s talk about higher wages: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/opinion/wages-economic-growth.html  Do higher wages kill jobs? (with Mayor Eric Garcetti and Alan Krueger): https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/do-higher-wages-kill-jobs/  The top 1% of Americans have taken $50 trillion from the bottom 90% - and that’s made the U.S. less secure: https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/  And as promised by Annie and Ashley, you can find the last 100+ years of New York Times Editorial Board pieces on the minimum wage here: https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/why-conventional-wisdom-is-finally-pushing-for-higher-wages-with-binyamin-appelbaum Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com/ Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick’s twitter: @NickHanauer

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart … the oligarchs of the gig economy bet $200 million selling Californians on Prop 22, keeping their employees from getting the benefits most employees get.  Call ‘em contract workers and tell ‘em to take less for the work.  Californians bought the deal and Uber and Lyft stock went up by $20 billion. Greg Bensinger of the New York Times Editorial Board on how voters awarded other people’s labor negotiation to management. 

So the 2020 election is in the history books. On Thursday, November 5th – two days after the polls closed – we hosted the first ever live episode of Sorry Not Sorry to put it in perspective. Our guests had such great information, and so many smart things to say that I know you’ll forgive the slightly less than perfect audio that comes from a live streamed event. At the time, it was clear that Biden has a significant popular vote margin, and was then about four million votes ahead of Donald Trump. But, despite that big win, the electoral college was not settled. Disunity still in our country, with a huge divide between Trump’s supporters and Biden’s supporters over the fundamental questions of what it means to be American. But the issues in this election go far wider than the presidency. Control of the senate still hangs in the balance, and won’t be decided until January. The conronavirus just reached its highest daily rate of new infections since the pandemic started and the fate of the affordable care act will decided by the Supreme Court, and what happens with healthcare by the new government next year. More than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence each year, and 40,000 of them die. And we can’t find the families of more than 500 immigrant children we separated at the border. It’s a lot. To help us make sense of it all, I’ve invited an incredible group of experts here tonight. We were joined by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country, Jesse Wegman is a member of the New York Times Editorial Board and the author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, Po Murray is Chair of the Newtown Action Alliance, Laura Packard is National Co-Chair of Health Care Voter, and Hassan Ahmad is an immigration attorney and immigrant rights activist. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/alyssa-milano-sorry-not-sorry/message

Michael Klein, and Binyamin Appelbaum, lead writer on economics and business for The New York Times Editorial Board discuss Binyamin's book The Economists' Hour. The discussion focuses on the history of economists influencing public policy, and the limitations of free markets in solving issues like inequality.

In 40% of presidential elections this century, the electoral college selected a candidate who lost the popular vote. This institution results in mostly white, rural voters having votes which count much, much more than voters of color in more populous locations. We've asked Jesse Wegman on this episode to discuss the electoral college and efforts to mitigate it. Jesse is a New York Times Editorial Board member and the author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/alyssa-milano-sorry-not-sorry/message

The New York Times Editorial Board published an op-ed titled “There's a New Game of Thrones in the Mediterranean,” that attempts to break down the tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean. Instead of calling Turkey out for its dangerous provocations, the authors attempt to lay equal blame at the feet of both Greece and Turkey. Endy Zemenides, HALC's Executive Director, discusses why the piece is problematic and HALC's response.You can read the articles we discuss on The Daily Roundup here:Take Action: Set the record straight at the NYTimesNYTimes op-ed: There's a New Game of Thrones in the MediterraneanFinancial Times op-ed: Defusing tensions in the eastern MediterraneanNorth Macedonia government wins confidence voteNorth Macedonia parliament approves Zoran Zaev as PMTurkey extends exploration work in disputed East Mediterranean areaTurkey issues new navtex for Oruc Reis in East Med

Carol Giacomo, former member of the New York Times Editorial Board and former Reuters diplomatic correspondent, joins Press the Button to discuss how an editorial board operates, and her own journey from reporting on foreign and defense issues to writing policy proposals in favor of better national security and nuclear policy. Early Warning features a discussion on nuclear details in the recently released Democratic Party platform and ongoing battles over what the US government budget should prioritize with our former Roger L. Hale fellow Akshai Vikram and Lisa Perry, digital communications director for the William J. Perry Project and host of the AT THE BRINK podcast.

Today's guest is someone who loves telling stories through her lens. She's the one who sees the beauty, loss, pain, sacrifice, and capture of these raw emotions just the way they are. A 2018 graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology's Photojournalism program, she is now working as a Photojournalist with The New York Times. Her photo of attendees at New York City's Pride March was included in The New York Times 'Year in Pictures' in 2019 and she even photographed the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates for The New York Times Editorial Board. It's time to meet Brittainy Newman. You can follow her on her Instagram page @bnewmanphoto This podcast was recorded on a zoom call so the audio quality might differ from the previous episodes. You can also watch this podcast Stories You Should Know's YouTube Channel. If you liked this podcast please share it with your friends your family your colleagues your snap buddy your crush maybe. You know after all stories do bring us together. I would love to hear from you all so do slide in your messages on Stories You Should Know's Instagram page You can also write to me at tarushi@storiesyoushouldknow.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/storiesyoushouldknow/message

Nicolle Wallace discusses the White House trying to discredit Dr. Anthony Fauci as coronavirus surges across the country. Plus, Trump threatens the rule of law as he commutes the prison sentence of a political ally, Biden’s poll numbers grow in battleground states, and how Never-Trump Republicans could influence the election.Joined by: Global health policy expert Dr. Vin Gupta, Associated Press White House reporter Jonathan Lemire, former Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, former top State Department official Rick Stengel, and New York Times Editorial Board member Mara Gay

I recorded this from Chicago as our city was one of many protesting the cruel death of a Black man in this country. Again. I am an entrepreneur, but first and foremost, I am a mom, raising 4 kids in one of the most segregated cities in America. The New York Times Editorial Board wrote three weeks ago: "In Chicago, the difference in average life expectancy for people born at the same time in different neighborhoods is as much as 30 years. Please pause to consider that number." It's my job as a mom to raise citizens of the world, who are aware of societal and global problems and feel a sense of responsibility to use the lottery of their birth in service to others. I don't have answers, but I've had to come up with ways to discuss these issues as a mom. Some friends have reached out to see what we are talking about in our home. I'm sharing resources below to open the discussion and gain wisdom from you. These resources have helped us get to a place where our kids have context for discussing the riots and Black Lives Matter. The 1619 Project: This will blow your mind about race in America. America was built on the backs of slaves, and It affects everything, from business to housing, city planning and schools. It should be required reading in every high school, and it already is in many. My kids 7th grade and up all read it Stamped from the Beginning by Ibram X. Kendi. I'm reading it now. It's intense, but I can't recommend it enough. If you want a version that's less academic and ideal for teens, try the latest book by the same author How to Be an Antiracist. There Are No Children Here by Alex Kotlowitz: A true story set in Chicago, your kids will learn what it means to win the lottery of birth. Middle school and up. Becoming by Michelle Obama: Get to know firsthand what it's like to grow up on the South Side and why racist real estate practices and white flight still affect generations of families. A beautiful book on Audible, perfect for a family road trip this summer. A very mature 5th grader and up can appreciate it. This American Life episodes on Harper High School in Chicago. They shadowed Chicago's Englewood school for a full semester, after 29 students had been shot and 8 students were killed in gang-related incidents. Stories of people living on both sides of the divide, and the people trying to unite it from This American Life Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell. This focuses on what we should know about people we don't, it goes in depth on policing policies that can lead to racial profiling. It's for high school and up, and be warned that there is a section on the Penn State case that some may find especially disturbing. I'd love for you to continue the conversation to let me know what you're doing to build a better future. It's going to take all of us. Our kids need us to do everything in our power to set the stage for a brighter future than the present they're experiencing.

Join us for some end of the week fun on the Friday Three Martini Lunch. Today, Jim and Greg cheer a really strong February jobs report and are hopeful the strong economy can ward off any coronavirus-related slump. Speaking of which, they also vent about the media's inability to cover the coronavirus story in a non-hysterical manner, which may be helping to fuel the Wall Street volatility. And they get a lot of laughs from MSNBC anchor Brian Williams and New York Times Editorial Board member Mara Gay concluding that Mike Bloomberg spent enough money in his failed campaign to give each person in America a million dollars.

Mercer Prescott along with Odofoley Oquaye of the Sardines, LLC podcast and F. Khristopher Blue of the More Than Therapy podcast talk POLI-TRICKS on: Joy Ann Reid AOC vs DCCC Class Solidarity Hilary Clinton and the New York Times Editorial Board. Recorded 1/21/2020 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/theurbanbreakdown/message

Former Vice President Joe Biden, in an interview with the New York Times Editorial Board while seeking its endorsement for his presidential run, called for the immediate revocation (or more accurately, repeal) of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). But while Section 230 could certainly use clarification (and clarity, as the distinction between service provider and publisher is not without its own ambiguities), Candidate Biden's erroneous reading of the statute, the landscape it creates, and the the liability of tech titans like Facebook, is unfortunately not the only one shared by the political class. And that's without even getting into calling video game folks "creeps". Libel Liability is a Political Liability...in Virtual Legality. #Biden #NYT #CDA230 *** Discussed in this episode: New York Times Editorial Interview - Joe Biden January 17, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html "Social Media, Liability Shields, and You: The State of CDA Section 230 (VL72) (Hoeg Law)" YouTube Video - July 12, 2019 - Hoeg Law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VtQlx5VXXs "Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material" 47 USC 230 (CDA 230) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 "Action for libel or slander." MCL 600.2911 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fdms3o5l2kvl3azpa2npxura))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-600-2911 *** FOR MORE CHECK US OUT: On Twitter @hoeglaw At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/ On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/

Economists shape conversations on topics ranging from business to politics, and their influence is widely felt; the Federal Reserve, trade negotiations, and public spending have become central focuses of political debate. But economists weren’t always permanent fixtures in policymaking. Binyamin Appelbaum joins Sam Wang and Julian Zelizer to discuss the rise of economists between the 1960s and 2000 — the focus of his new book, “The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society. His book explores the role of economists in shaping public policy on issues like the draft, income inequality and distribution, and minimum wage. Appelbaum is The New York Times Editorial Board’s lead writer on business and economics. Prior to joining the Board this year, he was a Washington correspondent for the Times, covering the Federal Reserve and other aspects of economic policy from 2001 to 2009. Appelbaum previously worked for the Charlotte Observer, where his reporting on subprime lending won a George Polk Award and a Gerald Loeb Award. He also was a finalist for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize.

The Wharton Public Policy Initiative hosted Binyamin Appelbaum for a talk on his newly released book, The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society. Appelbaum is a member of the New York Times Editorial Board and his book traces the history of the US economists’ growing influence in the policy sphere. He met with Dan Loney in the Knowledge@Wharton Business Radio studio to talk about his book. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In a rare point of agreement, both the New York Times Editorial Board and the Libertarian Party are criticizing Trump's tariffs.“Tariffs are Taxes that Americans Pay” reads the LP's new bumper sticker slogan.“Trump's Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans” say the NYT editorial board.Put simply, a tariff is just a tax on imports. There's no getting around the cost to Americans, leading free market economists to observe that imposing tariffs is like poking ourselves in the eye to punish our trading partners.But it goes beyond this. Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary unintentionally made the point about the destructive nature of trade wars during an interview with Nick Gillespie for Reason TV:It's not an understatement when Don Boudreaux calls the trade war a “War on Trade.” O'Leary calls it a “brilliant” move by Trump to pressure Canada to arrest a powerful Chinese national's daughter in Canada to poison relations between the two countries.It was intended, O'Leary suspects, to prevent China from shifting its imports of raw materials from the U.S. to Canada, and it worked.China did halt imports from Canada, but it also retaliated by threatening to KILL two Canadian prisoners.Treachery breeds treachery. This won't end well.What's Wrong with Trumponomics?According to economists like Steve Moore, however, Trump's tariffs could effectively pressure countries like China to stop manipulating their currency. The long-term devaluation of the Yuan has helped spur the domestic economy — especially manufacturing — in China, and some credit the policy with China's overall growth and low unemployment (and simultaneous loss of manufacturing output in the U.S.).Listening to Moore, one can easily get the impression that we are merely experiencing a bump in the road en route to globally free trade.Not everyone is buying it, though.Boudreaux — a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, GMU economics professor, and curator of the eminently readable Cafe Hayek—doesn't accept the argument that Trump's trade war will lead to “zero-zero” tariffs in the long run.Why not? First, because Trump doesn't indicate any understanding of free trade.Trump exalts “jobs” above the broader metric of prosperity. Boudreaux maintains that exports are costs Americans pay to receive the benefits of imports. In his view, there is no net benefit to having more jobs or industries in areas in which the Chinese have developed a comparative advantage. As he explained to John Stossel, the result of China's currency manipulation is an opportunity for Americans to specialize in more rewarding jobs in the service sector.Don Boudreaux explains the harms of a War on Trade and the benefits to Americans of trade with China.The ironclad Bob Zadek rule of Government intervention holds that whenever government declares “war” to solve a problem, the problem gets worse.The President has somewhat backed off of his tweet “hereby ordering” U.S. companies to stop doing business in China, but he seems stuck in the zero-sum thinking of his economic advisor Peter Navarro, who insists that the U.S. must mirror the mercantilist approach China has chosen to our own destruction.What John Bolton's advice is to foreign policy, Peter Navarro's advice is to trade — a misguided American exceptionalism that puts us a great risk of losing the traditions of peace and free markets that made us great.We also discuss the wisdom (folly?) and (un)constitutionality of executive orders regulating trade under The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Lastly, I ask Don why conservatives are suddenly embracing a more powerful executive, and aligning themselves with Elizabeth Warren's “economic patriotism.”Do Trump's tax cuts and deregulation measures redeem his economic nationalism?

Matt and Storm are back for episode 77. There's a lot going on in the world, from Democrats gearing up for the 2020 election, children in Philly singing and reading radical Islamic literature, Israel coming under fire from terrorists in Gaza, the New York Times Editorial Board making a surprising concession, the president's approval numbers putting Liberals to shame, and more.

New York City’s top public high school has a diversity problem. How did the crown jewel of the city’s public education system come to look so unlike the public? Guest: Mara Gay, writer for the New York Times Editorial Board. Podcast production by Mary Wilson, Jayson De Leon, and Anna Martin. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New York City’s top public high school has a diversity problem. How did the crown jewel of the city’s public education system come to look so unlike the public? Guest: Mara Gay, writer for the New York Times Editorial Board. Podcast production by Mary Wilson, Jayson De Leon, and Anna Martin. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Semi-Live Podcast on a Fully Controversial TopicSome of you know I've been hinting at launching a podcast. The plans were to launch mid-march, but I felt called to GO NOW despite how informal it will be; i.e., my art work isn't done and I'm not actually listed on Apple Podcasts or Google Play, etc. yet, but instead, you can listen to the audio embedded within my blog post until all the official elements are in place.So what happened? The World Health Organization announced their 2019 Global Health Threats which included: Vaccine Hesitancy. The New York Times Editorial Board then wrote an appeal/game plan to "Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers" which is a gross misrepresentation of actual fact. The article is actually void of facts, yet the messages are being spread far and wide.My friend and fellow health advocate Samantha Lynn put many projects (and our sleep) aside this week to respond. We know this is a highly polarizing and misunderstood topic but as the NYT article admits, most people (98%) fall along a spectrum of questioning vaccines and their safety, and are NOT in fact ANTI-VAXX. We wanted to highlight this and many of the reasons for this spectrum including the major role played by the pharmaceutical industry's influence, the lack of safety studies the government were instructed to conduct and the basic history of disease elimination and how these play a role in introducing legislation to strip our medical freedoms away.Our full blog post (and the audio) with more details and sources mentioned in this podcast are listed here: http://www.jannyorganically.com/blog/2019/1/27/your-industry-bias-is-showingWe hope you find it helpful. If you do, please share the contents how you see fit. Janny & Samantha

This is the story of a three-year-old girl and the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl was a legal battle that entangled a biological father, a heart-broken couple, and the tragic history of Native American children taken from their families. When producer Tim Howard first read about this case, it struck him as a sad, but seemingly straightforward custody dispute. But as he started talking to lawyers, historians, and the families involved in the case, it became clear that it was much more than that. Because Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl challenges parts of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, this case puts one little girl at the center of a storm of legal intricacies, Native American tribal culture, and heart-wrenching personal stakes. A note from Jad: "As you guys may know, our new podcast More Perfect is Radiolab’s first ever spin-off show. But I want to share something special with you: THE Radiolab episode that inspired us to launch this whole series about the Supreme Court. After we put out this episode we got hooked on the court and the kinds of stories we could tell about it. So we made More Perfect. We reported this Radiolab story about three years ago. It’s about a little girl...but really it’s about so much more than that, too. Stay tuned to the end for an update about what has happened since." The key links: - An op-ed by Veronica's birth mom, Christy Maldonado, in the Washington Post- Marcia Zug's article for Slate on the original case that went to the South Carolina Supreme Court- Marcia Zug's article for Slate criticizing the Supreme Court ruling- An op-ed by the New York Times Editorial Board urging action from the Supreme Court- The official site for ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act The key voices: - Matt and Melanie Capobianco, Veronica's adoptive parents- Dusten Brown, Veronica's biological father- Christy Maldonado, Veronica's biological mother- Mark Fiddler, attorney for the Capobiancos- Marcia Zug, associate professor of law at the University of South Carolina School of Law- Bert Hirsch, attorney formerly of the Association on American Indian Affairs- Chrissi Nimmo, Assistant Attorney General for Cherokee Nation- Terry Cross, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association- Lori Alvino McGill, attorney for Christy Maldonado The key cases: - 2013: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

GAIL COLLINS is a revered columnist at The New York Times, best known for her accessibility, wit, and passion for politics and cultural affairs. She previously served as the Editor of The New York Times Editorial Board, and was the first female to do so. In her spare time, she's written five books. EMPLOYEE of the MONTH is a talk show about jobs, work, and labor. Catie Lazarus converses with people who created riveting careers. So if you've ever wondered what it's like to be a novelist, social activist or be a Muppet, subscribe to the podcast. This show may inspire you to write a screenplay, dust off your tap shoes, quit your day job or get one. www.employeeofthemonthshow.com

This is a penal discussion on the ethical challenges American corporations face when they participate in the judicial electoral process. The program is co-sponsored by the Robert Zicklin Center for Corporate Integrity, Baruch College; Center for Political Accountability; and Carol & Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania as part of the David Berg Foundation Lecture Series. Donald Shepers, Director, The Robert Zicklin Center for Corporate, Integrity, makes the opening remarks. The panel is moderated by Marya Cotten, Assistant Professor of Law, Baruch College. Speakers include: Dorothy Samuels, Member, New York Times Editorial Board; author of The Selling of the Judiciary James Sample, Professor, Hofstra Law School; formerly director of the Judicial Elections Project at the Brennan Center, New York University Jeffery Berger, Associate, Mayer Brown The Hon. Penny White, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Law; former justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court Roy Schotland, Professor of Law, Georgetown University The event takes place on September, 17, 2009, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750.

This is a penal discussion on the ethical challenges American corporations face when they participate in the judicial electoral process. The program is co-sponsored by the Robert Zicklin Center for Corporate Integrity, Baruch College; Center for Political Accountability; and Carol & Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania as part of the David Berg Foundation Lecture Series. Donald Shepers, Director, The Robert Zicklin Center for Corporate, Integrity, makes the opening remarks. The panel is moderated by Marya Cotten, Assistant Professor of Law, Baruch College. Speakers include: Dorothy Samuels, Member, New York Times Editorial Board; author of The Selling of the Judiciary James Sample, Professor, Hofstra Law School; formerly director of the Judicial Elections Project at the Brennan Center, New York University Jeffery Berger, Associate, Mayer Brown The Hon. Penny White, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Law; former justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court Roy Schotland, Professor of Law, Georgetown University The event takes place on September, 17, 2009, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750.