Podcasts about New Yorker

This week on The Treatment, Elvis speaks with F1 director Joseph Kosinski about his freshly minted box office juggernaut. Then, actor Greg Kinnear stops by to talk about Smoke, his new Apple TV+ series about a serial arsonist. And on The Treat, The New Yorker editor (and Lorne Michaels biographer) Susan Morrison shares an epic “I was there” story.

Zoe Wallbrook shares how her debut mystery, History Lessons, blends academia, amateur sleuthing, and suspense in this clever, twisty campus mystery with heart.In today's special July 4th Book Gang episode, author Zoe B. Wallbrook joins me for a smart and surprising conversation about her dazzling debut, History Lessons. This mystery novel brings the classroom to the crime scene.When a brilliant but insufferable colleague is murdered, Professor Daphne Ouverture's quiet academic life gives way to a dangerous investigation filled with buried secrets, institutional reckonings, and revolutionary echoes.In the spirit of the assignment, this July 4th, we're turning the spotlight on liberty—not just American, but French too. In this week's savvy conversation, Zoe and I discuss:How Daphne's specialty—Black families in 18th-century France—reframes historical narratives and why fiction can be a powerful tool for expanding the lens of academic research.What it takes to write a compelling mystery with real-world research at its core—and how Zoe's Pitch Wars experience and academic life shaped the story.Surprising intersections between the American and French Revolutions—and what Daphne might rant about if she were giving a July 4th lecture on liberty and institutional power.BONUS BOOK LIST: This week, I'm sharing 41 Unlikely Amateur Sleuths Are On the Case, featuring amateur sleuths who take matters into their own hands- from cozy, small-town investigations to gripping whodunits!Meet Zoe B. WallbrookZoe B. Wallbrook is a recently tenured professor whose academic research has appeared in outlets such as the New York Times and The New Yorker. She was selected for mentorship by LA Times bestseller Elizabeth Little, and History Lessons, her first novel, was a runner-up for the Eleanor Taylor Bland Award. Zoe's hobbies include beginning all emails with, "My sincerest apologies for my slow reply," pretending to understand how astrological signs work, and crying at the end of every Call the Midwife episode. She and her husband live with their stalker, a black lab/pittie mix named Sophie. Mentioned in this episode:Browse the 2025 MomAdvice Summer Reading Guide (with ads) or download the 48-page reading guide ($7) to support our show. If you are a show patron, please check your inbox for your copy as part of your member benefits. Thank you for supporting my small business!  Download Today's Show TranscriptJoin the July Book Club Chat (Husbands & Lovers)BONUS BOOK LIST: 41 Unlikely Amateur SleuthsHistory Lessons by Zoe B. WallbrookKindred by Octavia ButlerDawn by Octavia ButlerParable of the Sower by Octavia ButlerPitch WarsDear Daughter by Elizabeth LittlePretty as a Picture by Elizabeth LittlePapillon by Henri CharrierePapillonAmerican Slavery, American Freedom by Edmund S. MorganTyler StovallSue PeabodyQueenie by Candice Carty-WilliamsBookshop.org pays a 10% commission on every sale and matches 10% to independent bookstores!Connect With Us:Join the Book Gang PatreonConnect with Zoe Wallbrook on Instagram or her WebsiteConnect with Amy on Instagram, TikTok, or MomAdviceGet My Happy List NewsletterGet the Daily Kindle Deals NewsletterBuy Me a Coffee (for a one-time donation)

How has the media distorted Israel's response to the October 7 Hamas attacks? In this powerful conversation from AJC Global Forum 2025, award-winning journalist and former AP correspondent Matti Friedman breaks down the media bias, misinformation, and double standards shaping global coverage of Israel. Moderated by AJC Chief Communications and Strategy Officer Belle Etra Yoeli, this episode explores how skewed narratives have taken hold in the media, in a climate of activist journalism. A must-listen for anyone concerned with truth in journalism, Israel advocacy, and combating disinformation in today's media landscape. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. Take action now. Resources: Global Forum 2025 session with Matti Friedman:: Watch the full video. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  John Spencer's Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: I've had the privilege of interviewing journalism colleague Matti Friedman: twice on this podcast. In 2022, Matti took listeners behind the scenes of Jerusalem's AP bureau where he had worked between 2006 and 2011 and shared some insight on what happens when news outlets try to oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then in 2023, I got to sit down with Matti in Jerusalem to talk about his latest book on Leonard Cohen and how the 1973 Yom Kippur War was a turning point both for the singer and for Israel.  Earlier this year, Matti came to New York for AJC Global Forum 2025, and sat down with Belle Yoeli, AJC Chief Strategy and Communications Officer. They rehashed some of what we discussed before, but against an entirely different backdrop: post-October 7. For this week's episode, we bring you a portion of that conversation.  Belle Yoeli:   Hi, everyone. Great to see all of you. Thank you so much for being here. Matti, thank you for being here.  Matti Friedman:   Thanks for having me.  Belle Yoeli:   As you can tell by zero empty seats in this room, you have a lot of fans, and unless you want to open with anything, I'm going to jump right in. Okay, great.  So for those of you who don't know, in September 2024 Matti wrote a piece in The Free Press that is a really great foundation for today's discussion. In When We Started to Lie, Matti, you reflect on two pieces that you had written in 2015 about issues of media coverage of Israel during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. And this piece basically talked about the conclusions you drew and how they've evolved since October 7. We're gonna get to those conclusions, but first, I'm hoping you can describe for everyone what were the issues of media coverage of Israel that you first identified based on the experience in 2014? Matti Friedman:   First of all, thanks so much for having me here, and thanks for all of the amazing work that you guys are doing. So it's a real honor for me. I was a reporter for the AP, between 2006 and the very end of 2011, in Jerusalem. I was a reporter and editor. The AP, of course, as you know, is the American news agency. It's the world's largest news organization, according to the AP, according to Reuters, it's Reuters. One of them is probably right, but it's a big deal in the news world.  And I had an inside view inside one of the biggest AP bureaus. In fact, the AP's biggest International Bureau, which was in Jerusalem. So I can try to sketch the problems that I saw as a reporter there. It would take me seven or eight hours, and apparently we only have four or five hours for this lunch, so I have to keep it short. But I would say there are two main problems. We often get very involved. When we talk about problems with coverage of Israel. We get involved with very micro issues like, you call it a settlement. I call it a neighborhood. Rockets, you know, the Nakba, issues of terminology. But in fact, there are two major problems that are much bigger, and because they're bigger, they're often harder to see. One of the things that I noticed at the Bureau was the scale of coverage of Israel. So at the time that I was at the AP, again, between 2006 and the very end of 2011 we had about 40 full time staffers covering Israel. That's print reporters like me, stills photographers, TV crews. Israel, as most of you probably know, is a very small country. As a percentage of the world's surface, Israel is 1/100 of 1% of the surface of the world, and as a percentage of the land mass of the Arab world, Israel is 1/5 of 1%. 0.2%.  And we had 40 people covering it.  And just as a point of comparison, that was dramatically more people than we had at the time covering China. There are about 10 million people today in Israel proper, in China, there are 1.3 billion. We had more people in Israel than we had in China. We had more people in Israel than we had in India, which is another country of about 1.3 billion people. We had more people in Israel than we had in all of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. That's 50 something countries. So we had more people in Israel than we had in all of those countries combined. And sometimes I say that to Jews, I say we covered Israel more than we covered China, and people just stare at me blankly, because it's Israel. So of course, that makes perfect sense.  I happen to think Israel is the most important country in the world because I live there. But if the news is meant to be a rational analysis of events on planet Earth, you cannot cover Israel more than you cover the continent of Africa. It just doesn't make any sense. So one of the things that first jumped out at me– actually, that's making me sound smarter than I am. It didn't jump out at me at first. It took a couple of years. And I just started realizing that it was very strange that the world's largest organization had its largest international bureau in the State of Israel, which is a very small country, very small conflict in numeric terms. And yet there was this intense global focus on it that made people think that it was the most important story in the world. And it definitely occupies a place in the American political imagination that is not comparable to any other international conflict.  So that's one part of the problem. That was the scope, the other part was the context. And it took me a while to figure this out, but the coverage of Israel is framed as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict is defined in those terms, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and everyone in this room has heard it discussed in those terms. Sometimes we discuss it in those terms, and that is because the news folks have framed the conflict in those terms. So at the AP bureau in Jerusalem, every single day, we had to write a story that was called, in the jargon of the Bureau, Is-Pals, Israelis, Palestinians. And it was the daily wrap of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. So what Netanyahu said, what Abbas said, rockets, settlers, Hamas, you know, whatever, the problem is that there isn't an Israeli=Palestinian conflict. And I know that sounds crazy, because everyone thinks there is.  And of course, we're seeing conflicts play out in the most tragic way right now in Gaza. But most of Israel's wars have not been fought against Palestinians. Israel has unfortunately fought wars against Egyptians and Jordanians and Lebanese and Iraqis. And Israel's most important enemy at the moment, is Iran, right? The Iranians are not Palestinian. The Iranians are not Arab. They're Muslim, but they're not Arab. So clearly, there is a broader regional conflict that's going on that is not an Israeli Palestinian conflict, and we've seen it in the past year. If we had a satellite in space looking down and just following the paths of ballistic missiles and rockets fired at Israel. Like a photograph of these red trails of rockets fired at Israel. You'd see rockets being fired from Iraq and from Yemen and from Lebanon and from Gaza and from Iran. You'd see the contours of a regional conflict.  And if you understand it's a regional conflict, then you understand the way Israelis see it. There are in the Arab world, 300 million people, almost all of them Muslim. And in one corner of that world, there are 7 million Jews, who are Israelis. And if we zoom out even farther to the level of the Islamic world, we'll see that there are 2 billion people in the Islamic world. There's some argument about the numbers, but it's roughly a quarter of the world's population. And in one corner of that world there, there are 7 million Israeli Jews. The entire Jewish population on planet Earth is a lot smaller than the population of Cairo.  So the idea that this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Israelis are the stronger side, where Israelis are the dominant actor, and where Israelis are, let's face it, the bad guy in the story, that's a fictional presentation of a story that actually works in a completely different way. So if you take a small story and make it seem big. If you take a complicated regional story and you make it seem like a very small local story involving only Israelis and Palestinians, then you get the highly simplified but very emotive narrative that everyone is being subjected to now. And you get this portrayal of a villainous country called Israel that really looms in the liberal imagination of the West as an embodiment of the worst possible qualities of the age. Belle Yoeli:   Wow. So already you were seeing these issues when you were reporter, earlier on. But like this, some of this was before and since, since productive edge. This is over 10 years ago, and here we are. So October 7 happens. You already know these issues exist. You've identified them. How would you describe because obviously we have a lot of feelings about this, but like, strictly as a journalist, how would you describe the coverage that you've seen since during October 7, in its aftermath? Is it just these issues? Have they? Have they expanded? Are there new issues in play? What's your analysis? Matti Friedman:   The coverage has been great. I really have very I have no criticism of it. I think it's very accurate. I think that I, in a way, I was lucky to have been through what I went through 10 or 15 years ago, and I wasn't blindsided on October 7, as many people were, many people, quite naturally, don't pay close attention to this. And even people who are sympathetic to Israel, I think, were not necessarily convinced that my argument about the press was right. And I think many people thought it was overstated.  And you can read those articles from 2014 one was in tablet and one was in the Atlantic, but it's basically the two chapters of the same argument. And unfortunately, I think that those the essays, they stand up. In fact, if you don't really look at the date of the essays, they kind of seem that they could have been written in the past year and a half. And I'm not happy about that. I think that's and I certainly wrote them in hopes that they would somehow make things better. But the issues that I saw in the press 15 years ago have only been exacerbated since then. And October seven didn't invent the wheel. The issues were pre existing, but it took everything that I saw and kind of supercharged it.  So if I talked about ideological conformity in the bureaus that has been that has become much more extreme. A guy like me, I was hired in 2006 at the AP. I'm an Israeli of center left political leanings. Hiring me was not a problem in 22,006 by the time I left the AP, at the end of 2011 I'm pretty sure someone like me would not have been hired because my views, which are again, very centrist Israeli views, were really beyond the pale by the time that I left the AP, and certainly, and certainly today, the thing has really moved what I saw happening at the AP. And I hate picking on the AP because they were just unfortunate enough to hire me. That was their only error, but what I'm saying about them is true of a whole new. Was heard. It's true of the Times and CNN and the BBC, the news industry really works kind of as a it has a herd mentality. What happened was that news decisions were increasingly being made by people who are not interested in explanatory journalism. They were activists. Activists had moved into the key positions in the Bureau, and they had a very different idea of what press coverage was supposed to do. I would say, and I tried to explain it in that article for the free press, when I approach a news story, when I approach the profession of journalism, the question that I'm asking is, what's going on? That's the question I think you're supposed to ask, what's going on? How can I explain it in a way that's as accurate as as possible? The question that was increasingly being asked was not what's going on. The question was, who does this serve? That's an activist question. So when you look at a story, you don't ask, is it true, or is it not true? You ask, who's it going to help? Is it going to help the good guys, or is it going to help the bad guys?  So if Israel in the story is the villain, then a story that makes Israel seem reasonable, reasonable or rational or sympathetic needs to be played down to the extent possible or made to disappear. And I can give you an example from my own experience.  At the very end of 2008 two reporters in my bureau, people who I know, learned of a very dramatic peace offer that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made to the Palestinians. So Olmert, who was the prime minister at the time, had made a very far reaching offer that was supposed to see a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, most of the West Bank, with land swaps for territory that Israel was going to retain, and a very far reaching international consortium agreement to run the Old City of Jerusalem. Was a very dramatic. It was so far reaching, I think that Israelis probably wouldn't have supported it. But it was offered to the Palestinian side, and the Palestinians rejected it as insufficient. And two of our reporters knew about this, and they'd seen a map of the offer. And this was obviously a pretty big story for a bureau that had as the thrust of its coverage the peace process.  The two reporters who had the story were ordered to drop it, they were not allowed to cover the story. And there were different explanations. And they didn't, by the way, AP did not publish the story at the time, even though we were the first to have it. Eventually, it kind of came out and in other ways, through other news organizations. But we knew at first. Why were we not allowed to cover it? Because it would have made the Israelis who we were trying to villainize and demonize, it would have made Israel seem like it was trying to solve the conflict on kind of reasonable lines, which, of course, was true at that time. So that story would have upended the thrust of our news coverage. So it had to be made to go away, even though it was true, it would have helped the wrong people. And that question of who does this serve has destroyed, I want to say all, but much, of what used to be mainstream news coverage, and it's not just where Israel is concerned.  You can look at a story like the mental health of President Biden, right. Something's going on with Biden at the end of his term. It's a huge global news story, and the press, by and large, won't touch it, because why? I mean, it's true, right? We're all seeing that it's true, but why can't you touch it? Because it would help the wrong people. It would help the Republicans who in the press are the people who you are not supposed to help.  The origins of COVID, right? We heard one story about that. The true story seems to be a different story. And there are many other examples of stories that are reported because they help the right people, or not reported because they would help the wrong people. And I saw this thinking really come into action in Israel 10 or 15 years ago, and unfortunately, it's really spread to include the whole mainstream press scene and really kill it.  I mean, essentially, anyone interested in trying to get a solid sense of what's going on, we have very few options. There's not a lot, there's not a lot out there. So that's the broader conclusion that I drew from what I thought at the time was just a very small malfunction involving Israel coverage. But Israel coverage ends up being a symptom of something much bigger, as Jews often are the symptom of something much bigger that's going on.  So my problems in the AP bureau 15 years ago were really a kind of maybe a canary in the coal mine, or a whiff of something much bigger that we were all going to see happen, which is the transformation of the important liberal institutions of the west into kind of activist arms of a very radical ideology that has as its goal the transformation of the west into something else. And that's true of the press, and it's true of NGO world, places like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which were one thing 30 years ago and are something very different today. And it's also true of big parts of the academy. It's true of places like Columbia and places like Harvard, they still have the logo, they still have the name, but they serve a different purpose, and I just happen to be on the ground floor of it as a reporter. Belle Yoeli:   So obviously, this concept of who does this serve, and this activist journalism is deeply concerning, and you actually mentioned a couple other areas, academia, obviously we're in that a lot right now in terms of what's going on campus. So I guess a couple of questions on that. First of all, think about this very practically, tachlis, in the day to day.  I'm a journalist, and I go to write about what's happening in Gaza. What would you say is, if you had to throw out a percentage, are all of them aware of this activist journalist tendency? Or you think it's like, like intentional for many of them, or it's sort of they've been educated that way, and it's their worldview in such a way that they don't even know that they're not reporting the news in a very biased way. Does that make sense? Matti Friedman:   Totally. I think that many people in the journalism world today view their job as not as explaining a complicated situation, but as swaying people toward the correct political conclusion. Journalism is power, and the power has to be wielded in support of justice. Now, justice is very slippery, and, you know, choosing who's in the right is very, very slippery, and that's how journalism gets into a lot of trouble. Instead of just trying to explain what's going on and then leave, you're supposed to leave the politics and the activism to other people. Politics and activism are very important.  But unless everyone can agree on what is going on, it's impossible to choose the kind of act, the kind of activism that would be useful. So when the journalists become activists, then no one can understand what's what's going on, because the story itself is fake, and there are many, many examples of it. But you know, returning to what you asked about, about October 7, and reporting post October 7, you can really see it happen. The massacres of October 7 were very problematic for the ideological strain that now controls a lot of the press, because it's counterintuitive. You're not supposed to sympathize with Israelis.  And yet, there were a few weeks after October 7 when they were forced to because the nature of the atrocities were so heinous that they could not be ignored. So you had the press covering what happened on October 7, but you could feel it. As someone who knows that scene, you could feel there was a lot of discomfort. There was a lot of discomfort. It wasn't their comfort zone, and you knew that within a few weeks, maybe a month, it was gonna snap back at the first opportunity.  When did it snap back? In the story of the Al Ahli hospital strike. If you remember that a few weeks in, there's a massive global story that Israel has rocketed Hospital in Gaza and killed about 500 people and and then you can see the kind of the comfort the comfort zone return, because the story that the press is primed to cover is a story about villainous Israelis victimizing innocent Palestinians, and now, now we're back. Okay. Now Israel's rocketing hospital. The problem was that it hadn't happened, and it was that a lot of stories don't happen, and they're allowed to stand.  But this story was so far from the truth that even the people involved couldn't make it work, and it had to be retracted, but it was basically too late. And then as soon as the Israeli ground offensive got into swing in Gaza, then the story really becomes the same old story, which is a story of Israel victimizing Palestinians for no reason. And you'll never see Hamas militants in uniform in Gaza. You just see dead civilians, and you'll see the aftermath of a rocket strike when the, you know, when an Israeli F16 takes out the launcher, but you will never see the strike. Which is the way it's worked in Gaza since the very end of 2008 which is when the first really bad round of violence in Gaza happens, which is when I'm at the AP.  As far as I know, I was the first staffer to erase information from the story, because we were threatened by Hamas, which happened at the very end of 2008. We had a great reporter in Gaza, a Palestinian who had always been really an excellent reporter. We had a detail in a story. The detail was a crucial one. It was that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and were being counted as civilians in the death toll, an important thing to know, that went out in an AP story. The reporter called me a few hours later. It was clear that someone had spoken to him, and he told me, I was on the desk in Jerusalem, so I was kind of writing the story from the main bureau in Jerusalem. And he said, Matti, you have to take that detail out of the story. And it was clear that someone had threatened him. I took the detail out of the story. I suggested to our editors that we note in an Editor's Note that we were now complying with Hamas censorship. I was overruled, and from that point in time, the AP, like all of its sister organizations, collaborates with Hamas censorship in Gaza.  What does that mean? You'll see a lot of dead civilians, and you won't see dead militants. You won't have a clear idea of what the Hamas military strategy is. And this is the kicker, the center of the coverage will be a number, a casualty number, that is provided to the press by something called the Gaza health ministry, which is Hamas. And we've been doing that since 2008, and it's a way of basically settling the story before you get into any other information. Because when you put, you know, when you say 50 Palestinians were killed, and one Israeli on a given day, it doesn't matter what else you say. The numbers kind of tell their own story, and it's a way of settling the story with something that sounds like a concrete statistic. And the statistic is being, you know, given to us by one of the combatant sides. But because the reporters sympathize with that side, they're happy to play along. So since 2008, certainly since 2014 when we had another serious war in Gaza, the press has not been covering Gaza, the press has been essentially an amplifier for one of the most poisonous ideologies on Earth. Hamas has figured out how to make the press amplify its messaging rather than covering Hamas. There are no Western reporters in Gaza. All of the reporters in Gaza are Palestinians, and those people fall into three categories. Some of them identify with Hamas. Some of them are intimidated by Hamas and won't cross Hamas, which makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't want to cross Hamas either. So either. And the third category is people who actually belong to Hamas. That's where the information from Gaza is coming from. And if you're credulous, then of course, you're going to get a story that makes Israel look pretty bad. Belle Yoeli:   So this is very depressing. That's okay. It's very helpful, very depressing. But on that note, I would ask you so whether, because you spoke about this problem in terms, of, of course, the coverage of Israel, but that it's it's also more widespread you talk, you spoke about President Biden in your article, you name other examples of how this sort of activist journalism is affecting everything we read. So what should everyone in this room be reading, truly, from your opinion. This is Matti's opinion. But if you want to you want to get information from our news and not activist journalism, obviously The Free Press, perhaps. But are there other sites or outlets that you think are getting this more down the line, or at least better than some, some better than others?  Matti Friedman:   No, it's just The Free Press. No. I mean, it's a question that I also wrestle with. I haven't given up on everyone, and even in publications that have, I think, largely lost the plot, you'll still find good stuff on occasion. So I try to keep my eye on certain reporters whose name I know. I often ask not just on Israel, but on anything, does this reporter speak the language of the country that they're covering? You'd be shocked at how rare that is for Americans. A lot of the people covering Ukraine have no idea what language they speak in Ukraine, and just as someone who covers Israel, I'm aware of the low level of knowledge that many of the Western reporters have. You'll find really good stuff still in the Atlantic. The Atlantic has managed, against steep odds, to maintain its equilibrium amid all this. The New Yorker, unfortunately, less so, but you'll still see, on occasion, things that are good. And there are certain reporters who are, you know, you can trust. Isabel Kirchner, who writes for The New York Times, is an old colleague of mine from the Jerusalem report. She's excellent, and they're just people who are doing their job. But by and large, you have to be very, very suspicious of absolutely everything that you read and see. And I'm not saying that as someone who I'm not happy to say that, and I certainly don't identify with, you know, the term fake news, as it has been pushed by President Trump.  I think that fake news is, you know, for those guys, is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. They're trying to, you know, neuter the watchdog so that they can get away with whatever they want. I don't think that crowd is interested in good press coverage. Unfortunately, the term fake news sticks because it's true. That's why it has worked. And the press, instead of helping people navigate the blizzard of disinformation that we're all in, they've joined it. People who are confused about what's going on, should be able to open up the New York Times or go to the AP and figure out what's going on, but because, and I saw it happen, instead of covering the circus, the reporters became dancing bears in the circus. So no one can make heads or tails of anything. So we need to be very careful.  Most headlines that are out there are out there to generate outrage, because that's the most predictable generator of clicks, which is the, we're in a click economy. So I actually think that the less time you spend following headlines and daily news, the better off you'll be. Because you can follow the daily news for a year, and by the end of the year, you'll just be deranged. You'll just be crazy and very angry.  If you take that time and use it to read books about, you know, bitten by people who are knowledgeable, or read longer form essays that are, you know, that are obviously less likely to be very simplistic, although not, you know, it's not completely impossible that they will be. I think that's time, that's time better spent. Unfortunately, much of the industry is kind of gone. And we're in an interesting kind of interim moment where it's clear that the old news industry is basically dead and that something new has to happen. And those new things are happening. I mean, The Free Press is part of a new thing that's happening. It's not big enough to really move the needle in a dramatic way yet, but it might be, and I think we all have to hope that new institutions emerge to fill the vacuum.  The old institutions, and I say this with sorrow, and I think that this also might be true of a lot of the academic institutions. They can't be saved. They can't be saved. So if people think that writing an editor, a letter to the editor of the New York Times is going to help. It's not going to help. Sometimes people say, Why don't we just get the top people in the news industry and bring them to Israel and show them the truth? Doesn't help. It's not about knowing or not knowing. They define the profession differently.  So it's not about a lack of information. The institutions have changed, and it's kind of irrevocable at this point, and we need new institutions, and one of them is The Free Press, and it's a great model of what to do when faced with fading institutions. By the way, the greatest model of all time in that regard is Zionism. That's what Zionism is. There's a guy in Vienna in 1890 something, and his moment is incredibly contemporary. There's an amazing biography of Herzl called Herzl by Amos Elon. It's an amazing book. If you haven't read it, you should read it, because his moment in cosmopolitan Vienna sounds exactly like now. It's shockingly current. He's in this friendly city. He's a reporter for the New York Times, basically of the Austro Hungarian empire, and he's assimilated, and he's got a Christmas tree in his house, and his son isn't circumcised, and he thinks everything is basically great. And then the light changes.  He notices that something has changed in Vienna, and the discourse about Jews changes, and like in a Hollywood movie, the light changes. And he doesn't try to he doesn't start a campaign against antisemitism. He doesn't get on social media and kind of rail against unfair coverage. He sits down in a hotel room in Paris and he writes this pamphlet called the Jewish state, and I literally flew from that state yesterday. So there's a Zionist model where you look at a failing world and you think about radical solutions that involve creation. And I think we're there. And I think Herzl's model is a good one at a dark time you need real creativity. Belle Yoeli:   Thank God you found the inspiration there, because I was really, I was really starting to worry. No, in all seriousness, Matti, the saying that these institutions can't be saved. I mean the consequences of this, not just for us as pro-Israel, pro-Jewish advocates, but for our country, for the world, the countries that we come from are tremendous.  And the way we've been dealing with this issue and thinking about how, how can you change hearts and minds of individuals about Israel, about the Jewish people, if everything that they're reading is so damaging and most of what they're reading is so damaging and basically saying there's very little that we can do about that. So I am going to push you to dream big with us. We're an advocacy organization. AJC is an advocacy organization. So if you had unlimited resources, right, if you really wanted to make change in this area, to me, it sounds like you're saying we basically need 15 Free Presses or the new institutions to really take on this way. What would you do? What would you do to try to make it so that news media were more like the old days? Matti Friedman:   Anyone who wants unlimited resources should not go into journalism. I have found that my resources remain limited. I'll give you an answer that is probably not what you're expecting or not what you want here. I think that the fight can't be won. I think that antisemitism can't be defeated. And I think that resources that are poured into it are resources wasted. And of course, I think that people need legal protection, and they need, you know, lawyers who can protect people from discrimination and from defamation. That's very important. But I know that when people are presented with a problem like antisemitism, which is so disturbing and it's really rocking the world of everyone in this room, and certainly, you know, children and grandchildren, you have a problem and you want to address it, right? You have a really bad rash on your arm. You want the rash to go away, and you're willing to do almost anything to make it go away. This has always been with us. It's always been with us.  And you know, we recently celebrated the Seder, and we read in the Seder, in the Haggadah, l'chol dor vador, omdim aleinu l'chaloteinu. Which is, in every generation, they come at us to destroy us. And it's an incredibly depressing worldview. Okay, it's not the way I wanted to see the world when I grew up in Toronto in the 1990s. But in our tradition, we have this idea that this is always gonna be around. And the question is, what do you do? Do you let other people define you? Do you make your identity the fight against the people who hate you? And I think that's a dead end.  This crisis is hitting the Jewish people at a moment when many of us don't know who we are, and I think that's why it's hitting so hard. For my grandfather, who was a standard New York Jew, garment industry, Lower East Side, poor union guy. This would not have shaken him, because he just assumed that this was the world like this. The term Jewish identity was not one he ever heard, because it wasn't an issue or something that had to be taught. So if I had unlimited resources, what I would do is I would make sure that young Jewish people have access to the riches of Jewish civilization, I would, you know, institute a program that would allow any young Jewish person to be fluent in Hebrew by the time they finish college. Why is that so important? Why is that such an amazing key?  Because if you're fluent in Hebrew, you can open a Tanakh, or you can open a prayer book if you want. Or you can watch Fauda or you can get on a plane to Israel and hit on Israeli guys. Hebrew is the key to Jewish life, and if you have it, a whole world will open up. And it's not one that antisemites can interfere with. It does not depend on the goodwill of our neighbors. It's all about us and what we're doing with ourselves. And I think that if you're rooted in Jewish tradition, and I'm not saying becoming religious, I'm just saying, diving into the riches of Jewish tradition, whether it's history or gemara or Israel, or whatever, if you're if you're deep in there enough, then the other stuff doesn't go away, but it becomes less important.  It won't be solved because it can't be solved, but it will fade into the background. And if we make the center of identity the fight against antisemitism, they've won. Why should they be the center of our identity? For a young person who's looking for some way of living or some deep kind of guide to life, the fight against antisemitism is not going to do it, and philanthropy is not going to do it. We come from the wisest and one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and many of us don't know how to open the door to that civilization, and that's in our hands. And if we're not doing it, it's not the fault of the antisemites. It's our own fault. So if I had unlimited resources, which, again, it's not, it's not going to happen unless I make a career change, that's where I would be putting my effort. Internally and not externally.  Belle Yoeli:   You did find the inspiration, though, again, by pushing Jewish identity, and we appreciate that. It's come up a lot in this conversation, this question about how we fight antisemitism, investing in Jewish identity and who we are, and at the same time, what do we do about it? And I think all of you heard Ted in a different context last night, say, we can hold two things, two thoughts at the same time, right? Two things can be true at the same time. And I think for me, what I took out of this, in addition to your excellent insights, is that that's exactly what we have to be doing.  At AJC, we have to be engaging in this advocacy to stand up for the Jewish people and the State of Israel. But that's not the only piece of the puzzle. Of course, we have to be investing in Jewish identity. That's why we bring so many young people to this conference. Of course, we need to be investing in Jewish education. That's not necessarily what AJC is doing, the bulk of our work, but it's a lot of what the Jewish community is doing, and these pieces have to go together. And I want to thank you for raising that up for us, and again, for everything that you said. Thank you all so much for being here. Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in as John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, breaks down Israel's high-stakes strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. 

“You have to have a lot of patience,” says science writer Jennie Erin Smith about working on a long-term creative project. She adds, “You have to have a lot of patience with eccentric people.” In this bonus episode, we talk about patience, plus about sharing work with creative heroes, the importance of taking a good long break, the art of pushing through, what to do when the words aren't coming, and why having a “breakthrough” isn't a necessary part of the process.Jennie Erin Smith is the author of Valley of Forgetting: Alzheimer's Families and the Search for a Cure. She is a regular contributor to The New York Times and has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, The New Yorker, and others. She is a recipient of the Rona Jaffe Foundation Writers' Award; the Waldo Proffitt Award for Excellence in Environmental Journalism in Florida; and two first-place awards from the Society for Features Journalism. She lives in Florida and Colombia. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit emergingform.substack.com/subscribe

This Isn't Therapy... it's our *encore* eppy from our first episode BACKKKK (from last year!!) This week, we're talking about why finding hope can often feel so hopeless in hopeless in times. We peel back the curtain on an article from The New Yorker called "Do you have hope?" which looks at the ways hope can live alongside despair, pain, and grief. We discuss what hope is, how hope can be active or passive, and how to use active forms of hope as a way of coping with challenging times and taking effective action on your goals.Article: Do you have hope? By Joshua RothmanCreators & Guests Simon Paluck - Host Jake Ernst - Host Hello, hi! Follow us on Instagram: @notatherapypodcast⁣Jake Ernst: @mswjakeSimon Paluck: @directedbysimonOriginal music composed by Kat Burns and performed by KASHKA.

Dear Article Clubbers,Thank you for the kind birthday wishes last week. It's true that our reading community is 10 years old. And we're just getting started!Just like that, we're in July, which means this week's issue is dedicated to featuring the article of the month and encouraging you to join our discussion.I'm happy to announce that this month, we're going to be diving into “The End of Children,” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus. Published in February in The New Yorker, the article explores the imminent stark drop in population around the world, most notably in South Korea.Don't worry: Even though the declining human fertility rate has become a political topic in the United States, this piece is nuanced and deeply reported. I'm certain you'll appreciate it, even if you end up disagreeing with the writer's stance.Inside today's issue, you'll find:* Melinda and my first impressions of the article (on the podcast)* My blurb about the article* A short bio of the author* A warm invite to join our discussion on July 27If you can't be bothered by all of that, and just want to sign up for the discussion right here and now, by all means, please do!The End of ChildrenGrowing up, I worried about many things. One source of worry was my family's evacuation plan in case of fire; it wasn't robust enough. Another source was the world's exponential population increase, which would inevitably doom us.Turns out, at the time, my concern was not unfounded. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb that millions of people would die of starvation unless governments aggressively curtailed the fertility rate. But instead of population rising without bound, the opposite has happened. In 2023, for the first time ever, because on average each woman had fewer than 2.1 children (the “replacement rate”), the world's population shrank. All projections say this trend will continue, until one day, there won't be enough people for us to sustain as a species.In Seoul, where writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus focuses this article, “children are largely phantom presences.” There are more dogs than children. Ask anyone on the street, a Korean demographer said, and they'll know the country's fertility rate. (It is 0.7, the lowest in the world.) Kids bring ick. Many businesses are “no-kids zones.”The United States (fertility rate: 1.6) is headed in a similar direction, Mr. Lewis-Kraus argues. The truth is, for whatever reason (and there are many), younger Americans no longer think having children is an inevitability. As immigration declines, and climate concerns rise, and structural inequities worsen, our country may face the same problem as Korea. And that could lead to catastrophe.Should we care about the declining fertility rate? Or is it just a misogynistic conservative ruse to distract our attention from the deleterious effects of climate change? In my opinion, this is the first article written by a progressive that has looked seriously at the issue and presented it to a mainstream audience.By Gideon Lewis-Kraus • The New Yorker • 42 min • Gift Link➕ Bonus: Here's the article with my handwritten highlights and annotations.About the authorA staff writer at The New Yorker, Mr. Lewis-Kraus grew up in New Jersey and graduated from Stanford. He writes reportage and criticism and is the author of the digressive travel memoir A Sense of Direction as well as the Kindle Single No Exit. Previously, he was a writer-at-large at The New York Times Magazine, a contributing editor at Harper's magazine, and a contributing writer at WIRED magazine. He has lived in San Francisco, Berlin, and Shanghai, and now lives in Brooklyn with his wife and two small children. Mr. Lewis-Kraus generously recorded an interview with Article Club, which will be published in two weeks.About the discussionMy hope is that you'll read “The End of Children” and want to talk about it! (Even though we don't “debate” at Article Club discussions, I predict this topic will lead to a spicier-than-usual conversation.)We'll be meeting up on Zoom on Sunday, July 27, 2:00 - 3:30 pm PT. We'll spend the first few minutes saying hi and doing short introductions. Then after I frame the piece and share our community agreements, we'll break out into small, facilitated discussion groups. The small groups usually include 5-8 people, so there's plenty of time to share your perspectives and listen to others. That's where we'll spend the bulk of our time. Toward the end, we'll return to the full group, sharing our reflections and appreciations of fellow participants.If this sounds interesting to you, sign up by clicking on the button below.If you're unsure, I get it. If you don't know me, it might feel strange to sign up for an online discussion with total strangers. But I am confident that you'll find yourself at home with other kind people who like to read deeply and explore ideas in community. We've done this 58 times, and by now, it's not a surprise that we're able to create an intimate space, almost like we're in the same physical room together.I hope that you read the piece. If it resonates with you, I encourage you to take the plunge and join us on July 27!Thank you for reading and listening to this week's issue. Hope you liked it.

  Today Razib talks to Manvir Singh about shamanism, religion and anthropology. Singh is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis. An artist and essayist, he is also now a regular contributor to The New Yorker. His academic interests lie in explaining why most human societies, from preliterate foragers to urbanites, develop cultural phenomena like “witchcraft, origin myths, property rights, sharing norms, lullabies, dance music, and gods.” He just came out with his first book, Shamanism: The Timeless Religion. First Razib asks what Singh exactly means by shamanism, and whether it is a religion or not. Singh argues that shamanism is religion, that in some ways it is the primal religion. While many would contrast institutional religions like Christianity with shamanism, Singh points out that even Christianity includes shamanic practices, as in the Acts of the Apostles, or in some of the Pentecostal sects of Protestantism. He also discusses how his theoretical understanding of religion was complemented by field-work among the Mentawai tribe of Indonesia, who have a rich shamanic tradition. Razib then foregrounds the question of whether shamanism was invented in a particular place and time, like Siberia as argued by some 20th-century scholars, or whether it is universal in our psychology. Singh argues for the latter position, illustrating the fact that many cultures seem to lose shamanism when the number of adherents falls low enough, but that they seem to regain it once their popularity bounces back. Humanity's shamanic impulse is always there, at the ready. Razib and Singh also discuss the ubiquity of shamanic practices across East Asia, especially in Korea and Japan. In the latter society, shamanism forms the foundation of one of the people's two major religions, Shinto. Finally, they address the role of psychedelic drugs in the emergence of shamanism cross-culturally.

On June 25, NATO leaders agreed at their annual summit on a goal of spending five percent of their gross domestic product on defense, more than doubling the old two-percent target. It's unclear how many members will actually reach this goal. Even the target relies on some creative accounting: of the five percent, only 3.5 percent is pledged to what officials call “pure” defense spending, with the remainder going to security and defense-related “critical infrastructure.” Ahead of the NATO summit, The New Yorker published “Collective Punishment: Why is Donald Trump upending America's commitment to NATO?” a story by contributing writer Joshua Yaffa, the author of the 2021 Orwell Prize-winning book “Between Two Fires: Truth, Ambition, and Compromise in Putin's Russia.” In his new article, Yaffa describes how the looming threats of Russian aggression and American withdrawal are pressuring European leaders to reassess their approach to NATO and their broader defense strategies. He joined this episode of The Naked Pravda to discuss the story.Как поддержать нашу редакцию — даже если вы в России и вам очень страшно

Souvankham Thammavongsa joins Deborah Treisman to read and discuss “The Size of Things,” by Samanta Schweblin (translated, from the Spanish, by Megan McDowell), which was published in The New Yorker in 2017. Thammavongsa is a Laotian Canadian writer. Her publications include the poetry collections “Light” and “Cluster” and the story collection “How to Pronounce Knife,” which won the Giller Prize in 2020. She has been publishing fiction and nonfiction in The New Yorker since 2021. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Ruth Marcus, a contributor to The New Yorker and a former columnist for The Washington Post and the author of Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover (Simon & Schuster, 2019), talks about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and takes stock of what the Supreme Court's latest decisions mean for the identity of the court and the ability of judges to check executive power. 

It's been an impactful term at the Supreme Court this year, with cases impacting many facets of presidential power and checks-and-balances. On Today's Show:Ruth Marcus, contributor to The New Yorker, former columnist for The Washington Post and the author of Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover (Simon & Schuster, 2019), talks about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and takes stock of the Supreme Court's latest blockbuster decisions.

I. A Perspective on Zohran Mamdani's Campaign  Guest: India Walton is former Democratic candidate for mayor in Buffalo who won the Democratic primary 2021 but the party turned against her and helped re-elect the incumbent mayor through a write in campaign.  She is now the senior strategist for the national activist group Roots Action in Buffalo. II. Capitalism's Critics Guest: John Cassidy is a journalist at The New Yorker and a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books. He is the author of Capitalism and Its Critics: A History: From the Industrial Revolution to AI.   Photo by Bingjiefu He on Wikimedia The post A Perspective on Zohran Mamdani's Campaign appeared first on KPFA.

Molly Worthen is a professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a freelance journalist. She teaches courses on North American religion and politics, global Christianity, and the history of ideas. She writes on these themes for The New York Times and has contributed to The New Yorker, Slate, The American Prospect, Foreign Policy, and other publications. She has also created video and audio courses on the history of Christianity and the history of charismatic leadership for the Great Courses and Audible. Her new book is called Spellbound: How Charisma Shaped American History from the Puritans to Donald Trump.  Check out the book Spellbound. For more Axis resources, go to axis.org.

Dan and Tom look at the pluses and minuses of Amazon controlling James Bond.   Is it the best thing for the franchise? It just may be!  On the other hand, what are the roadblocks they may encounter in making this a success? Listen to find out! We've had a bit of time to digest the news of Eon Productions' selling creative control of the James Bond franchise to Amazon.  At the time, we released a fan reaction episode. But now, producers and directors are being announced, so it is time to reexamine this dramatic change to this 63-year-old powerhouse.  Furthermore, might this just be the best thing for the franchise in a long time? What we will decode in this episode We look at the following to answer the question: Is Amazon taking complete control of James Bond a good thing or a bad thing? ·         Was Eon Productions tired of James Bond? ·         The size of the bet for Amazon ·         In addition to the initial costs, can Amazon use its industry power to succeed? ·         What are our biggest fears about this takeover? ·         Should the recent hiring announcements quell our fears? ·         In what ways might Amazon expand the franchise? ·         Should Amazon expand into TV, spin-offs, and the like? ·         The need to get good content fast.  Therefore, is there a role for the novels of the James Bond continuation authors here? ·         How does Amazon's global reach impact its potential expansion of the franchise? ·         Does Amazon's money allow it to expand the quality of what we see in James Bond movies? ·         What can Amazon learn from Disney and its purchase of STAR WARS? ·         And of course, there is more! Tell us what you think. Is Amazon controlling James Bond a good thing or a bad thing? So, these are our thoughts.  Are we on track? Additionally, what do you think about expanding into different media?  Let us know your thoughts, ideas for future episodes, and what you think of this episode. Just drop us a note at info@spymovienavigator.com.  The more we hear from you, the better the show will surely be!  We'll give you a shout-out in a future episode!   You can check out all of our CRACKING THE CODE OF SPY MOVIES podcast episodes on your favorite podcast app or our website. In addition, you can check out our YouTube channel as well.   Episode Webpage: https://bit.ly/4l7yj5C Click here to go to Nathan Heller's article in The New Yorker.

The genius of Leonardo da Vinci remains unparalleled and his works of art and scientific knowledge are world renowned. One thing you might not know about him is that he also cultivated a small piece of land – about 8000 m² (a little under two acres) - as a courtyard vineyard. In 1498 the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Il Moro, gave this piece of land to da Vinci in part as a form of payment for The Last Supper painting, but above all it was a way to grant Milan citizenship to da Vinci. In some of his writings Leonardo da Vinci talks about his vineyard. And!... If you haven't yet read Leonardo da Vinci by Walter Isaacson then it's time you get your hands on the book! It's his life story and shares every fascinating detail about the genius: his art and creativity that encompasses every aspect of life. It's a must-read: “A powerful story of an exhilarating mind and life...a study in creativity: how to define it, how to achieve it.” —The New Yorker.

In this powerful episode of SHE MD, hosts Mary Alice Haney and Dr. Thais Aliabadi welcome Sarah Hoover, author of "The Mother Load: Episodes from the Brink of Motherhood." Sarah shares her raw, emotional journey through postpartum depression, highlighting the importance of mental health awareness in motherhood. This eye-opening conversation delves into the often-overlooked challenges of pregnancy, childbirth, and early parenthood.Access more information about the podcast and additional expert health tips by visiting SHE MD Podcast and Ovii. Sponsors: Timeline: Timeline is offering10% off your order of MitopureGo to timeline.com/SHEMDCymbiotika: Go to Cymbiotikia.com/SHEMD for 20% off your order + free shipping today.Strivektin: Discover the Science Behind Great SkinOpill: Opill is birth control in your control, and you can use code SHEMD for twenty five percent off your first month of Opill at Opill.comSleepMe: Visit www.sleep.me/SHEMD to get your Chilipad at 20% off with code SHEMDVionic: Use code SHEMD at checkout for 15% off your entire order at www.vionicshoes.com when you log into your account. 1 time use only.Sarah Hoover's Key Takeaways:Monitor Your Emotional Well-Being After Childbirth: Recognize that postpartum depression can manifest in various ways, including irritability and detachment, not just sadness. Monitor your emotional state after childbirth and seek help if you experience persistent negative feelings.Address Past Trauma & Mental Health Before Pregnancy: Consider therapy or counseling to work through unresolved issues. This will help to improve birth experiences and postpartum outcomes.Advocate for Your Needs During Birth & Postpartum: Practice self-advocacy and clear communication with healthcare providers to ensure a positive birth experience. Prepare a list of your needs and preferences, and discuss them with your doctor before delivery.Engage Your Partner in Postpartum Mental Health Support: Involve your partner in prenatal appointments and discussions about postpartum care and emotional well-being.Advocate for Your Needs: Be open to medication options for managing mental health during pregnancy and postpartum. Discuss safe antidepressant options with your healthcare provider if you have a history of depression or anxiety.In This Episode: (00:00) Introduction(05:13) Sarah's pregnancy experience and initial expectations(08:18) Traumatic birth experience and postpartum depression(13:58) Dr. Aliabadi on recognizing postpartum depression signs(32:48) Sarah Hoover's journey to healing and second pregnancy(34:15) Importance of mental health in pregnancy(38:47) Sarah's positive second birth experience(44:10) Writing a book to help other women(51:02) Final thoughts on women's health advocacyRESOURCES:- Sarah Hoover's book: "The Motherload: Episodes from the Brink of Motherhood" : https://www.sarahhoover.com/the-motherload- Sarah Hoover's Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sarahhoov/GUEST BIOGRAPHY:Sarah Hoover is a writer, cultural critic, and former Gagosian director whose work spans art, fashion, motherhood, and feminism. After earning degrees from NYU and Columbia, she built a career in the art world before turning to writing. Her essays on motherhood, identity, and cultural expectations have appeared in Vogue, The Strategist, and Harper's Bazaar. Her debut memoir, The Motherload: Episodes from the Brink of Motherhood (a January 2025 Belletrist Book Club pick), is a darkly funny, unfiltered critique of modern motherhood, praised by Oprah Daily as “a long overdue reality check.” Hoover also teaches at Barnard, co-founded the Accelerator Committee at American Ballet Theatre, and serves on the board of Art Production Fund. She's been featured in The New Yorker, The Cut, Vanity Fair, The New York Times, and more. She lives in Manhattan with her husband and two kids.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

David Denby is a New Yorker staff writer and New York Times bestselling author whose latest book is Eminent Jews: Bernstein, Brooks, Friedan, Mailer. Co-hosts: Jonathan Friedmann & Joey Angel-Field Producer-engineer: Mike Tomren Eminent Jewshttps://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250193407/eminentjews/ David's websitehttps://denby-david.com/ David's New Yorker columnshttps://www.newyorker.com/contributors/david-denby Amusing Jews Merch Storehttps://www.amusingjews.com/merch#!/ Subscribe to the Amusing Jews podcasthttps://www.spreaker.com/show/amusing-jews Adat Chaverim – Congregation for Humanistic Judaism, Los Angeleshttps://www.humanisticjudaismla.org/ Jewish Museum of the American Westhttps://www.jmaw.org/ Atheists United Studioshttps://www.atheistsunited.org/au-studios

Zohran Mamdani created a new anti-establishment playbook — in his use of social video, his focus on affordability and his position on Israel.   His assumed victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, trouncing the former governor Andrew Cuomo, was one of the biggest political upsets in years. And while the electorate in this case is pretty specific, I think it still points to some tectonic changes in Democratic politics.  My friend Chris Hayes, the host of MSNBC's “All In With Chris Hayes,” came on the show earlier this year to talk about his book “The Sirens' Call,” which is all about how social media and the new attention economy are shaping politics. So I wanted to bring him back for a sequel, to get “The Sirens' Call” take on Mamdani's victory, and Hayes's insights as a born-and-raised New Yorker, with a deep feel for both the city's politics and the broader Democratic Party.This episode contains strong language.Book Recommendations:The Name of the Rose by Umberto EcoTomorrow Is Yesterday by Hussein Agha and Robert MalleyMao's Last Revolution by Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael SchoenhalsThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find the transcript and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.htmlThis episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu and Jack McCordick. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, with Kate Sinclair and Mary Marge Locker. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Aman Sahota and Isaac Jones. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Marie Cascione, Elias Isquith, Marina King, Jan Kobal, Annie Galvin and Kristin Lin. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos examines the petty tantrums of the richest people on Earth and why they’re no longer serving the public the way they once did. Meredith Shiner details her article on why we need to primary every sitting Democrat. Plus, we have a special bonus interview with Democratic strategist Rebecca Katz about how Democrats can win.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Celebrated writer and memoirist Melissa Febos on the art of the memoir,  the alchemy of personal experience and literary craft, and how to turn the raw material of life into art. We also her latest book, The Dry Season,  where she examines the solitude, freedoms, and feminist heroes Febos found during a year of celibacy.We also talk about:- Writing the unspeakable and undoing shame.- The role of research and personal obsession in memoir.- Finding structure through inventory, list-making & reflection.- Balancing vulnerability with privacy on the page.- How Melissa decides what's hers to tell—and when.- Her advice on discouragement, creative play & sustaining the practice. ABOUT MELISSA FEBOSMelissa Febos is the nationally bestselling author of four books, including Girlhood, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award in Criticism, and Body Work: The Radical Power of Personal Narrative. She has received fellowships and awards from the Guggenheim Foundation, NEA, LAMBDA Literary, the British Library, and more. Her essays appear in The Paris Review, The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, and Best American Essays. She is a full professor at the University of Iowa and lives in Iowa City with her wife, poet Donika Kelly. RESOURCES & LINKS:

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comPaul is a writer, an editor, and an old friend. He's a regular contributor to The New Yorker and a senior fellow in Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. He's the author of The Life You Save May Be Your Own and Reinventing Bach, and his new book is The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s.For two clips of our convo — on Martin Scorsese's extraordinary religious films, and the strikingly resilient Catholicism of Andy Warhol — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: Paul raised in upstate NY as a child of Vatican II; his great-uncle was the bishop of Burlington who attended the 2nd Council; Thomas Merton and Flannery O'Connor as formative influences; working in publishing with McPhee and Wolfe; Cullen Murphy on the historical Christ; Jesus as tetchy; Czesław Miłosz; Leonard Cohen making it cool to be religious; the row over The Last Temptation of Christ and Scorsese's response with Silence; Bill Donahue the South Park caricature; Bono and U2; The Smiths; The Velvet Underground; Madonna and her Catholic upbringing; “Like A Prayer” and “Papa Don't Preach”; her campaign for condom use; when I accidentally met her at a party; Camille Paglia; Warhol the iconographer; his near-death experience that led to churchgoing; Robert Mapplethorpe; S&M culture in NYC; Andres Serrano's “Piss Christ”; Jesse Helms' crusade against the NEA; Sinead O'Connor's refusal to get an abortion; tearing up the JP II photo on SNL; the sex-abuse crisis; Cardinal O'Connor; the AIDS crisis; ACT-UP's antics at St. Patrick's Cathedral; the AIDS quilt as a cathedral; and Paul's gobsmacking omission of the Pet Shop Boys.Coming up: Edward Luce on the war with Iran, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Tara Zahra on the revolt against globalization after WWI, Thomas Mallon on the AIDS crisis, and Johann Hari turning the tables to interview me. (NS Lyons indefinitely postponed a pod appearance — and his own substack — because he just accepted an appointment at the State Department; and the Arthur Brooks pod is postponed because of calendar conflicts.) Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

America – and the global Left – has a new political hero: a 33-year-old Ugandan-born New Yorker called Zohran Mamdani. How did a former rapper become one of the most prominent voices in progressive politics in just a few short weeks? Emily Tamkin, in DC, is joined by Rohan Venkat to discuss Mamdani's rise, whether it offers a playbook for anti-Trump politics, or whether this is just another example of America's largest metropolis being out of sync with the country as a whole.Here are the Cycle Recommendations from this episode:Zohran Mamdani's victory proves it: The ‘gotcha' mode of fighting antisemitism has to goMamdani's defeat of Cuomo offers Democrats a path out of the wildernessRoti, roses, and ‘Mr Cardamom': How Zohran Mamdani won a seat in NY's state legislatureSubscribe below to our contributors' Substacks:ET Write Home by Emily TamkinIndia Inside Out by Rohan VenkatThe Political Tricycle is a Podot podcast.It's presented by Emily Tamkin and Rohan Venkat.Executive Producer: Nick Hilton.Producer: Ewan CameronFor sales and advertising, email nick@podotpods.comTo watch a video version of the show, go to COOLER.NEWS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"None of this would have been possible if I didn't take that chance on myself." Caroline Moss has a dream: to run the 2026 TCS New York City Marathon. As a New Yorker, it's her favorite day of the year. The catch: Caroline has never been a runner — until now. In this new series, we're following author, creator, theater producer (check out Dilaria, open now!), Saved by the Bell super-fan, and professional shopper Caroline Moss as she embarks on a quest to start running and run the race of her dreams.  (Listen to Episode 1 with Caroline here.) FOLLOW CAROLINE @geethanksjustboughtitpod CAROLINE'S FACEBOOK GROUP SPONSORS:  UCAN: Click here to get a FREE UCAN sample pack (you'll just pay the cost of shipping), and use code ALI for 20% off your entire UCAN order. goodr: Click here and use code ALI for $5 off your next order. Follow Ali: Instagram @aliontherun1 Join the Facebook group Support on Patreon Subscribe to the newsletter SUPPORT the Ali on the Run Show! If you're enjoying the show, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. Spread the run love. And if you liked this episode, share it with your friends!

The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz joins Tyler Foggatt for another episode of “How Bad Is It?,” a monthly series that examines the health of American democracy. They discuss whether the President's recent strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities may threaten his “America first” coalition, how the threat of war may enable him to consolidate more power domestically, and whether Trump's use of the National Guard to quell protest in Los Angeles is truly undemocratic.This week's reading: “Zohran Mamdani's New York City Miracle,” by Eric Lach “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's Declaration of Independence,” by Ruth Marcus “A.I. Is Homogenizing Our Thoughts,” by  Kyle Chayka “Heir Ball: How the Cost of Youth Sports Is Changing the N.B.A.,” by Robin Wright “Can Ayatollah Khamenei, and Iran's Theocracy, Survive This War?,” by Antonia Hitchens  To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

President Trump's decision to bomb Iran shocked much of the world — but America's involvement was over almost as soon as it began, and so far, it hasn't sparked a broader war, like so many feared.  So how did we get here? Was the bombing a success? Will the ceasefire between Israel and Iran hold? Is the regime in Iran any closer to collapsing — and if it did, would that be good? Finally, what's the long term solution to the nuclear issue? Kara gathers a trio of experts to grapple with these questions, and more.  Jason Rezaian is the Director of Press Freedom Initiatives and a writer for The Washington Post's Global Opinions. He was the Post's correspondent in Tehran before he was unjustly imprisoned by the Iranian regime, and he's the author of Prisoner: My 544 Days in an Iranian Prison. Jim Sciutto is CNN's chief national security analyst and the anchor of The Brief with Jim Sciutto. He's also the author of The Return of Great Powers: Russia, China and the Next World War. Robin Wright is a contributing writer and columnist for The New Yorker and a distinguished fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. She's the author of several books, including The Last Great Revolution: Turmoil and Transformation in Iran, and Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World. Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When a creative project lasts for many years, how do you create a cohesive story? How do you gather and organize that much research? At what point do you begin writing? How do you handle the changing of an editor? What happens when you don't know the ending? And what if you hoped for a different ending? We cover all these questions with Jennie Erin Smith, author of Valley of Forgetting, a book ten years in the making, about a vast Columbian family and the Alzheimer's researchers who studied them.Jennie Erin Smith is the author of Valley of Forgetting: Alzheimer's Families and the Search for a Cure. She is a regular contributor to The New York Times and has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, The New Yorker, and others. She is a recipient of the Rona Jaffe Foundation Writers' Award; the Waldo Proffitt Award for Excellence in Environmental Journalism in Florida; and two first-place awards from the Society for Features Journalism. She lives in Florida and Colombia. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit emergingform.substack.com/subscribe

REMIX Album 4 Track 12 – Matt Tumminello, President at Target 10Hey Brand Nerds! We have a treat for you today! We have Matt Tumminello in the virtual building dropping jewels from both his career and personal experiences as a leader in the LGBTQ+ marketing space.Jolted to impactful and meaningful action after witnessing 9/11 as a New Yorker, Matt dove head first into the LGBTQ+ marketing space through the launching of his business Target 10. As they say, "they apply deep LGBTQ consumer insights and cultural intelligence to brand strategy, marketing and creative, demonstrating to LGBTQ consumers that your brand 'gets it and gets me.'"

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

Jonathan Gould's latest book is "Burning Down the House: Talking Heads and the New York Scene That Transformed Rock" (Meridian Books 2025). Gould has previously written books about The Beatles and Otis Redding -- his shorter works appear in The New Yorker. Gould is a New York City native; he attended ballgames at The Polo Grounds as a child and is a Mets fan.Jonathan Gould's Website -  https://www.jonathangouldauthor.com/You can support Hooks & Runs by purchasing books, including those featured in this episode (if any were), through our store at Bookshop.org. Here's the link. https://bookshop.org/shop/hooksandruns Hooks & Runs - https://hooksandruns.buzzsprout.comEmail: hooksandruns@protonmail.com Craig on Bluesky (@craigest.bsky.social)Rex (Krazy Karl's Music Emporium) on Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/people/Krazy-Karlz-Music-Emporium/100063801500293/ Hosts Emeriti:Andrew Eckhoff on Tik TokEric on FacebookMusic: "Warrior of Light" by ikolics (via Premium Beat)     This podcast and this episode are copyright Craig Estlinbaum, 2025.    

President Trump slammed New York's Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani as a “100% Communist lunatic” after his shocking primary win—a brutal Truth Social blast that Pags, a former New Yorker himself, breaks down from the inside, including the city's culture and eats. Then, former judge and ex-Rep. Ted Poe joins the show to weigh in on the Iran–Israel ceasefire: Will we see Iranian regime change? What's next for the Iranian people? Pags and Poe dive deep on both explosive stories—you'll want this one. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There's one little statistic that seems to have gained a lot of attention recently: the birth rate. With pro-natalist ideas showing up in our culture and politics, Brittany wanted to know: why are people freaking out? Who's trying to solve the population equation, and how? Brittany is joined by Kelsey Piper, senior writer at Vox, and Gideon Lewis-Kraus, staff writer at The New Yorker, to get into how the birth rate touches every part of our culture - and why we might need to rethink our approach to this stat.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

A fragile ceasefire is in effect between Israel and Iran, just days after the United States intervened in the war by striking Iranian nuclear sites. President Trump is claiming credit, but journalist and Middle East politics expert Robin Wright writes, “the outcome of this war may be shaped more by Iran's culture and politics than by the military prowess of its opponents.” We look at Iran's and Israel's end games and the implications here of U.S. involvement. Guests: Robin Wright, contributing writer, New Yorker; author, "Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East," among other books; Her most recent piece for the magazine is "Can Ayatollah Khamenei, and Iran's Theocracy, Survive This War?" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Despite all the peacocking from Trump and Vance claiming they "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program by dropping a trio of bombs, it appears the damage only derailed the program for a couple months, according to intelligence reports. Never one to let facts get in the way of a good social media post, Trump bragged about being nominated for a Nobel Peace Price and then put up a music video with a parody of the Beach Boys song "Barbara Ann" with the words "Bomb Iran" instead playing over a video of B-2 stealth bombers dropping bombs. Even from Trump, it's a shocking display that could inflame tensions with Iran. Could it be meant to divert attention away from something else? We welcome Presidential Historian and political analyst John Rothmann to discuss this and more. We are excited to bring Sue Halpern to the show for the first time. She writes for the New Yorker about politics and technology and has a new book out called "What We Leave Behind."

On this week's episode, urban planner and professional New Yorker, Moses Gates, tells us about the time he explored the Manhattan Bridge with friends in a way most people never have...Check out Moses on InstagramHave fun like Moses?Donate to New York Immigration Coalition What did you think of this week's episode?They Had Fun on Instagram, YouTube, and our website

Humorist and cartoonist, José Arroyo joins us on the podcast this week. José joins us again nearly two years after we last had him on and it's been a very busy two years for him! He's been working with Conan O'Brien on a number of projects including Conan's travel show, "Conan O'Brien Must Go" (currently available on Max), the Oscars and Conan's appearance on the Hot Ones podcast. We have some great  discussions on creativity and humor. We also learn that Cornell University is a great college to go to if your math skills are a bit lacking and that Beth drops her phone on her face before falling asleep at night. You can learn more about José at his website:https://www.josearroyowriter.comYou can also order his book, "Somewhere in L.A. (A book of hours)" here:https://www.amazon.com/Somewhere-L-Book-Hours/dp/B09HG4JX62The Conan O'Brien Hot Ones episode with José as "Dr. Arroyo":https://youtu.be/FALlhXl6CmA?si=k6z1DAVIAeXrGFvjJosé also joins us for the contest discussions and our favorite cartoons from the current issue of the New Yorker. The winning caption for New Yorker contest #8946 (Solving for K(9)).  Finalists for contest #948 (A law firm grip on the ball). Current New Yorker contest #950 (Skinny buns). You can buy original New Yorker cartoon art at Curated Cartoons:https://www.curatedcartoons.comDig deep into the New Yorker cartoon caption contest data at:https://wordsbelow.app Send us questions or comments to:  Cartooncaptioncontestpodcast@gmail.com

You've probably come across content online that seems real but is actually fake. And that experience is becoming more common with the proliferation of AI generated content. Our guest this week points out that the mental gymnastics of this starts to take a toll. Jia Tolentino, a staff writer at The New Yorker, wrote a piece all about this aptly titled, “My Brain Finally Broke.”  She joins WITHpod to discuss how AI is changing our perception of the world, how online content can make us more likely to detach from reality and more. Note: this episode was recorded on 6/11/25. 

A mega-donor to the Republican Presidential campaign, Elon Musk got something no other titan of industry has ever received: an office in the White House and a government department tailor-made for him, with incalculable influence in shaping the Administration. But even with Musk out of Washington, it remains a fact that the influence of wealth in America has never been greater. As one case in point, Donald Trump's “big beautiful bill” is estimated to raise or leave flat the taxes of about 57 million households, while the top five per cent of earners will have their taxes cut by more than $1.5 trillion. From his perch in Washington, Evan Osnos has for years been looking at the politics of hyper-wealth. While the wealthy have always held outsized influence, Osnos explains how tech tycoons, in particular, sought far greater influence under Donald Trump's second Administration. “These are guys who really believed that they were the greatest example of entrepreneurship,” he tells David Remnick, “and that all of a sudden they found that, no, they were being called monopolists, that they were being accused of invading people's privacy, that in fact they had been blamed for the degradation of democracy, of our children's emotional health, of our attention spans. They suddenly saw that there was a new President who would not only forgive any of those kinds of mistakes and patterns of abuse but would in fact celebrate them, and would roll back any of the regulation that was in their way.” Osnos's new book, collected from his reporting in The New Yorker, is “The Haves and Have-Yachts: Dispatches on the Ultrarich.”

Are you hunting for red flags in relationships and dating? My podcast guest, Dr. Isabelle Morley, says we need to stop diagnosing others with psychological disorders. She is a clinical psychologist, EFT-certified couples therapist, and author. She writes a blog for Psychology Today and has been featured in The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, Vox, and more. Dr. Morley also serves on the founding board of the UCAN Foundation and provides couples therapy in the Boston area. We're talking today about her new book, “They're Not Gaslighting You”.In this episode of Last First Date Radio:Why we're obsessed with words like “narcissist” and “gaslighting” in datingHow our relationships are affected by hunting for red flags and other ways we try to diagnose our partnersWhat to say if someone accuses you of having a psychological disorderConnect with Dr. Isabelle MorleyIG @drisabellemorley https://www.instagram.com/drisabellemorley/?hl=en Website: drisabellemorley.comPDF bundle: Reality Check: Am I Being Gaslit?, Say What You Mean: Translating Therapy Speak into Real Connection, and Label-Free Language: A Guide to Non-Pathologizing Conversations►Please subscribe/rate and review the podcast on Apple Podcasts http://bit.ly/lastfirstdateradio ►If you're feeling stuck in dating and relationships and would like to find your last first date, sign up for a complimentary 45-minute breakthrough session with Sandy https://lastfirstdate.com/application ►Join Your Last First Date on Facebook https://facebook.com/groups/yourlastfirstdate ►Get Sandy's books, Becoming a Woman of Value; How to Thrive in Life and Love https://bit.ly/womanofvaluebook , Choice Points in Dating https://amzn.to/3jTFQe9 and Love at Last https://amzn.to/4erpj7C ►Get FREE coaching on the podcast! https://bit.ly/LFDradiocoaching ►FREE download: “Top 10 Reasons Why Men Suddenly Pull Away” http://bit.ly/whymendisappear ►Group Coaching: https://lastfirstdate.com/the-woman-of-value-club/ ►Website → https://lastfirstdate.com/ ► Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/lastfirstdate1/ ►Get Amazon Music Unlimited FREE for 30 days at https://getamazonmusic.com/lastfirstdate  

Kate Folk, Sky Daddy (Random House, 2025) Kate Folk is the author of the novel Sky Daddy and the short story collection Out There. Her short fiction and essays have appeared in the New Yorker, n+1, the New York Times, Granta, and The Baffler, among other venues. A former Stegner Fellow, she's also received fellowships and residencies from MacDowell, the Headlands Center for the Arts, and Willapa Bay AiR. She lives in San Francisco. Recommended Books:Katie Kitamura, AuditionDon Carpenter, Hard Rain FallingLydi Conklin, Songs of No ProvenanceChris Holmes is Chair of Literatures in English and Professor at Ithaca College. He writes criticism on contemporary global literatures. His book, Kazuo Ishiguro Against World Literature, is published with Bloomsbury Publishing. He is the co-director of The New Voices Festival, a celebration of work in poetry, prose, and playwriting by up-and-coming young writers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kate Folk, Sky Daddy (Random House, 2025) Kate Folk is the author of the novel Sky Daddy and the short story collection Out There. Her short fiction and essays have appeared in the New Yorker, n+1, the New York Times, Granta, and The Baffler, among other venues. A former Stegner Fellow, she's also received fellowships and residencies from MacDowell, the Headlands Center for the Arts, and Willapa Bay AiR. She lives in San Francisco. Recommended Books:Katie Kitamura, AuditionDon Carpenter, Hard Rain FallingLydi Conklin, Songs of No ProvenanceChris Holmes is Chair of Literatures in English and Professor at Ithaca College. He writes criticism on contemporary global literatures. His book, Kazuo Ishiguro Against World Literature, is published with Bloomsbury Publishing. He is the co-director of The New Voices Festival, a celebration of work in poetry, prose, and playwriting by up-and-coming young writers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

New Yorker magazine covers capture something both true and elusive about the city, by distilling New York in single images, so that the place feels simultaneously familiar and out of reach. Get in touch: podcast@gretchenrubin.com Visit Gretchen's website to learn more about Gretchen's best-selling books, products from The Happiness Project Collection, and the Happier app. Find the transcript for this episode on the episode details page in the Apple Podcasts app. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ayatollahs who have ruled Iran since 1979 have long promised to destroy the Jewish state, and had even set a deadline for it. While arming proxies to fight Israel—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and more—Iran is believed to have sought to develop nuclear weapons for itself. “The big question about Iran was always: how significant is its apocalyptic theology?” Yossi Klein Halevi explains to David Remnick. “How central is that end-times vision to the Iranian regime? And is there a possibility that the regime would see a nuclear weapon as the way of furthering their messianic vision?” Halevi is a journalist and senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, and he co-hosts the podcast “For Heaven's Sake.” He is a fierce critic of Benjamin Netanyahu, saying, “I have no doubt that he is capable of starting a war for his own political needs.” And yet Netanyahu was right to strike Iran, no matter the consequences, Halevi asserts. “The Israeli perspective is not . . . the American war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's our own experience.”New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts.The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemy.Journalist Tammy Kim joins the pod to talk about the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles — and the raids that precipitated them.Further Reading:E Tammy Kim, "Immigration Protests Threaten to Boil Over in Los Angeles," The New Yorker, June 9, 2025.— "Inside the Activist Groups Resisting ICE," The New Yorker, Jun 13, 2025.

Yascha Mounk and Peter Hessler describe how China has changed over the last 30 years–and where it might go next. For more than a quarter of a century, Peter Hessler has been a staff writer for the New Yorker. In 1996, he joined the Peace Corps and taught English language and literature to college students in Fuling, a small city on the Yangtze River. In 2019, Hessler returned to China, teaching at Sichuan University during the pandemic. His most recent book, Other Rivers (2024), is about his time in Sichuan.  In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Peter Hessler discuss Peter's experiences as a teacher in China in the 1990s and in recent years, how his students have changed, and what he thinks the United States could learn from China. Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! ⁠Spotify⁠ | ⁠Apple⁠ | ⁠Google⁠ X: ⁠@Yascha_Mounk⁠ & ⁠@JoinPersuasion⁠ YouTube: ⁠Yascha Mounk⁠, ⁠Persuasion⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Sabrina Zohar and Charles Duhigg — a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, bestselling author of The Power of Habit and Supercommunicators, and current writer for The New Yorker — as they break down the communication skills vital for building better relationships. In this episode, they explore essential tools for effective communication, including how to listen actively and how to distinguish between emotional and practical conversations. Discover how mastering these skills can transform not just your romantic life, but also your friendships, family interactions, and professional relationships. What You'll Learn in This Episode - Active Listening - Emotional vs. Practical Conversations - Building Trust and Resolving Conflict - Communication Beyond Romance Get Charles' book 'Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection' Follow The Science of Better SubStack Email Charles directly: charles@charlesduhigg.com Stuck After the Podcast? Master Implementation in 8 Weeks with Sabrina's Foundation Course HERE! If you've ever felt like you're too much, not enough, or always chasing validation in dating or relationships, the Self Love Course gives you the tools to rebuild your worth from the inside out HERE! Do you feel like your emotions run the show and react in ways you can't control? Join the Nervous System 101: Navigating the Unknowns In Early Dating from Sabrina and Masha Kay HERE! Struggling with a breakup? Join the Make It Make Sense: Getting Through a Breakup course from Sabrina and Britt Frank HERE! Get Ad free HERE! Want to work with Sabrina? HERE! Get merch for The Sabrina Zohar Show HERE! Don't forget to follow Sabrina and The Sabrina Zohar Show on Instagram and Sabrina on TikTok! Video now available on YOUTUBE! Please support our sponsors! Get $10 off and FREE shipping at Nutrafol HERE! Code is SABRINA For a limited time, get Headspace FREE for 60 days and get access to guided meditations, mindfulness practices, breathing and calming exercises, and so much more HERE! Disclaimer: The Sabrina Zohar Show, formerly known as Do The Work, is not affiliated with A.Z & associates LLC in any capacity.

CC Sabathia sits down to talk about being a first ballot Hall of Famer, becoming a real New Yorker, and his career highlights.

Hour 3: We Debate: Proper public restroom etiquette. CC Sabathia sits down to talk about being a first ballot Hall of Famer, becoming a real New Yorker, and his career highlights.

Hour 1: The Mets pitching has faltered a bit, but the offense will carry them to an NL East title. Will Carlos Mendoza back out of his Rico Brogna podcast appearance on Saturday? Did Tommy retire his "No Biggie" bit? Plus, Evan would rather go see the Mets in Philly than on a family trip to Europe Hour 2: Luke Weaver is back. The guys saw some strange local jerseys at Fanatics Fest. Alex Rodriguez joins the guys live from Fanatics Fest to settle the "King of New York" debate. Kyle Larson (NASCAR Driver) joins the show to talk about racing. Plus, we reveal two votes for the King of New York. Hour 3: We Debate: Proper public restroom etiquette. CC Sabathia sits down to talk about being a first ballot Hall of Famer, becoming a real New Yorker, and his career highlights. Hour 4: Evan wants the Nets to draft Ace Bailey, but no one cares. Tiki will be making the trip up to Cooperstown for CC's Hall of Fame induction. Cinco de Five-Oh: Top Five things to do at Fanatics Fest. Evan and Tiki reveal the King of New York Sports. It is officially summer. Frankie Montas and Sean Manaea will be joining the Mets rotation next week. Dating teammates ex's can be complicated.

Sarah had a run-in at Home Depot where she was offered free plants, and she said no! And now she has regrets for being so honest and having integrity. Susie gives a tribute to her beloved Brian Wilson. We find out why Amelia Earhart wasn't actually a great pilot (seems like the disappearance should've tipped us off), but instead was just ahead of her time in...influencing. Susie explains how Amelia's famous flight has disturbing similarities to the Titan submersible tragedy. We learn about a woman who donated her body to science, but ended up blown to bits by the military. We hear why a funeral home was sending people remains of the strangers instead of their loved ones. We discuss an Olympian who has been kicked off the canoeing team for having an OnlyFans account and Susie thinks she should start an account for people whose kink is being insulted.Our Favorite Picks10:37 - Susie shares her love for the amazing Brian Wilson.18:58 - New Yorker article about Amelia Earhart30:11 - Man donated his mother's body to alzheimer's research, only to find out it was later sold on, and blown up!39:13 - Sarah's airfryer analogy45:15 - Olympic canoer pays for training by showing off his skin-paddle on Only Fans50:13 - Gen-Z and their dislike for opening a tab at the bar54:24 - Susie considers starting an Only Fans accountThe End... You're welcome.Connect with us on social media:BCP Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/braincandypodcastSusie's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/susiemeisterSarah's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/imsarahriceBCP on X: https://www.x.com/braincandypodSponsors:Go to https://cozyearth.com and use code BRAINCANDY for 40% off best-selling temperature-regulating sheets, apparel, and more.Save 20% Off Honeylove by going to https://www.honeylove.com/braincandy #honeylovepodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The New Yorker staff writer Benjamin Wallace-Wells joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the decline of DOGE, what Elon Musk's exit from the White House means for its work, and the initiative's legacy in the long run. Plus, the assassination of the Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, and the growing trend of impersonating law enforcement.This week's reading: “What Did Elon Musk Accomplish at DOGE?,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “The Minnesota Shootings and the Dangerous Trend of Impersonating Law Enforcement,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “The Trump Crackdown on Elected Officials,” by  Jonathan Blitzer “What Is Israel's Endgame with Iran?,” by Robin Wright “The Military's Birthday Parade Rolls Quietly Through Trump's Washington,” by Antonia Hitchens  To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices